View allAll Photos Tagged accuracy
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.
The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.
The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.
KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.
The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.
From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.
Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.
The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).
The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.
Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.
Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.
The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.
The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.
The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.
The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.
A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.
Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.
Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.
Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.
A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.
The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.
To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.
The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.
However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.
More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.
Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.
Specifications:
Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)
Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)
Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward
6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only
Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)
Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,
2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Ground clearance: 17–57 cm
Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)
Armor:
Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)
Performance:
Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road
Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')
Maximum climb gradient: 30°
Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')
Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')
Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)
Power/weight: 24 hp/t
Engine:
1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)
1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,
connected with a direct-current generator
Transmission:
Hydromechanical
Armament:
1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,
plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.
The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?
From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.
The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.
Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.
Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.
As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.
Painting and markings:
AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.
This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.
Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.
On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.
Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.
The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.
An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.
Precision, speed and accuracy are the hallmark of the astounding mechanism developed by the United Nations to record its multilingual proceedings. These behind-the-scene pictures show the life story of an official record, from the spoken word to the printed document.
The great majority of mankind, through the representatives of 58 Member nations, makes itself heard before the international forum. The words fly, but there is a machinery that gives them permanence and turns the representative's speech into a document of historic, as well as of immediate political and diplomatic value.
UN Photo
c. 1947
Workshop : Kim Akrigg & Ryan Doco Connors
Model : Karie Leigh Holst
Makeup/Hair: Dina Day & Shawnna Downing
Styling: Vincent Lee
Measurement taken after post-cure. Original CAD dimensions of this part: 19.000 mm. In general, accuracy better than 0.005 mm (0.0002") can be expected if the process is carried out right.
Crypto Engine is a crypto trading platform that is touted to be one of the most successful trading platforms today. It works in collaboration with successful robot brokers and is powered by technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), NLP, ML and DL. The robot performs fundamental and technical analysis with the help of these technologies and has approximately 95% accuracy level.Click Here signalscv.com/2021/09/crypto-engine-app-reviews-scam-aler...
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.
The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.
The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.
KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.
The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.
From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.
Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.
The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).
The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.
Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.
Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.
The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.
The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.
The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.
The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.
A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.
Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.
Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.
Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.
A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.
The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.
To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.
The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.
However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.
More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.
Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.
Specifications:
Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)
Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)
Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward
6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only
Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)
Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,
2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Ground clearance: 17–57 cm
Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)
Armor:
Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)
Performance:
Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road
Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')
Maximum climb gradient: 30°
Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')
Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')
Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)
Power/weight: 24 hp/t
Engine:
1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)
1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,
connected with a direct-current generator
Transmission:
Hydromechanical
Armament:
1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,
plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.
The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?
From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.
The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.
Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.
Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.
As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.
Painting and markings:
AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.
This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.
Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.
On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.
Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.
The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.
An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.
Kent State May 4 Shooting Site, Kent State University, Kent, Portage County, Ohio
THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY
BY JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY
On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.
In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4 and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970, at Kent State University.(1)
Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses.(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.
This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4 shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.
WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?
The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970, by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.
Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.
Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.
The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.
WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?
Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1,000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.
Sunday, May 3 was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1,000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protesters and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.
WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?
At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3,000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1,000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1,500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.
Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.
WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?
Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.
The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4 rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.
WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?
Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about 10 minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, 28 of the more than 70 Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13-second period.
HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?
Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.
Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13-second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about 60 feet; he was standing still with Four men sit staring at a candle-lit stage, on which there are portraits of the four Kent State students who died as a result of the firing by the Guard.his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.
WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?
The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.
The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.
The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:
In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.
Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.
We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.
A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."
WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?
While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13-second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.
A man and young boy stare up at a May 4th Memorial.Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about 20 minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.
Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.
The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.
WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?
A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.
The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.
John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.
WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?
Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.
A student holds a candle at night to remember the victims of the May 4th shootings.First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award-winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.
Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1,900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.
Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.
Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State 10 days after Kent State.
WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?
Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4 shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4 events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.
(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?
WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?
In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever Students gather in a circle, holding hands around a May 4th memorial to remember the victims of the Guard shootings.as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4 at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4 at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.
Kent State May 4 Shooting Site, Kent State University, Kent, Portage County, Ohio
THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY: THE SEARCH FOR HISTORICAL ACCURACY
BY JERRY M. LEWIS and THOMAS R. HENSLEY
On May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard fired into a crowd of Kent State University demonstrators, killing four and wounding nine Kent State students. The impact of the shootings was dramatic. The event triggered a nationwide student strike that forced hundreds of colleges and universities to close. H. R. Haldeman, a top aide to President Richard Nixon, suggests the shootings had a direct impact on national politics. In The Ends of Power, Haldeman (1978) states that the shootings at Kent State began the slide into Watergate, eventually destroying the Nixon administration. Beyond the direct effects of the May 4, the shootings have certainly come to symbolize the deep political and social divisions that so sharply divided the country during the Vietnam War era.
In the nearly three decades since May 4, l970, a voluminous literature has developed analyzing the events of May 4 and their aftermath. Some books were published quickly, providing a fresh but frequently superficial or inaccurate analysis of the shootings (e.g., Eszterhas and Roberts, 1970; Warren, 1970; Casale and Paskoff, 1971; Michener, 1971; Stone, 1971; Taylor et al., 1971; and Tompkins and Anderson, 1971). Numerous additional books have been published in subsequent years (e.g., Davies, 1973; Hare, 1973; Hensley and Lewis, 1978; Kelner and Munves, 1980; Hensley, 1981; Payne, 1981; Bills, 1988; and Gordon, 1997). These books have the advantage of a broader historical perspective than the earlier books, but no single book can be considered the definitive account of the events and aftermath of May 4, l970, at Kent State University.(1)
Despite the substantial literature which exists on the Kent State shootings, misinformation and misunderstanding continue to surround the events of May 4. For example, a prominent college-level United States history book by Mary Beth Norton et al. (1994), which is also used in high school advanced placement courses.(2) contains a picture of the shootings of May 4 accompanied by the following summary of events: "In May 1970, at Kent State University in Ohio, National Guardsmen confronted student antiwar protestors with a tear gas barrage. Soon afterward, with no provocation, soldiers opened fire into a group of fleeing students. Four young people were killed, shot in the back, including two women who had been walking to class." (Norton et al., 1994, p. 732) Unfortunately, this short description contains four factual errors: (1) some degree of provocation did exist; (2) the students were not fleeing when the Guard initially opened fire; (3) only one of the four students who died, William Schroeder, was shot in the back; and (4) one female student, Sandy Schreuer, had been walking to class, but the other female, Allison Krause, had been part of the demonstration.
This article is an attempt to deal with the historical inaccuracies that surround the May 4 shootings at Kent State University by providing high school social studies teachers with a resource to which they can turn if they wish to teach about the subject or to involve students in research on the issue. Our approach is to raise and provide answers to twelve of the most frequently asked questions about May 4 at Kent State. We will also offer a list of the most important questions involving the shootings which have not yet been answered satisfactorily. Finally, we will conclude with a brief annotated bibliography for those wishing to explore the subject further.
WHY WAS THE OHIO NATIONAL GUARD CALLED TO KENT?
The decision to bring the Ohio National Guard onto the Kent State University campus was directly related to decisions regarding American involvement in the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon was elected president of the United States in 1968 based in part on his promise to bring an end to the war in Vietnam. During the first year of Nixon's presidency, America's involvement in the war appeared to be winding down. In late April of 1970, however, the United States invaded Cambodia and widened the Vietnam War. This decision was announced on national television and radio on April 30, l970, by President Nixon, who stated that the invasion of Cambodia was designed to attack the headquarters of the Viet Cong, which had been using Cambodian territory as a sanctuary.
