3D PRINTED BATTERIES COULD DOUBLE CURRENT MAX CAPACITIES – The 3D printing battery company Sakuú has developed a new method of printing solid state batteries that could either double the capacity of current batteries or make them half the size and 40 percent lighter. The electric vehicle industry, especially perhaps the electric aircraft industry, could see expanded opportunities should this promising new technology produce what the company says it will.
….Sakuú is taking a completely different approach. It has created a 10-meter-long multi-material printer that can work with both ceramics and metals. The machine first lays down patterns of powdered material before depositing a jet of polymer binder that sticks the particles together. It then deposits conductive metal on top. These layers are stacked on top of each other to produce cells.
The company told The Verge that the approach allows it to stack more layers into a given space than conventional approaches. On its website, Sakuú claims this is because its manufacturing process allows for thinner structural layers and a novel stacked structure. This means it can either provide 100 percent greater capacity than current lithium-ion cells, or make batteries 50 percent smaller and 40 percent lighter.
Previously, we have talked about ersatz combat vehicles at length. While 300 angry people, armed with 200 machetes, 100 rifles and 50 rounds of ammunition made a respectable revolution as late as the mid-1990’s, the proliferation cheap, reliable and effect modern combat rifles around the world have shifted insurgent capabilities and tactics, there has been little movement in the other realms of physical combat, outside of the land environment.
Where any group armed with modern automatic weapons can turn themselves into “motorized cavalry” by seizing a used car and truck dealership and a tanker truck of fuel, there have been few examples of groups organizing actual combat ships on water, using what are essentially armed civilian pleasure craft – it happens, but infrequently.
Likewise, the use of equally ersatz militarized drones has been on the rise, for surveillance, assassination and combat. This theater of use has been accelerated in recent years, as many drones with significant capabilities, from a military perspective, are available “off the shelf” for well under US$200, with many retailing at under US$100. Expanding the capabilities of such devices requires little investment for a group able to recruit young and tech-savvy teens and early-20’s with an interest in gaming and computer mods.
Far more rare, are instances of “guerrilla air forces.” Appearing in significant numbers only twice since WW2, civilian aircraft being used as “armed combatant craft” usually appear in one’s and two’s, used by small states and groups who can only afford (or receive through donations) the kind of small, single-engine aircraft that are normally used for leisure flying or primary flight instruction for trainee pilots.
The question at hand, then, is this: Can an insurgent force create their own air force? That is what we will examine in this article.
The first questions to answer are, Where is the insurgent force getting its aircraft?, and What kind of aircraft can they easily acquire?
The first thing to understand, is that our hypothetical guerrilla force is not (probably) going to be buying craft like the AT-6B Wolverine, A-29 Super Tucano, AT-802L Longsword. These aircraft are being developed by defense contractors for established governments; for an insurgent group to obtain dedicated craft like this would require major-nation support. What we are discussing here, is the insurgent force acquiring specifically civilian craft, and using them as an “air force.”
An Afghan Air Force A-29 Super Tucano soars over Kabul, Afghanistan, Aug. 14, 2015. USAF Photo. Public Domain.
The insurgent force will be limited, first, by its financial levels – aircraft, even small craft like a Piper or an immortal Cessna 172 (go ahead – reflect on the irony…Moving on…) or 208 Caravan are expensive, for a small group, with a Cessna 172 coming in at around US$40-50,000 for a used model, each. Obviously, this is a major impediment, unless a group is very well funded.
On the other hand, these small aircraft can be effectively armed; can land on almost any flat patch of ground or blacktop road long enough; require no overly complicated tools or equipment to maintain, and have cheap and readily available spare parts and maintenance manuals available on the open market. These aircraft can – and are – be hidden in rural barns and warehouses very effectively, only requiring a door large enough for their wings.
Given the above, then, the next question is, Where can the prospective insurgent air force get its pilot?