Protests occurred the next day, Friday, May 1, across United States college campuses where anti-war sentiment ran high. At Kent State University, an anti-war rally was held at noon on the Commons, a large, grassy area in the middle of campus which had traditionally been the site for various types of rallies and demonstrations. Fiery speeches against the war and the Nixon administration were given, a copy of the Constitution was buried to symbolize the murder of the Constitution because Congress had never declared war, and another rally was called for noon on Monday, May 4.
Friday evening in downtown Kent began peacefully with the usual socializing in the bars, but events quickly escalated into a violent confrontation between protestors and local police. The exact causes of the disturbance are still the subject of debate, but bonfires were built in the streets of downtown Kent, cars were stopped, police cars were hit with bottles, and some store windows were broken. The entire Kent police force was called to duty as well as officers from the county and surrounding communities. Kent Mayor Leroy Satrom declared a state of emergency, called Governor James Rhodes' office to seek assistance, and ordered all of the bars closed. The decision to close the bars early increased the size of the angry crowd. Police eventually succeeded in using tear gas to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them to move several blocks back to the campus.
The next day, Saturday, May 2, Mayor Satrom met with other city officials and a representative of the Ohio National Guard who had been dispatched to Kent. Mayor Satrom then made the decision to ask Governor Rhodes to send the Ohio National Guard to Kent. The mayor feared further disturbances in Kent based upon the events of the previous evening, but more disturbing to the mayor were threats that had been made to downtown businesses and city officials as well as rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and the university. Satrom was fearful that local forces would be inadequate to meet the potential disturbances, and thus about 5 p.m. he called the Governor's office to make an official request for assistance from the Ohio National Guard.
WHAT HAPPENED ON THE KENT STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON SATURDAY MAY 2 AND SUNDAY MAY 3 AFTER THE GUARDS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS?
Members of the Ohio National Guard were already on duty in Northeast Ohio, and thus they were able to be mobilized quickly to move to Kent. As the Guard arrived in Kent at about 10 p.m., they encountered a tumultuous scene. The wooden ROTC building adjacent to the Commons was ablaze and would eventually burn to the ground that evening, with well over 1,000 demonstrators surrounding the building. Controversy continues to exist regarding who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building, but radical protestors were assumed to be responsible because of their actions in interfering with the efforts of firemen to extinguish the fire as well as cheering the burning of the building. Confrontations between Guardsmen and demonstrators continued into the night, with tear gas filling the campus and numerous arrests being made.
Sunday, May 3 was a day filled with contrasts. Nearly 1,000 Ohio National Guardsmen occupied the campus, making it appear like a military war zone. The day was warm and sunny, however, and students frequently talked amicably with Guardsmen. Ohio Governor James Rhodes flew to Kent on Sunday morning, and his mood was anything but calm. At a press conference, he issued a provocative statement calling campus protestors the worst type of people in America and stating that every force of law would be used to deal with them. Rhodes also indicated that he would seek a court order declaring a state of emergency. This was never done, but the widespread assumption among both Guard and University officials was that a state of martial law was being declared in which control of the campus resided with the Guard rather than University leaders and all rallies were banned. Further confrontations between protesters and guardsmen occurred Sunday evening, and once again rocks, tear gas, and arrests characterized a tense campus.
WHAT TYPE OF RALLY WAS HELD AT NOON ON MAY 4?
At the conclusion of the anti-war rally on Friday, May 1, student protest leaders had called for another rally to be held on the Commons at noon on Monday, May 4. Although University officials had attempted on the morning of May 4 to inform the campus that the rally was prohibited, a crowd began to gather beginning as early as 11 a.m. By noon, the entire Commons area contained approximately 3,000 people. Although estimates are inexact, probably about 500 core demonstrators were gathered around the Victory Bell at one end of the Commons, another 1,000 people were "cheerleaders" supporting the active demonstrators, and an additional 1,500 people were spectators standing around the perimeter of the Commons. Across the Commons at the burned-out ROTC building stood about 100 Ohio National Guardsmen carrying lethal M-1 military rifles.
Substantial consensus exists that the active participants in the rally were primarily protesting the presence of the Guard on campus, although a strong anti-war sentiment was also present. Little evidence exists as to who were the leaders of the rally and what activities were planned, but initially the rally was peaceful.
WHO MADE THE DECISION TO BAN THE RALLY OF MAY 4?
Conflicting evidence exists regarding who was responsible for the decision to ban the noon rally of May 4. At the 1975 federal civil trial, General Robert Canterbury, the highest official of the Guard, testified that widespread consensus existed that the rally should be prohibited because of the tensions that existed and the possibility that violence would again occur. Canterbury further testified that Kent State President Robert White had explicitly told Canterbury that any demonstration would be highly dangerous. In contrast, White testified that he could recall no conversation with Canterbury regarding banning the rally.
The decision to ban the rally can most accurately be traced to Governor Rhodes' statements on Sunday, May 3 when he stated that he would be seeking a state of emergency declaration from the courts. Although he never did this, all officials -- Guard, University, Kent -- assumed that the Guard was now in charge of the campus and that all rallies were illegal. Thus, University leaders printed and distributed on Monday morning 12,000 leaflets indicating that all rallies, including the May 4 rally scheduled for noon, were prohibited as long as the Guard was in control of the campus.
WHAT EVENTS LED DIRECTLY TO THE SHOOTINGS?
Shortly before noon, General Canterbury made the decision to order the demonstrators to disperse. A Kent State police officer standing by the Guard made an announcement using a bullhorn. When this had no effect, the officer was placed in a jeep along with several Guardsmen and driven across the Commons to tell the protestors that the rally was banned and that they must disperse. This was met with angry shouting and rocks, and the jeep retreated. Canterbury then ordered his men to load and lock their weapons, tear gas canisters were fired into the crowd around the Victory Bell, and the Guard began to march across the Commons to disperse the rally. The protestors moved up a steep hill, known as Blanket Hill, and then down the other side of the hill onto the Prentice Hall parking lot as well as an adjoining practice football field. Most of the Guardsmen followed the students directly and soon found themselves somewhat trapped on the practice football field because it was surrounded by a fence. Yelling and rock throwing reached a peak as the Guard remained on the field for about 10 minutes. Several Guardsmen could be seen huddling together, and some Guardsmen knelt and pointed their guns, but no weapons were shot at this time. The Guard then began retracing their steps from the practice football field back up Blanket Hill. As they arrived at the top of the hill, 28 of the more than 70 Guardsmen turned suddenly and fired their rifles and pistols. Many guardsmen fired into the air or the ground. However, a small portion fired directly into the crowd. Altogether between 61 and 67 shots were fired in a 13-second period.
HOW MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES OCCURRED?
Four Kent State students died as a result of the firing by the Guard. The closest student was Jeffrey Miller, who was shot in the mouth while standing in an access road leading into the Prentice Hall parking lot, a distance of approximately 270 feet from the Guard. Allison Krause was in the Prentice Hall parking lot; she was 330 feet from the Guardsmen and was shot in the left side of her body. William Schroeder was 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when he was shot in the left side of his back. Sandra Scheuer was also about 390 feet from the Guard in the Prentice Hall parking lot when a bullet pierced the left front side of her neck.