The one major downside to an insurgent force using aircraft is the need for competent training. While learning to fly a basic aircraft such as a Piper or a Cessna is not actually difficult for most people with a decent high school education to learn, teaching one to fly requires a pilot with at least 250 flight hours to begin training for such a rating as an Instructor Pilot (IP). However, there are plenty of IP’s out there who could be recruited to train pilots for an insurgent force.
Ground maintenance on these common civilian airframes, as previously stated, is not difficult, and spares are common enough to not present major issues. That brings us to weapons: what can you arm these airplanes with?
Simply placing one or two people armed with rifles in the back seats of these kinds of aircraft, and having them shoot at enemies on the ground is not complicated. Likewise, hanging machine guns out of a side door is also relatively uncomplicated to set up.
Afghan Air Force Sgt. Razeg, a Gunner, fires an M-240 weapon from an Mi-17 Helicopter during a mission from Kabul, Afghanistan, Nov., 2012. USAF Photo. Public Domain.
Salvage and theft of opposition government aircraft – as well as weapons bought on the black market – is another important source of ground-to-air capability. In like manner to recovered helicopter rocket pods being used as ground-to-ground multiple rocket launchers since the civil wars in Libya, the same pods could be mounted to civilian airframes.
This is especially true for smaller pods, such as the venerable Hydra-70 rocket pods. In fact, the prevalence of mounting the ex-Soviet SA-5 rocket system, fired by UB-16 and UB-32 launchers to “technical vehicles” in both Libya and Syria have begun to inspire Western firms to begin cashing on the market, with such “drop-in kits” as the new V.A.M.P.I.R.E. system, which is a drop-in kit for a conventional civilian pickup truck, giving it the ability to fire four Hydra-70 rockets at a time in the ground-to-ground role.
Hydra 70 rockets in two M261 launch pods, mounted to an AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter, unknown date. US Army Photo. Public Domain.
As well, should the guerrilla force come into possession of anti-aircraft weapons such as the Stinger missile, that force could conceivably mount such weapons to a civilian airframe, which would be a very nasty surprise to any opposing aircraft that did not know about them.
Note that the foregoing applies to helicopters, as well, although rotary-wing craft are generally more expensive than their comparable brethren.
So…Is it possible for a guerrilla/insurgent force to create and operate an actual “air force” on the cheap? The answer, clearly, is a solid Yes, albeit with caveats concerning the perennial problem of money. Such a force would clearly be no match against a First World air force, but it likely won’t need to, at least initially.
Never become complacent inside your box…because someone is always outside, thinking about how to get in.
The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
A NEW PLASTIC IS CREATED USING THE INEDIBLE PARTS OF WHEAT AND CORN – University of British Columbia Researcher/Student Amanda Johnson has created a durable plastic called Grasstic. It is a plastic that is created from the stalks of plants like wheat and corn, meaning it can be created from the agricultural waste of food plants. This opens the door for dual-use agriculture, as well as contributing to our capacity to grow raw materials for durable products as opposed to relying on non-renewable resources.
Grasstic, which was developed by UBC PhD student Amanda Johnson, is made from the stalks of grass crops such as wheat or corn and can be used for dry goods packaging. Since it’s made from agricultural waste, she is not using a food source.
No matter how you consume your news, whether from the “mainstream” or from more “alternative” sources, recent months have been all abuzz about the “mighty HIMARS“; and the HIMARS is, indeed, a very capable system…for those who either have friends, or who can afford it. But — what about us? What about the “poor’s“? Every weapon has a development cycle, and HIMARS is no exception. In this article, we will take a (very) brief look at the history of rocket artillery, and a singular weapon that is everything the HIMARS is not: cheap, simple, flexible, and readily available for anyone or any group with even a modest mount of cash.
Rocket artillery is far from ‘new.’ In fact, rockets were arguably the first practical use for gunpowder when it was invented in China, in the 9th Century AD. As gunpowder migrated westward, however, the idea of rocketry largely disappeared, until the late 18th-early 19th century, when rocketry began to reappear, most famously in the form of the Congreve Rocket. These early attempts were wildly unreliable, including having a nasty habit of exploding on their own, or returning to their owners in the most unpleasant of manners. Thus, it should not be surprising that rockets mostly disappeared from European-style warfare after about 1850 or so.
Fireships firing rockets and details of storage and launch. Colonel Congreve, 1814. Public Domain.
As a result, it would take until World War 2 to resurrect rocket artillery in a meaningful way, with the German introduction of the “Nebelwerfer” (or, ‘smoke mortar’) multiple rocket launcher (MRL) system. The system fired a variety of rockets, normally 5 – 7 at a time, depending on their exact size and weight. While initially intended to deliver chemical weapons, the distaste – and fear – from all sides outside of Asia about using such weapons caused the Germans to quickly develop high-explosive rounds for the various calibers. These were used to devastating effect by the Germans, initially…not so much for their raw destructive power, but for their terrifying psychological effects on troops who had never imagined the sound the rockets produced.
Nebelwerfer crew in action, Soviet Union, 1944. German Federal Archives.
All of the major Allies quickly copied the concept, and by the end of the war, were deploying far larger and more capable designs. However, the love affair with short-range multiple rocket systems wouldn’t last. By the mid-1950’s, most “First World” nations had largely begun to abandon the battlefield MRL; the notable exception was the Soviet Army and it’s subject armies, who maintained the devastating BM-21 ‘Grad’ into the present day. The reason for this abandonment of MRL’s was that, despite the MRL’s decided advantages (they were cheap and lightweight, compared conventional artillery, and were capable of firing truly impressive amounts of rounds in a time far shorter than regular artillery when grouped into batteries), they had significant disadvantages: their range tended to be shorter; they took far longer to reload; they were nearly impossible to use in “direct fire”, a feature of conventional artillery; and their rockets’ velocity was far too low to actually penetrate dug-in shelters or tank armor.
Nebelwerfer crew moving into action, France, 1944. German Federal Archives.
The reason the Soviet Bloc hung on the BM-21, was that while it had all of the disadvantages cited above, it had a very powerful warhead, a long range, was simple and easy to maintain, and was far cheaper and easier to build than conventional artillery. The Soviets accepted the downsides of the MRL idea, and found a way to incorporate it into their artillery fighting doctrine.
BM-21 Grad on display at the Karen Demirchyan Complex, Armenia. CCA/4.0
The Chinese Communists, following their disastrous – if effective – intervention in the Korean War (1950-1953), had a terribly disorganized arsenal. As China had spent the previous fifty years alternating between civil wars and hellish foreign invasions (WW2 actually begins in 1937, in China, instead of Poland in 1939), the PLA was stuck with a hodge-podge of weapons from at least six or more sources, they were badly in need of a complete rearmament strategy, literally from the top, down.
The immediate problems for the CCP was that their manufacturing base had to be completely rebuilt – which, being fair, was a problem for most of the active participants of the war, although Mao Tse Tung’s “Great Leap Forward” almost destroyed the country wholesale – but, more cripplingly, they had very little money to buy foreign equipment. Unable to pay even the Soviet Union for enough field artillery, the PLA went looking for an alternative.
And, in 1963, they created one of the most important, but least-known, pieces of artillery in modern history: the 107mm Type-63 MRL.
Type-63 107mm MRL. 2016. CCA/4.0
A 12-shot launcher mounted on a 2-wheeled trailer, the system weighed in at about 1,300lbs/602kg, and only needed a crew of five. It was capable of firing a wide variety of ammunition (albeit limited to HE-types, as well as incendiary and smoke rounds) to (initially) c.5mi/8km; ranges were quickly improved. Some models could be broken into 2-tube loads for transport through rough terrain, by either people or mules. Eventually, a variety of single-tube launchers were developed for the rocket ammunition. The PLA realized that they had a good thing, and eventually equipped each infantry division with 18 units.