Nine Kent State students were wounded in the 13-second fusillade. Most of the students were in the Prentice Hall parking lot, but a few were on the Blanket Hill area. Joseph Lewis was the student closest to the Guard at a distance of about 60 feet; he was standing still with Four men sit staring at a candle-lit stage, on which there are portraits of the four Kent State students who died as a result of the firing by the Guard.his middle finger extended when bullets struck him in the right abdomen and left lower leg. Thomas Grace was also approximately 60 feet from the Guardsmen and was wounded in the left ankle. John Cleary was over 100 feet from the Guardsmen when he was hit in the upper left chest. Alan Canfora was 225 feet from the Guard and was struck in the right wrist. Dean Kahler was the most seriously wounded of the nine students. He was struck in the small of his back from approximately 300 feet and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Douglas Wrentmore was wounded in the right knee from a distance of 330 feet. James Russell was struck in the right thigh and right forehead at a distance of 375 feet. Robert Stamps was almost 500 feet from the line of fire when he was wounded in the right buttock. Donald Mackenzie was the student the farthest from the Guardsmen at a distance of almost 750 feet when he was hit in the neck.
WHY DID THE GUARDSMEN FIRE?
The most important question associated with the events of May 4 is why did members of the Guard fire into a crowd of unarmed students? Two quite different answers have been advanced to this question: (1) the Guardsmen fired in self-defense, and the shootings were therefore justified and (2) the Guardsmen were not in immediate danger, and therefore the shootings were unjustified.
The answer offered by the Guardsmen is that they fired because they were in fear of their lives. Guardsmen testified before numerous investigating commissions as well as in federal court that they felt the demonstrators were advancing on them in such a way as to pose a serious and immediate threat to the safety of the Guardsmen, and they therefore had to fire in self-defense. Some authors (e.g., Michener, 1971 and Grant and Hill, 1974) agree with this assessment. Much more importantly, federal criminal and civil trials have accepted the position of the Guardsmen. In a 1974 federal criminal trial, District Judge Frank Battisti dismissed the case against eight Guardsmen indicted by a federal grand jury, ruling at mid-trial that the government's case against the Guardsmen was so weak that the defense did not have to present its case. In the much longer and more complex federal civil trial of 1975, a jury voted 9-3 that none of the Guardsmen were legally responsible for the shootings. This decision was appealed, however, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a new trial had to be held because of the improper handling of a threat to a jury member.
The legal aftermath of the May 4 shootings ended in January of 1979 with an out-of-court settlement involving a statement signed by 28 defendants(3) as well as a monetary settlement, and the Guardsmen and their supporters view this as a final vindication of their position. The financial settlement provided $675,000 to the wounded students and the parents of the students who had been killed. This money was paid by the State of Ohio rather than by any Guardsmen, and the amount equaled what the State estimated it would cost to go to trial again. Perhaps most importantly, the statement signed by members of the Ohio National Guard was viewed by them to be a declaration of regret, not an apology or an admission of wrongdoing:
In retrospect, the tragedy of May 4, 1970 should not have occurred. The students may have believed that they were right in continuing their mass protest in response to the Cambodian invasion, even though this protest followed the posting and reading by the university of an order to ban rallies and an order to disperse. These orders have since been determined by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to have been lawful.
Some of the Guardsmen on Blanket Hill, fearful and anxious from prior events, may have believed in their own minds that their lives were in danger. Hindsight suggests that another method would have resolved the confrontation. Better ways must be found to deal with such a confrontation.
We devoutly wish that a means had been found to avoid the May 4th events culminating in the Guard shootings and the irreversible deaths and injuries. We deeply regret those events and are profoundly saddened by the deaths of four students and the wounding of nine others which resulted. We hope that the agreement to end the litigation will help to assuage the tragic memories regarding that sad day.
A starkly different interpretation to that of the Guards' has been offered in numerous other studies of the shootings, with all of these analyses sharing the common viewpoint that primary responsibility for the shootings lies with the Guardsmen. Some authors (e.g., Stone, 1971; Davies, 1973; and Kelner and Munves, 1980) argue that the Guardsmen's lives were not in danger. Instead, these authors argue that the evidence shows that certain members of the Guard conspired on the practice football field to fire when they reached the top of Blanket Hill. Other authors (e.g., Best, 1981 and Payne, 1981) do not find sufficient evidence to accept the conspiracy theory, but they also do not find the Guard self-defense theory to be plausible. Experts who find the Guard primarily responsible find themselves in agreement with the conclusion of the Scranton Commission (Report , 1970, p. 87): "The indiscriminate firing of rifles into a crowd of students and the deaths that followed were unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable."
WHAT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SHOOTINGS?
While debate still remains about the extent to which the Guardsmen's lives were in danger at the moment they opened fire, little doubt can exist that their lives were indeed at stake in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. The 13-second shooting that resulted in four deaths and nine wounded could have been followed by an even more tragic and bloody confrontation. The nervous and fearful Guardsmen retreated back to the Commons, facing a large and hostile crowd which realized that the Guard had live ammunition and had used it to kill and wound a large number of people. In their intense anger, many demonstrators were willing to risk their own lives to attack the Guardsmen, and there can be little doubt that the Guard would have opened fire again, this time killing a much larger number of students.
A man and young boy stare up at a May 4th Memorial.Further tragedy was prevented by the actions of a number of Kent State University faculty marshals, who had organized hastily when trouble began several days earlier. Led by Professor Glenn Frank, the faculty members pleaded with National Guard leaders to allow them to talk with the demonstrators, and then they begged the students not to risk their lives by confronting the Guardsmen. After about 20 minutes of emotional pleading, the marshals convinced the students to leave the Commons.
Back at the site of the shootings, ambulances had arrived and emergency medical attention had been given to the students who had not died immediately. The ambulances formed a screaming procession as they rushed the victims of the shootings to the local hospital.
The University was ordered closed immediately, first by President Robert White and then indefinitely by Portage County Prosecutor Ronald Kane under an injunction from Common Pleas Judge Albert Caris. Classes did not resume until the Summer of 1970, and faculty members engaged in a wide variety of activities through the mail and off-campus meetings that enabled Kent State students to finish the semester.
WHAT IS THE STORY BEHIND THE PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING PHOTO OF THE YOUNG WOMAN CRYING OUT IN HORROR OVER THE DYING BODY OF ONE OF THE STUDENTS?
A photograph of Mary Vecchio, a 14-year-old runaway, screaming over the body of Jeffery Miller appeared on the front pages of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, and the photographer, John Filo, was to win a Pulitzer Prize for the picture. The photo has taken on a life and importance of its own. This analysis looks at the photo, the photographer, and the impact of the photo.
The Mary Vecchio picture shows her on one knee screaming over Jeffrey Miller's body. Mary told one of us that she was calling for help because she felt she could do nothing (Personal Interview, 4/4/94). Miller is lying on the tarmac of the Prentice Hall parking lot. One student is standing near the Miller body closer than Vecchio. Four students are seen in the immediate background.
John Filo, a Kent State photography major in 1970, continues to works as a professional newspaper photographer and editor. He was near the Prentice Hall parking lot when the Guard fired. He saw bullets hitting the ground, but he did not take cover because he thought the bullets were blanks. Of course, blanks cannot hit the ground.
WHAT WAS THE LONG-TERM FACULTY RESPONSE TO THE SHOOTINGS?
Three hours after the shootings Kent State closed and was not to open for six weeks as a viable university. When it resumed classes in the Summer of 1970, its faculty was charged with three new responsibilities, their residues remaining today.
A student holds a candle at night to remember the victims of the May 4th shootings.First, we as a University faculty had to bring aid and comfort to our own. This began earlier on with faculty trying to finish the academic quarter with a reasonable amount of academic integrity. It had ended about at mid-term examinations. However, the faculty voted before the week was out to help students complete the quarter in any way possible. Students were advised to study independently until they were contacted by individual professors. Most of the professors organized their completion of courses around papers, but many gave lectures in churches and in homes in the community of Kent and surrounding communities. For example, Norman Duffy, an award-winning teacher, gave off-campus chemistry lectures and tutorial sessions in Kent and Cleveland. His graduate students made films of laboratory sessions and mailed them to students.
Beyond helping thousands of students finish their courses, there were 1,900 students as well who needed help with gradation. Talking to students about courses allowed the faculty to do some counseling about the shootings, which helped the faculty as much in healing as it did students.
Second, the University faculty was called upon to conduct research about May 4 communicating the results of this research through teaching and traditional writing about the tragedy. Many responded and created a solid body of scholarship as well as an extremely useful archive contributing to a wide range of activities in Summer of 1970 including press interviews and the Scranton Commission.
Third, many saw as one of the faculty's challenges to develop alternative forms of protest and conflict resolution to help prevent tragedies such as the May 4 shootings and the killings at Jackson State 10 days after Kent State.
WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MAY 4 SHOOTINGS?
Although we have attempted in this article to answer many of the most important and frequently asked questions about the May 4 shootings, our responses have sometimes been tentative because many important questions remain unanswered. It thus seems important to ask what are the most significant questions which yet remain unanswered about the May 4 events. These questions could serve as the basis for research projects by students who are interested in studying the shootings in greater detail.
(1) Who was responsible for the violence in downtown Kent and on the Kent State campus in the three days prior to May 4? As an important part of this question, were "outside agitators" primarily responsible? Who was responsible for setting fire to the ROTC building?
(2) Should the Guard have been called to Kent and Kent State University? Could local law enforcement personnel have handled any situations? Were the Guard properly trained for this type of assignment?
(3) Did the Kent State University administration respond appropriately in their reactions to the demonstrations and with Ohio political officials and Guard officials?
(4) Would the shootings have been avoided if the rally had not been banned? Did the banning of the rally violate First Amendment rights?
(5) Did the Guardsmen conspire to shoot students when they huddled on the practice football field? If not, why did they fire? Were they justified in firing?
(6) Who was ultimately responsible for the events of May 4, l970?
WHY SHOULD WE STILL BE CONCERNED ABOUT MAY 4, 1970 AT KENT STATE?
In Robert McNamara's (1995) book, "In Retrospect:The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam" is a way to begin is an illustration of the this process. In it he says that United States policy towards Vietnam was "... terribly wrong and we owe it to future generations to explain why."
The May 4 shootings at Kent State need to be remembered for several reasons. First, the shootings have come to symbolize a great American tragedy which occurred at the height of the Vietnam War era, a period in which the nation found itself deeply divided both politically and culturally. The poignant picture of Mary Vecchio kneeling in agony over Jeffrey Miller's body, for example, will remain forever Students gather in a circle, holding hands around a May 4th memorial to remember the victims of the Guard shootings.as a reminder of the day when the Vietnam War came home to America. If the Kent State shootings will continue to be such a powerful symbol, then it is certainly important that Americans have a realistic view of the facts associated with this event. Second, May 4 at Kent State and the Vietnam War era remain controversial even today, and the need for healing continues to exist. Healing will not occur if events are either forgotten or distorted, and hence it is important to continue to search for the truth behind the events of May 4 at Kent State. Third, and most importantly, May 4 at Kent State should be remembered in order that we can learn from the mistakes of the past. The Guardsmen in their signed statement at the end of the civil trials recognized that better ways have to be found to deal with these types of confrontations. This has probably already occurred in numerous situations where law enforcement officials have issued a caution to their troops to be careful because "we don't want another Kent State." Insofar as this has happened, lessons have been learned, and the deaths of four young Kent State students have not been in vain.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!
Some background:
The ZSU-37-6 (“ZSU” stands for Zenitnaya Samokhodnaya Ustanovka / Зенитная Самоходная Установка = "anti-aircraft self-propelled mount"), also known as Object 511 during its development phase and later also as “ZSU-37-6 / Лена”, was a prototype for a lightly armored Soviet self-propelled, radar guided anti-aircraft weapon system that was to replace the cannon-armed ZSU-23-4 “Shilka” SPAAG.
The development of the "Shilka" began in 1957 and the vehicle was brought into service in 1965. The ZSU-23-4 was intended for AA defense of military facilities, troops, and mechanized columns on the march. The ZSU-23-4 combined a proven radar system, the non-amphibious chassis based on the GM-575 tracked vehicle, and four 23 mm autocannons. This delivered a highly effective combination of mobility with heavy firepower and considerable accuracy, outclassing all NATO anti-aircraft guns at the time. The system was widely fielded throughout the Warsaw Pact and among other pro-Soviet states. Around 2,500 ZSU-23-4s, of the total 6,500 produced, were exported to 23 countries.
The development of a potential successor started in 1970. At the request of the Soviet Ministry of Defense, the KBP Instrument Design Bureau in Tula started work on a new mobile anti-aircraft system as a replacement for the 23mm ZSU-23-4. The project was undertaken to improve on the observed shortcomings of the ZSU-23-4 (short range and no early warning) and to counter new ground attack aircraft in development, such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II, which was designed to be highly resistant to 23 mm cannons.
KBP studies demonstrated that a cannon of at least 30 mm caliber was necessary to counter these threats, and that a bigger caliber weapon would offer some more benefits. Firstly, to destroy a given target, such a weapon would only require from a third to a half of the number of shells that the ZSU-23-4’s 23 mm cannon would need. Secondly, comparison tests revealed that firing with an identical mass of 30 mm projectiles instead of 23 mm ammunition at a MiG-17 (or similarly at NATO's Hawker Hunter or Fiat G.91…) flying at 300 m/s would result in a 1.5 times greater kill probability. An increase in the maximum engagement altitude from 2,000 to 4,000 m and higher effectiveness when engaging lightly armored ground targets were also cited as potential benefits.
The initial requirements set for the new mobile weapon system were to achieve twice the performance in terms of the ZSU-23-4’s range, altitude and combat effectiveness. Additionally, the system should have a reaction time, from target acquisition to firing, no greater than 10 seconds, so that enemy helicopters that “popped up” from behind covers and launched fire-and-forget weapons at tanks or similar targets could be engaged effectively.
From these specifications KBP developed two schools of thought that proposed different concepts and respective vehicle prototypes: One design team followed the idea of an anti-aircraft complex with mixed cannon and missile armament, which made it effective against both low and high-flying targets but sacrificed short-range firepower. The alternative proposed by another team was a weapon carrier armed only with a heavy gatling-type gun, tailored to counter targets flying at low altitudes, esp. helicopters, filling a similar niche as the ZSU-23-4 and leaving medium to high altitude targets to specialized anti-aircraft missiles. The latter became soon known as “Object 511”.