It was also quickly realized that the unit’s light weight made it easy to mount on small vehicles, giving the launcher the ability to quickly fire its rockets, and quickly relocate to avoid counter-battery fires.
IRGC Ground Force Commandos loading a Type-63 type MRL. 2017. CCA/4.0
As word got around, and the units began to be used by Communist guerrillas and regular armies, the system became a source of hard currency through exports and licensing; at least seven countries would eventually obtain legal production licenses for both the launchers and their ammunition.
Naturally, the advantages of the Type-63 became apparent to every rebel, guerrilla and terrorist group in the world, and those entities quickly began competing with small armies to buy, steal or beg units on both the legal and black markets.
The Type-63 has proved itself to be a significant game-changer in “low intensity conflicts” because it allows small forces operating on a shoe-string budget to seriously threaten adversaries who cannot afford the advanced systems, like battlefield radars or C-RAM (which are fantastic to have, if you can afford or get them, somehow), to counter the fast-moving artillery. As a result, lightweight, highly mobile “technical” units can add a significant punch to their operations.
While susceptible to well (and expensively) equipped Western armies, the Type-63 remains a significant threat to anyone without powerful “friends” willing to commit to their aid.
The Type-63 has been reshaping battles for nearly 65 years, at this writing. There seems to be no end in sight for this venerable weapon…not least, because it is now being deployed on high-speed inshore craft…Newer may often be better, but old weapons will still harm you.
OPINION by Bill Collier- A recent article on CNBC about Facebook/Meta losing over 2/3rds of its stock value in a year has analysis and investors wondering if the tech giant will even survive. Whereas in 2021 at around this time, Facebook was valued at around a trillion dollars, this year, it is $377 billion in total value.
Not surprisingly for a globalist corpostate press organ, the CNBC article totally misses the elephant in the room, which is that Facebook’s core problems revolve around poor community governance (things like moderation and “fact checking”) and a fundamental misunderstanding of and lack of appreciation for their users, many of whom do not feel they and their creeds are treated fairly.
I like Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, the core business model is for FB to become more of a platform for all than a private community with a more globalist corpostate ideological bent.
Allowing people to connect to family, friends, interests, and causes in a dynamic manner and with civility and common decency that is governed with fairness, common sense, and consistency, without bias or editorial (disguised as “fact checking” bit which is really opinion policing), would work.
This would be a great path forward, as opposed to reacting to activist (usually on the left) “demands” coming from audience groups (young wokatarians) who don’t use the product is, in my estaimation, a massive distraction from the core business. It is costing users, reputation, and now revenue.
Facebook serves an older demographic and, frankly, the older set will remain a core constituency well into the next 30 plus years. Providing other platforms for the younger set would be good, but it would be a mistake to simply roll out another iteration of a more popular platform.
Facebook has long suffered poor governance issues, not least because of the perceived editorializing-as-standards and the clear globalist corpostate bias of its “fact checking”, which creates distrust and which opens the platform up to constant criticism from right and left. All these fires keep distracting key decision-makers whose talents are essentially a wasted resource.
People don’t want a “free speech platform” that is “anything goes”, but if the user base is diverse in its religious, political, and philosophical perspectives, tending to favor one part of the user base over others, as it is perceived is the case, will necessarily decrease the engagement and participation of the “offended” group. It doesn’t matter if this is factually true or if it is the intent.
This is a perception at least partially caused by the inconsistent, often illogical, implementation of governance and, frankly, the oddball way “fact checking” is applied which makes the platform both seem biased and illogical.
For instance, to refute the statement “there are only two genders”, Facebook’s “fact checkers” cited the extremely rare case where people are BORN with a mix of gender traits as “proof” there are more than two genders.
The exception does not disprove the rule. but this illogical, upside-down, and absurd, use of an extremely rare exception as “proof” that the claimed rule, “there are only two genders”, is wholly false did nothing good for Facebook’s reputation or bottom line.
This kind of thing, as well as many instances of inconsistent application of standards which are perceived as putting the thumb on the scales against half their user base’s creeds, is anathema to being perceived as an honest broker and neutral arbiter. It is bad governance.
To be clear, while the rank and file bias of most of Facebook’s staff are likely leaning toward corpostate globalism or leftism in general, it may in fact be unfair to say Mark Zuckerberg wants to push a “leftist agenda.”
The fact most moderators and community governance staff may tend toward a bias, and perhaps it shows, is less a reflection of ownership bias and more a function of a poor governance architecture.
Instead of investing in new tech that is not taking hold, the whole metaverse, Faecbook should reexamine its entire governance system and the structure of the platform to provide a safe and friendly environment that is welcoming to all, regardless of creed and etcetera, but that insists users must, foremost, decide the content and entities they wish to be exposed to without being able to demand the platform cancel others who are otherwise well behaved.
Facebook/Meta isn’t focusing on keeping and growing a user base to whom advertisers can pitch themselves and their messages. What is really happening is that Facebook is trying to claim to be such a platform while its governance and “fact checking”, and how it spends its political dollars, all tend to lean in direction that half or more of their user base do not fancy.
Facebook is seen as a booster for the Democrats that tries to also pretend it is a platform for all, even if this may be an unfair characterization. The reputation hit among those on the right cannot be good and is not substantively addressed while kowtowing to the media-induced and leftist-activist supported frenzy of the hour hasn’t earned the support of the Democrats or the coveted younger demographic who, one suspects, Mark Zuckerberg thinks are represented by the very loud but tiny woke minority.
It may be true, though I am not prepared to claim it is true, that most Facebook users represent a more “conservative demographic” than a leftist demographic and that if Mark MUST use ideological sympathy to gain more users who are more engaged he may want to radically change course and lean right.
Chieftain. M1 Abrams. Leopard 2. Leclerc. Challenger. To anyone with a passing familiarity in the world of modern armored warfare, these names are well known, and rightly feared, should one come up in opposition to them. These vehicles all occupy the top tier of main battle tanks in the world of 2022.
However, even given the impressive combat record of all the vehicles listed above, none of them – combined – match the battle history, breadth of deployment nor numbers produced of the most numerous battle tank in history: the near-immortal T54/55.
Polish T-55A’s on the streets during Martial law in Poland, December, 1981. Public Domain.
As of this writing (September, 2022), an estimated 100,000 units – or more – are in current service, around the world, counting variants made in China.
The first prototype rolled out of the assembly bays at Nizhny Tagil, in the Sverdlovsk Oblast, near the end of 1945. Design work had begun in 1943, at the Morozov Design Bureau, in the desperate days of the Soviet Union’s battle against the juggernaut of Nazi Germany. With the end of the war, immediate pressure to crank out a new tank lessened, and the Soviets took their time to get the vehicle right.
The result was a vehicle that rivaled the legendary T-34 tank, as it had almost the same cross country performance as its predecessor, but had far better armor, running gear and much more powerful D10-T 100mm main gun. Going into production in 1948, a small initial batch of just under 1,500 vehicles were built, and – as usual with new designs – issues began to show up. Over time, enough of these corrections and redirections (including a focus on surviving nearby nuclear detonations) accumulated to give birth to the T55.
A T-55, one of several Somali National Army tanks (ca. 1981). US Army photo.
By then, the T54 had seen some of its first real combat actions, in both the Soviet Union’s invasion of Hungary in 1956, and in some of the very early stages of the Second Indochina War. But that was only the beginning.
As the production lines ramped up, and more units rolled off the lines, users around the world suddenly discovered that they had a relatively cheap, yet very effective, battle tank. While the T54/55 was quickly surpassed by newer and more advanced designs, in both its home country and in the West, it continued in production. The reason was simple: while the T54/55’s replacements (such as the T-62 and T-72, among others) might have been technically more capable and effective, the T54/55 was more effective than all of them, when it was the only tank on the field, and its enemies had either inferior tanks (or no tanks at all) to face it.