Object 511 was based on the tracked and only lightly armored GM-577 chassis, produced by Minsk Tractor Works (MTZ). It featured six road wheels on each side, a drive sprocket at the rear and three return rollers. The chassis was primarily chosen because it was already in use for other anti-aircraft systems like the 2K11 “Krug” complex and could be taken more or less “off the rack”. A new feature was a hydropneumatic suspension, which was chosen in order to stabilize the chassis as firing platform and also to cope with the considerably higher all-up weight of the vehicle (27 tons vs. the ZSU-23-4’s 19 tons). Other standard equipment of Object 511 included heating, ventilation, navigational equipment, night vision aids, a 1V116 intercom and an external communications system with an R-173 receiver.
The hull was - as the entire vehicle - protected from small arms fire (7,62mm) and shell splinters, but not heavily armored. An NBC protection system was integrated into the chassis, as well as an automatic fire suppression system and an automatic gear change. The main engine bay, initially with a 2V-06-2 water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 450 hp (331 kW) was in the rear. It was later replaced by a more powerful variant of the same engine with 510 hp (380 kW).
The driver sat in the front on the left side, with a small gas turbine APU to his right to operate the radar and hydraulic systems independently from the main engine.
Between these hull segments, the chassis carried a horseshoe-shaped turret with full 360° rotation. It was relatively large and covered more than the half of the hull’s roof, because it held the SPAAGs main armament and ammunition supply, the search and tracking radar equipment as well as a crew of two: the commander with a cupola on the right side and the gunner/radar operator on the left side, with the cannon installation and its feeding system between them. In fact, it was so large that Object 511’s engine bay was only accessible when the turret was rotated 90° to the side – unacceptable for an in-service vehicle (which would probably have been based on a bigger chassis), but accepted for the prototype which was rather focused on the turret and its complex weapon and radar systems.
Object 511’s centerpiece was the newly-developed Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-37 cannon, a heavy and experimental six-barreled 37mm gatling gun. This air-cooled weapon with electrical ignition was an upscaled version of the naval AO-18 30mm gun, which was part of an automated air defense system for ships, the AK-630 CIWS complex. Unlike most modern American rotary cannons, the GSh-6-37 was gas-operated rather than hydraulically driven, allowing it to "spin up" to maximum rate of fire more quickly. This resulted in more rounds and therefore weight of fire to be placed on target in a short burst, reduced reaction time and allowed hits even in a very small enemy engagement window.
The GSh-6-37 itself weighed around 524 kg (1.154 lb), the whole system, including the feed system and a full magazine, weighed 7,493 pounds (3,401 kg). The weapon had a total length of 5.01 m (16’ 7“), its barrels were 2.81 m (9’ 2½”) long. In Object 511’s turret it had an elevation between +80° and -11°, moving at 60°/sec, and a full turret rotation only took 3 seconds. Rate of fire was 4,500 rounds per minute, even though up to 5.500 RPM were theoretically possible and could be cleared with an emergency setting. However, the weapon would typically only fire short bursts of roundabout 50 rounds each, or longer bursts of 1-2 (maximum) seconds to save ammunition and to avoid overheating and damage – initially only to the barrels, but later also to avoid collateral damage from weapon operation itself (see below). Against ground targets and for prolonged, safe fire, the rate of fire could alternatively be limited to 150 RPM.
The GSh-6-37 fired 1.09 kg shells (each 338mm long) at 1,070 m/s (3.500 ft/s), developing a muzzle energy of 624,000 joules. This resulted in an effective range of 6,000 m (19.650 ft) against aerial and 7,000 m (23.0000 ft) against ground targets. Maximum firing range was past 7,160 m (23,490 ft), with the projectiles self-destructing beyond that distance. In a 1 sec. burst, the weapon delivered an impressive weight of fire of almost 100 kg.
The GSh-6-37 was belt-fed, with a closed-circuit magazine to avoid spilling casings all around and hurting friendly troops in the SPAAG’s vicinity. Typical types of ammunition were OFZT (proximity-fused incendiary fragmentation) and BZT (armor-piercing tracer, able to penetrate more than 60 mm of 30° sloped steel armor at 1.000 m/3.275’ distance). Since there was only a single ammunition supply that could not be switched, these rounds were normally loaded in 3:1 ratio—three OFZT, then one BZT, every 10th BZT round marked with a tracer. Especially the fragmentation rounds dealt extensive collateral damage, as the sheer numbers of fragments from detonating shells was sufficient to damage aircraft flying within a 200-meter radius from the impact center. This, coupled with the high density of fire, created a very effective obstacle for aerial targets and ensured a high hit probability even upon a casual and hurried attack.
The gun was placed in the turret front’s center, held by a massive mount with hydraulic dampers. The internal ammunition supply in the back of the turret comprised a total of 1.600 rounds, but an additional 800 rounds could be added in an external reserve feed bin, attached to the back of the turret and connected to the internal belt magazine loop through a pair of ports in the turret’s rear, normally used to reload the GSh-6-37.
A rotating, electronically scanned E-band (10 kW power) target acquisition radar array was mounted on the rear top of the turret that, when combined with the turret front mounted J-band (150 kW power) mono-pulse tracking radar, its dish antenna hidden under a fiberglass fairing to the right of the main weapon, formed the 1RL144 (NATO: Hot Shot) pulse-Doppler 3D radar system. Alongside, the 1A26 digital computer, a laser rangefinder co-axial to the GSh-6-37, and the 1G30 angle measurement system formed the 1A27 targeting complex.
Object 511’s target acquisition offered a 360-degree field of view, a detection range of around 18 km and could detect targets flying as low as 15 m. The array could be folded down and stowed when in transit, lying flat on the turret’s roof. The tracking radar had a range of 16 km, and a C/D-band IFF system was also fitted. The radar system was highly protected against various types of interference and was able to work properly even if there were mountains on the horizon, regardless of the background. The system made it possible to fire the GSh-6-37 on the move, against targets with a maximum target speed of up to 500 m/s, and it had an impressive reaction time of only 6-8 seconds.
Thanks to its computerized fire control system, the 1A27 was highly automated and reduced the SPAAG’s crew to only three men, making a dedicated radar operator (as on the ZSU-23-4) superfluous and saving internal space in the large but still rather cramped turret.
Development of Object 511 and its systems were kicked-off in 1972 but immediately slowed down with the introduction of the 9K33 “Osa” missile system, which seemed to fill the same requirement but with greater missile performance. However, after some considerable debate it was felt that a purely missile-based system would not be as effective at dealing with very low flying attack helicopters attacking at short range with no warning, as had been proven so successful in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Since the reaction time of a gun system was around 8–10 seconds, compared to approximately 30 seconds for a missile-based system, development of Object 511 was restarted in 1973.
A fully functional prototype, now officially dubbed “ZSU-37-6“ to reflect its role and armament and christened “Лена” (Lena, after the Russian river in Siberia), was completed in 1975 at the Ulyanovsk Mechanical Factory, but it took until 1976 that the capricious weapon and the 1A27 radar system had been successfully integrated and made work. System testing and trials were conducted between September 1977 and December 1978 on the Donguzskiy range, where the vehicle was detected by American spy satellites and erroneously identified as a self-propelled artillery system with a fully rotating turret (similar to the American M109), as a potential successor for the SAU-122/2S1 Gvozdika or SAU-152/2S3 Akatsiya SPGs that had been introduced ten years earlier, with a lighter weapon of 100-120mm caliber and an autoloader in the large turret.
The tests at Donguzskiy yielded mixed results. While the 1A27 surveillance and acquisition radar complex turned out to be quite effective, the GSh-6-37 remained a constant source of problems. The gun was highly unreliable and afforded a high level of maintenance. Furthermore, it had a massive recoil of 6.250 kp/61 kN when fired (the American 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger “only” had a recoil of 4.082 kp/40 kN). As a result, targets acquired by the 1A27 system were frequently lost after a single burst of fire, so that they had to be tracked anew before the next shot could be placed.
To make matters even words, the GSh-6-37 was noted for its high and often uncomfortable vibration and extreme noise, internally and externally. Pressure shock waves from the gun muzzles made the presence of unprotected personnel in the weapon’s proximity hazardous. The GSh-6-37’s massive vibrations shook the whole vehicle and led to numerous radio and radar system failures, tearing or jamming of maintenance doors and access hatches and the cracking of optical sensors. The effects were so severe that the gun’s impact led after six months to fatigue cracks in the gun mount, the welded turret hull, fuel tanks and other systems. One spectacular and fateful showcase of the gun’s detrimental powers was a transmission failure during a field test/maneuver in summer 1978 – which unfortunately included top military brass spectators and other VIPs, who were consequently not convinced of the ZSU-37-6 and its weapon.
The GSh-6-37’s persisting vibration and recoil problems, as well as its general unreliability if it was not immaculately serviced, could not be satisfactorily overcome during the 2 years of state acceptance trials. Furthermore, the large and heavy turret severely hampered Object 511’s off-road performance and handling, due to the high center of gravity and the relatively small chassis, so that the weapon system’s full field potential could not be explored. Had it found its way into a serial production vehicle, it would certainly have been based on a bigger and heavier chassis, e.g. from an MBT. Other novel features tested with Object 511, e.g. the hydropneumatic suspension and the automated 1A27 fire control system, proved to be more successful.
However, the troublesome GSh-6-37 temporarily attained new interest in 1979 through the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan, because it became quickly clear that conventional battle tanks, with long-barreled, large caliber guns and a very limited lift angle were not suited against small targets in mountainous regions and for combat in confined areas like narrow valleys or settlements. The GSh-6-37 appeared as a promising alternative weapon, and plans were made to mount it in a more strongly armored turret onto a T-72 chassis. A wooden mockup turret was built, but the project was not proceeded further with. Nevertheless, the concept of an armored support vehicle with high firepower and alternative armament would persist and lead, in the course of the following years, to a number of prototypes that eventually spawned the BMPT "Terminator" Tank Support Fighting Vehicle.
More tests and attempts to cope with the gun mount continued on a limited basis through 1979, but in late 1980 trials and development of Object 511 and the GSh-6-37 were stopped altogether: the 2K22 “Tunguska” SPAAG with mixed armament, developed in parallel, was preferred and officially accepted into service. In its original form, the 2K22 was armed with four 9M311 (NATO: SA-19 “Grison”) short-range missiles in the ready-to-fire position and two 2A38 30mm autocannons, using the same 1A27 radar system as Object 511. The Tunguska entered into limited service from 1984, when the first batteries, now armed with eight missiles, were delivered to the army, and gradually replaced the ZSU-23-4.
Having become obsolete, the sole Object 511 prototype was retired in 1981 and mothballed. It is today part of the Military Technical Museum collection at Ivanovskaya, near Moscow, even though not part of the public exhibition and in a rather derelict state, waiting for restoration and eventual display.
Specifications:
Crew: Three (commander, gunner, driver)
Weight: about 26,000 kg (57,300 lb)
Length: 7.78 m (25 ft 5 1/2 in) with gun facing forward
6.55 m (21 ft 5 1/2 in) hull only
Width: 3.25 m (10 ft 8 in)
Height: 3.88 m (12 ft 9 in) overall,
2.66 m (8 8 1/2 ft) with search radar stowed
Suspension: Hydropneumatic
Ground clearance: 17–57 cm
Fuel capacity: 760 l (200 US gal, 170 imp gal)
Armor:
Unknown, but probably not more than 15 mm (0.6”)
Performance:
Speed: 65 km/h (40 mph) maximum on the road
Climbing ability: 0.7 m (2.3')
Maximum climb gradient: 30°
Trench crossing ability: 2.5 m (8.2')
Fording depth: 1.0 m (3.3')
Operational range: 500 km (310 mi)
Power/weight: 24 hp/t
Engine:
1× 2V-06-2S water-cooled multi-fuel diesel engine with 510 hp (380 kW)
1× auxiliary DGChM-1 single-shaft gas turbine engine with 70 hp at 6,000 rpm,
connected with a direct-current generator
Transmission:
Hydromechanical
Armament:
1× GSh-6-37 six-barreled 37mm (1.5 in) Gatling gun with 1.600 rounds,
plus 800 more in an optional, external auxiliary magazine
The kit and its assembly:
This fictional SPAAG was intended as a submission to the “Prototypes” group build at whatifmodellers.com in August 2020. Inspiration came from a Trumpeter 1:72 2P25/SA-6 launch platform which I had recently acquired with a kit lot – primarily because of the chassis, which would lend itself for a conversion into “something else”.
The idea to build an anti-aircraft tank with a gatling gun came when I did research for my recent YA-14 build and its armament. When checking the American GAU-8 cannon from the A-10 I found that there had been plans to use this weapon for a short-range SPAAG (as a replacement for the US Army’s M163), and there had been plans for even heavier weapons in this role. For instance, there had been the T249 “Vigilante” prototype: This experimental system consisted of a 37 mm T250 six-barrel Gatling gun, mounted on a lengthened M113 armored personnel carrier platform, even though with a very limited ammunition supply, good only for 5 sec. of fire – it was just a conceptual test bed. But: why not create a Soviet counterpart? Even more so, since there is/was the real-world GSh-6-30 gatling gun as a potential weapon, which had, beyond use in the MiG-27, also been used in naval defense systems. Why not use/create an uprated/bigger version, too?
From this idea, things evolved in a straightforward fashion. The Trumpeter 2P25 chassis and hull were basically taken OOB, just the front was modified for a single driver position. However, the upper hull had to be changed in order to accept the new, large turret instead of the triple SA-6 launch array.
The new turret is a parts combination: The basis comes from a Revell 1:72 M109 howitzer kit, the 155 mm barrel was replaced with a QuickBoost 1:48 resin GSh-6-30 gun for a MiG-27, and a co-axial laser rangefinder (a piece of styrene) was added on a separate mount. Unfortunately, the Revell kit does not feature a movable gun barrel, so I decided to implant a functional joint, so that the model’s weapon could be displayed in raised and low position – primarily for the “action pictures”. The mechanism was scratched from styrene tubes and a piece of foamed plastic as a “brake” that holds the weapon in place and blocks the view into the turret from the front when the weapon is raised high up. The hinge was placed behind the OOB gun mantle, which was cut into two pieces and now works as in real life.
Further mods include the dish antenna for the tracking radar (a former tank wheel), placed on a disc-shaped pedestal onto the turret front’s right side, and the retractable rotating search radar antenna, scratched from various bits and pieces and mounted onto the rear of the turret – its roof had to be cleaned up to make suitable space next to the commander’s cupola.
Another challenge was the adaptation of the new turret to the hull, because the original SA-6 launch array has only a relatively small turret ring, and it is placed relatively far ahead on the hull. The new, massive turret had to be mounted further backwards, and the raised engine cowling on the back of the hull did not make things easier.