As it was simple to service in the field, and comparatively cheap (at c.US$200,000 in 1972), it became a favorite of Third World armies, in many cases, being the first battle tank of any sort that those countries had ever deployed. The D10-T main gun turned the tank – with certain limitations – into an effective mobile artillery piece. The platform also quickly proved highly adaptable, with multiple variants quickly appearing on the horizon, variants that further expanded the tank parks of many small countries. For many nations, the T54/55 became a pillar of their armed forces. Many firms around the world offer various types of upgrade packages for the design, as of this writing.
T-55AM2 Main Battle Tank of the Sri Lankan Army, 2012
Of course, as with all poorly handled equipment, if an operator just bought tanks for show, and then tried to use them for real, the results were…less than spectacular. Although suffering repeated drubbings at the hands of top-tier armies like the IsraeliIDF and the US military (and, embarrassingly, the Chadians), many other armies – like India, Vietnam, Tanzania and Sri Lanka – showed that when properly handled, the tank designed at the end of World War 2, was a highly dangerous combatant on the battlefield.
This remains the case. Around the world of 2022, this guttural steel monster continues to fight. There are better tanks, now, but that doesn’t matter, unless those tanks show up to oppose the ancient beast…and even then, it might surprise its younger cousin’s, depending on who is crewing it.
Tank driver, Lance Corporal Mudondo Zabina of the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces, manoeuvres her tank under the watch of her commanding tank officer, Lieutenant colonel Fred Kakaire. Zabina was a tank driver in Gulu befoe she was deployed to Somalia. AU/UN IST PHOTO / David Mutua
It has long been acknowledged that John Browning is one of – if not the – greatest American firearms designer of all time. Indeed, his Winchester 1894 – the venerable “.30-30” – with over six million units produced, is the most numerous sporting rifle ever made. Browning’s designs have lasted well over one hundred years; in fact, variations of his M1911A1 pistol and M2HB heavy machine gun are still in service in the United States Armed Forces, at least in some capacity, despite both being over a century old.
John M. Browning, c.1920.
At the end of World War One, however, Browning did not rest on his laurels after a sixty-year career of designing weapons for both civilians and military forces. As he was no longer offering his designs exclusively to Winchester, after the war was over, Browning began working with the Belgian firm Fabrique Nationale (FN). One of the final designs Browning was working on, a French military requirement for a new service pistol, the “Grand Rendement” (French for “high efficiency“), would never be completed, as Browning would die suddenly of heart failure, on the floor of his son and co-designer’s shop November 26, 1926, at the age of 71.
The service pistol design, while not complete, had advanced far enough that it could be completed by Browning’s assistant, designer Dieudonné Saive, a tremendously talented designer in his own right, who would go on to design many legendary firearms, including the FAL (Fusil Automatique Leger or Light Automatic Rifle), which would become known as the “Right Arm of the Free World.”
The pistol for the French contract was a “game-changer” design. Browning had been one of the first designers of practical and reliable semi-automatic pistols, as far back as 1899, and the French pistol built on from everything he had learned to that point. The task, however, was not simple, as Browning had to compete with himself — he had previously sold his patent on the M1911 to Colt Manufacturing; as a result, Browning was unable to directly copy that design. The new pistol used a 13-round, detachable box magazine (designed by Saive), the first true ‘staggered-stack’ design that allowed a near-doubling of ammunition capacity, without overly-enlarging the grip.
Due to the French commission’s wandering requirements (something all to common in the weapons design world, being one of the chief reasons for mindless cost overruns in defense products), the design was unable to mature until 1931, when the Belgian Army ordered 1,000 units of the early design, and was finally completed in 1934…Which was, of course, when the French chose another pistol, that went on to become barely a footnote in history.
Weapons used by Swedish Volunteer Corps. Inglis of Canada HP-35 in upper-right corner (#4).