As a consequence, I had to move the SA-6 launcher ring bearing backwards, through a major surgical intervention in the hull roof (a square section was cut out, shortened, reversed and glued back again into the opening). In order to save the M109’s turret ring for later, I gave it a completely new turret floor and transplanted the small adapter ring from the SA-6 launch array to it. Another problem arose from the bulged engine cover: it had to be replaced with something flat, otherwise the turret would not have fitted. I was lucky to find a suitable donor in the spares box, from a Leopard 1 kit. More complex mods than expected, and thankfully most of the uglier changes are hidden under the huge turret. However, Object 511 looks pretty conclusive and menacing with everything in place, and the weapon is now movable in two axis’. The only flaw is a relatively wide gap between the turret and the hull, due to a step between the combat and engine section and the relatively narrow turret ring.
Painting and markings:
AFAIK, most Soviet tank prototypes in the Seventies/Eighties received a simple, uniform olive green livery, but ,while authentic, I found this to look rather boring. Since my “Object 511” would have taken part in military maneuvers, I decided to give it an Eighties Soviet Army three-tone camouflage, which was introduced during the late Eighties. It consisted of a relatively bright olive green, a light and cold bluish grey and black-grey, applied in large patches.
This scheme was also adapted by the late GDR’s Volksarmee (called “Verzerrungsanstrich” = “Distortion scheme”) and maybe – even though I am not certain – this special paint scheme might only have been used by Soviet troops based on GDR soil? However, it’s pretty unique and looks good, so I adapted it for the model.
Based upon visual guesstimates from real life pictures and some background info concerning NVA tank paint schemes, the basic colors became Humbrol 86 (Light Olive Green; RAL 6003), Revell 57 (Grey; RAL 7000) and Revell 06 (Tar Black; RAL 9021). Each vehicle had an individual paint scheme, in this case it was based on a real world NVA lorry.
On top of the basic colors, a washing with a mix of red brown and black acrylic paint was applied, and immediately dried with a soft cotton cloth so that it only remained in recesses and around edges, simulating dirt and dust. Some additional post-shading with lighter/brighter versions of the basic tones followed.
Decals came next – the Red Stars were a rather dramatic addition and came from the Trumpeter kit’s OOB sheet. The white “511” code on the flanks was created with white 3 mm letters from TL Modellbau.
The model received a light overall dry brushing treatment with light grey (Revell 75). As a finishing touch I added some branches as additional camouflage. These are bits of dried moss (collected on the local street), colorized with simple watercolors and attached with white glue. Finally, everything was sealed and stabilized with a coat of acrylic matt varnish and some pigments (a greyish-brown mix of various artist mineral pigments) were dusted into the running gear and onto the lower hull surfaces with a soft brush.
An effective kitbashing, and while mounting the different turret to the hull looks simple, the integration of unrelated hull and turret so that they actually fit and “work” was a rather fiddly task, and it’s effectively not obvious at all (which is good but “hides” the labour pains related to the mods). However, the result looks IMHO good, like a beefed-up ZSU-23-4 “Schilka”, just what this fictional tank model is supposed to depict.
Precision, speed and accuracy are the hallmark of the astounding mechanism developed by the United Nations to record its multilingual proceedings. These behind-the-scene pictures show the life story of an official record, from the spoken word to the printed document.
In the next phase the records are taken apart speech by speech, and translated.
c. 1948
Precision, speed and accuracy are the hallmark of the astounding mechanism developed by the United Nations to record its multilingual proceedings. These behind-the-scene pictures show the life story of an official record, from the spoken word to the printed document.
Although the note-takers must be able to pass the 200-words-a-minute test, human beings are only human - a man may be suddenly taken ill for instance, or simply miss a word in the heat of the debate. This is where the machine comes in. The automatic sound recording captures even the fastest spoken words, and the sound track may be referred to, if necessary, for checking purposes.
c. 1948
Email: info@infinitioptics.com
HD Cooled MWIR Thermal Infrared MTC Imager
The Viper contains a high sensitivity 10μm cooled HgCdTe (Mercury Cadmium Telluride or MCT) sensor with a high definition resolution of 1280×720 and an ultra-long cooler lifetime of 24,000 hours. The cooled sensor is able to detect differences in temperature as small as ±0.02°C, providing more detail for tracking of targets at extreme ranges in total darkness and through most obscurants, with performance on par with 2500mm thermal systems.
Ultra Long Range Night vision Thermal MWIR Cooled Infrared Surveillance Thermal Military Camera PTZ 4k & HD CCTV LWIR CMOS CCD CMOS Range Gated Gen II Intensifier starlight Gyro Night Vision PTZ Zoom Laser IR Illuminator Illumination Camera CCTV EMCCD Cooled uncooled Thermal Infrared NIR SWIR Shortwave Infrared Auto Track ZLID Zoom Telephoto Continuous Surveillance Camera System EO/IR Auto Tracking GPS LRF Laser Range Finder DMC Digital Magnetic Compass IP 67 Rugged MIL-810-STD Slew To Cue Radar Integration Lens Optics Marine Extreme weather Outdoor Wireless ONVIF 4k HD Resolution DDE WDR Focal length EO/IR Electro Optics Detection Recognition Identification Human Vehicle Ultra Long Range Day Night Vision imager Sensor
The Viper is a revolutionary ultra Long range surveillance HD Cooled Thermal multi sensor PTZ camera boasting a long-range 128X visible day/night camera, long-range 55+km HD MWIR Cooled thermal infrared zoom, and optional ZLID NIR illumination with LRF. This multi-sensor payload enables the Viper to provide high resolution imaging in virtually any environment from heavy fog to complete darkness. Designed for weapons systems pointing and accuracy, it meets and exceeds MIL-STD-810F military ratings for shock, vibration, temperature and dust/water ingression. This makes it the ultimate long range camera system for 24/7 situational awareness and long-range recognition and identification of targets
Key Features:
›› Ultra long-range military grade EO/IR PTZ surveillance
›› Tri-Sensor payload: HD visible, ZLID illumination & thermal
›› Day/Night 1080p HD IP ONVIF 1/2.8" or 1/1.8" CMOS sensor
›› 16-2050mm Zoom Lens (with motorized 2x doubler)
›› 128X zoom range for an incredible 19°–0.15° field of view
›› Auto focus & motorized fog/parasitic light filter
›› enhancements: DWDR, HLC, ROI, EIS, 3DNR, Fog/Haze
›› Color: 0.06 Lux; B&W: 0.005 Lux (0 Lux with IR ZLID)
›› ›1-5km ZLID IR Laser illumination that syncs with zoom lens
›› HD 1280×720 10μm, MCT cooled thermal imager
›› 85–1400mm auto-focus germanium Zoom thermal lens
››Up to 40km of human detection & 55km of vehicle detection
›› Rugged -40°–+60°C IP67 sealed with anti-corrosion finish
›› Elliptical Synchronous Drive Weapons grade pan tilt driver
›› Endless 360° rotation with speeds up to 240°/s
›› Absolute positioning zero backlash 0.00025° resolution
›› State of the art Multi -axis gyro stabilization & EIS stabilization
›› Meets and exceeds MIL-STD-810F for shock and vibration
›› EMI MIL-STD-461E for electromagnetic interference
See It All 24/7 Day Night surveillance
Infiniti’s cooled thermal cameras let you see further than any
other night vision technology, using heat rather than light to
see objects. This cooled thermal imaging camera is equipped
with a midwave, cooled Indium Animonide (InSb or MCT) detector, producing ultra-sharp thermal images of 640×480~1280x720 pixels. This will satisfy users that want to see the smallest of details and demand the best possible
image quality. It allows the user to see more detail and detect smaller objects from a further distance. Coupled with a high sensitivity, and leading germanium optics, this camera offers extreme long-range performance and excellent image
quality.