The Belgian Army, however, had been following the pistol’s development, and were highly impressed with the small sample that they had purchased three years earlier. The French competition was barely over, when the Belgians formally adopted the pistol, as the “HP-35“, as their national sidearm, which would become known as the “High Power“.
World War 2 saw Nazi Germany swallow Belgium whole, and with it, the FN factories. When it became clear that Belgium would fall, Saive and other FN engineers fled to England, and carried the designs of many weapons, including the High Power, with them. The High Power’s plans were handed over to John Inglis and Company, of Toronto, Canada, who rapidly tooled up lines to produce two versions of the design: the standard model with fixed sights, and a version with an adjustable rear sight and a detachable shoulder stock (primarily for a Nationalist Chinese contract). From there, the High Power took off to became the primary sidearm of the armies of 93 nations, as well as many special operations forces, most famously, Great Britain’s SAS, and remains in service with many of those militaries to this day.
Canadian soldiers inspect their weapons, Camp Blanding, Fla., April 18, 2009, in support of Partnership of the Americas 2009. USMC photo.
Unfortunately, all good things come to an end – or seem to. After 82 years of continuous production, FN Herstal announced that the production of the Hi-Power would end, and it was discontinued in early 2018 by Browning Arms. From 2019 to 2022, with no new Belgian Hi-Powers being built, clones were designed by various firearm companies around the world, including Springfield Armory, as the “SA-35.” These new Hi-Power clones began competing with each other by offering new finishes, enhanced sights, redesigned hammers, beveled magazine wells, improved trigger, and increased magazine capacity.
However, in 2022, presumably to compete with the sudden surge in Hi-Power popularity, FN announced they would resume production of the Browning Hi-Power. The 2022 “FN High Power” incorporated a number of entirely new features such as a fully ambidextrous slide lock, simplified takedown method, enlarged ejection port, reversible magazine release, wider slide serrations, different colored finish offerings, and 17-round magazines.
As of the end of 2022, the eighty-seven year old design has suddenly found new life, and will likely continue in service well past its 100-year design mark…
California is outlawing gas cars, and the left seeks to do the same for the whole nation. While they attempt to force everyone to buy electric cars, experts are warning that lithium mines are not capable of meeting the need that would be created from the dramatic rise in demand from forced electric car purchasing.
Climate provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act put the U.S. back on track toward significant emissions reductions, potentially reducing greenhouse gas output by 40% of 2005 levels.
But one miner warned that when it comes to the transportation sector, domestic resources for lithium, the most critical mineral used for electric vehicle production, may not be sufficient enough to meet some of the most ambitious targets. The Biden administration, for instance, aims to slash the sale of gas-powered vehicles to 50% of all new purchases by 2030.
Since the earliest days of people hanging armor plates and machine guns onto motor vehicles, “armored cars” have formed an essential component of military’s around the world. The better versions are small(-ish), cheap, fast, reasonably dependable and armed enough to defend themselves, as their crews sent recon reports via their radios.
But sometimes, something special appears.
Introduced in 1959, the AML- series (Auto Mitrailleuse Légère, or “Light Machine Gun Car”), manufactured until 1987 by the French company Panhard (who have been making automobiles since 1890), is small, even by armored car standards, at 16’9″x12’5″x6’6″, and weights in right at six tons.
AML-60, armed with the 60mm Brandt gun-mortar.
Initially, it was armed as a light, fast, highly-mobile mortar carrier, carrying a 60mm Brandt gun-mortar and a pair of the uniquely French MAS AA-52 NF-1 machine guns. However, although the little armored car was an immediate hit with French troops in Algeria, as that conflict wound down, there was less of a need for a mobile mortar carrier. As foreign buyers began looking at the design, it was the Apartheid-eraSouth African Army who asked if Panhard could give the little truck a heavier punch.
And thus, the AML-90 was born.
Mounting a DEFA D921 90mm/3.54in rifled cannon, this new vehicle was fully capable of engaging and destroying the main battle tanks of the 1960’s. As the years wore on, even though its 90mm cannon could not keep pace with developments in tank armor, its high-explosive (HE) projectiles remain fully capable to destroying most vehicles smaller than a tank or modern IFV. Even the US Army’s the United States Army Research Laboratoryacknowledged in 1979 (PDF link) that the AML “operated effectively in Beirut” and noted that “the ease with which the Panhard is driven and repaired, and the absence of tracks, provide the mobility desirable in an urban environment.”
An AML-90 (R) of the Lebanese Army, Beirut, Lebanon, 1982
And it was simple, in the extreme – AML hulls were assembled from only 13 welded pieces. Thirteen. In the early 1980’s, an upgrade to the AML-90 Lynx became available, offering a new turret loaded with a modified D921 main gun and up-rated range-finding equipment and night-vision gear.
Bottom: Original H-90 turret. Top: Lynx 90 turret incorporating a new commander’s cupola, sights, searchlight, and a laser rangefinder.
The AML-90 and its somewhat lesser known variants were sold all over the world, albeit mostly in Africa, where they proved very effective when used for their intended roles. As just one example, when France conducted a series of operations during the Chadian-Libyan Conflict, only three vehicles were reportedly lost in action, apparently to RPG fire, despite several engagements versus Libyan tanks. While not completely immune to land mines, the AML’s were not known to fall prey to them very often.
Although withdrawn from French service in 1991 (replaced by the Panhard ERC and AMX-10RC vehicles), the AML – in most of its forms – continues to soldier on, around the world, with the last foreign sales being completed in 1999.
An Iraqi AML-90 light armored car, captured during Operation Desert Storm. USMC photo.
Are there better vehicles, today? Absolutely. The AML, by modern standards, is cramped, has neither NBC protection, nor any real “comfort” items modern forces take for granted, and has poor armor. But still…until it comes against those better vehicles, the AML remains cheap and effective — even sixty-odd years later.
“Old” does not necessarily mean “useless”…A thing that more military’s in the world would do well to learn.
“Phishing” is a type of cyberattack that seeks to mislead computer users into giving out sensitive information to malicious individuals or downloading malware onto their computers. Phishing takes numerous forms. (1) Phishing emails, (2) phishing websites, (2) phishing texts, and (3) phishing social media messages pour in upon users every day. These attacks can be highly sophisticated and seek to steal your personal information or turn your computer into a stepping stone that can be leveraged to attack other devices.
2. AN EXAMPLE OF PHISHING
As an example of computers being used as stepping stones for cyberattacks, the Solorigate breach resulted in the compromise of hundreds of corporations, as well as multiple government agencies and the Windows operating system (OS) source code. This Solorigate breach was claimed to have originated from Russian government sponsored hackers, and it demonstrates how extensive a single state-sponsored cyberattack can be. Allegedly, these attackers originally breached the SolarWinds software through a phishing attack, thereby demonstrating how hackers can quickly breach a single piece of software or computer through phishing and then spread their attacks to other organizations and government agencies.
There are some specific steps that we can take to protect ourselves from phishing attacks.
1. BE VIGILANT ONLINE
Cybercrime is rampant. Always be on guard when using the Internet or your smartphone; if anything on the web seems to be suspicious, use extreme caution when browsing that site or downloading that file. Carefully inspect websites before you enter any personal information into them.
Never click on a link in an email or text – always copy and paste those links from your email/text messenger into your browser and take a moment to inspect them before pressing the go button.
2. VERIFY, THEN TRUST
Always be suspicious of any unsolicited message you receive from a digitally-based entity. This includes phone calls, text messages, emails, and computer notifications.
3. USE SOFTWARE TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM PHISHING ATTACKS
(a) Minimize the amount of personal information you enter into any website or app; this includes any password or passcode. Do not enter information if you are not required to do so. It is not illegal to not enter your real name when signing up for things like Gmail.
(b) Do not reuse the same password for all of your applications; if you have trouble keeping track of your passwords, use a password manager like KeePass, LastPass, or Dashlane.
Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!
Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here