17X Continuous Zoom Germanium Lens
The cooled MCT thermal core is paired with a precision-engineered low f stop germanium zoom lens allowing you to view targets with a 16X optical zoom range from 85mm to 1400mm. This allows for long range detection of thermal targets by offering anything from a 8.6° to 0.5° field of view. These lenses also feature auto focus capabilities, delivering crisp, clear images even when adjusting zoom, ensuring
optimal performance and situational awareness in the wide field of view and crisp details in the narrow field of view.
Extreme Long Range Detection
The Viper is a Mid-Wave Infrared (MWIR) thermal camera which means it operates on 3,000nm–5,000nm wavelengths where terrestrial temperature targets emit most of their infrared energy. Using real-time image enhancements (anti-blooming, contrast enhancement and scene optimization), this system is capable of detecting vehicles up to 55km away.* While thermal is a significant investment, its superior range and performance allows it to replace and outperform all other solutions, making it a viable option for many applications.
DICE Dynamic Image Contrast Enhancement optimizes thermal infrared imaging compare with FLIR DDE
Image result for DRS cooled thermal
Cooled HD MWIR Thermal Infrared MTC MID-Wave IR Camera Core
Real-time Thermal infrared image optimization via advanced image processing DICE is much more than simple digital detail edge enhancement. DICE powered by DRS proprietary Edge Enhancement and optimization techniques coupled with Dynamic Contrast Thresholding and Adaptive Rescaling. Unlike other digital detail enhancement technologies on the market, DICE is dynamic intelligent image optimization for incremental and proportionate response making superior to image contrast enhancement that is done digitally making Infiniti thermal cameras far superior resulting increased ranges and sharper images compared to other infrared sensors.
Thermal GE germanium Infrared Zoom Lens with Auto Focus MWIR Cooled ThermalOur Germanium lenses are perfect for Mid-Infrared applications. These lenses stand up well to harsh environments and we offer the most popular sizes with Anti-Reflection Coatings. Germanium is subject to thermal runaway, meaning that the transmission decreases as temperature increases. Germanium’s high density (5.33 g/cm3) should be considered when designing for weight-sensitive systems. The Knoop Hardness of Germanium is 780, making it ideal for IR applications requiring rugged optics.
Germanium lens
High Index of Refraction
Minimal Chromatic Aberration Due to Low Dispersion
Perfect for Rugged IR Applications
Popular Sizes Available with AR Coating from 3-12μm
Continuous Zoom with integrated Auto Focus
F2~f5.5 for sharp long-range imaging
IP 67 sealed are used as viewing windows for enclosures
HD MCT, 40–835mm, 45km
HD MCT, 85–1400mm, 55km
SD InSb, 150/750mm, 40km
SD InSb, 15–335mm, 33km
SD InSb, 36–715mm, 45km
SD InSb, 85–1400mm, 50km
SD VOx, 95/275mm, 18km
ultra-long-range-hd-cooled-thermal-infared-night-vision-ptz-mwir-lwir-zoom-ge-cctv-security-laser-ir-lrf-gyro-stablized-slew-to-cue-camera-infiniti-optics-copy
Rugged MIL-810-STD -50~65C IP 67 Nitrogen Pressurized Enclosure 85~1400mm Continous Zoom MWIR Infrared Lens for 55km of Vehicle Detection Infrared Night Vision Zoom Surveillance Camera
Continuous Zoom Thermal Infrared, SWIR, MWIR and LWIR Optics
Infiniti’s optics are precision engineered and designed to offer unparalleled performance. Our custom made long-range optics are similar to telescopes in that they uses large mirrors to reflect and focus light, with much larger diameters, allowing them to gather and collect significantly more light than traditional lenses. We can achieve focal lengths of up to 9000mm and resolution of up to 60MP on VIS/NIR. Traditionally these optics were only utilized by NASA for space observation and in military spy satellites costing upwards of 250 million dollars. Infiniti has brought this technology to security & surveillance sensors, providing ultra-long-range surveillance and reconnaissance to marine and terrestrial applications for military logistics, critical infrastructure protection, and homeland security.
hd-2050mm-continous-zoom-ir-correcred-lens-128x-optical-zoom-162050mm-focal-lenth-telescopic-optics-with-auto-focus-haze-fog-filter-infiniti-electro-optics
This allows Infiniti Optics to provide up to 400% greater zoom power and higher resolutions than our competitors who offer a maximum of 1100mm before the use of a doubler. Infiniti’s ultra-long-range electro-optics pass rigorous control processes and performance benchmarks to ensure maximum optical clarity. These ultra-long-range optics, unlike standard lenses, are not measured in line pairs but in ARC resolution, which is a standard for evaluating telescopes for space observation. Infiniti’s 3050mm lens can resolve a 7mm feature at 1km, making it vastly superior in range and performance than any other zoom lens. Since these types of optics are not like standard lenses, they do not have an iris or shutter, they are unable to be installed in most imaging applications because they are can’t adapt to changing light. Infiniti’s optional Automatic Light Optimizer (ALO) uses the video signal to automatically adjust the amount of light that hits the sensor, performing the same function as a shutter and iris in a traditional camera and lens. The ALO eliminates over and underexposure by providing the correct amount of light for the camera producing the best image.
Image result for starlight camera
HD Visible/NIR CMOS HD Day Night Camera
The Viper’s visible camera was designed and optimized for long range surveillance. It uses a 1/2.8" progressive scan or 1/1.9 star light CMOS sensor with an HD resolution of 1920×1080 and a fantastic signal to noise ratio of 55dB. The 1/2.8" sensor has excellent spectral sensitivity for both visible and NIR wavelengths and features an automatic IR
cut filter, making it a true day/night camera providing clear color images by day and black and white images at night. The 1/2.8" sensor provides the best balance between light sensitivity and maximum zoom, making it particularly suited for long range surveillance.
Real Time Image Processing & Optimization
The Viper also integrates the latest technology in real-time image processing such as BLC, HLC, DWDR, EIS, ROI, 3D DNR, ABF, Defog/ Haze etc. Each of these image enhancements can be automatic or user-defined and calibrated based on the application requirements. Since the camera is native IP, all of these settings can be changed and configured remotely, along with remote PTZ and zoom control.
16~2050mm Long Range 128X Continuous Zoom Lens
The Viper comes equipped with a precision engineered 16–2050mm IR-corrected continuous zoom lens with motorized HD doubler, offering an incredible 128X zoom range from 19° through to a very narrow 0.15° FOV when paired with the 1/2.8" sensor. That's equivalent to a “full-frame” DSLR camera using a 13,500mm lens! Infiniti’s zoom optics are built with the highest quality Japanese fluorite ELD low dispersion glass, and the integrated rapid auto focus allows long range
recognition and identification of targets without operator intervention.
Integrated Haze/Smoke/Fog Filter
The lens also incorporates a motorized fog filter that is used with the camera’s monochrome mode and de-haze image processing to see through fog, smoke, smog and haze that render standard optical cameras unusable. Infiniti’s HD Zoom camera is a perfect synergy between precision craftsmanship, state of the art sensor hardware and the latest image processing for unparalleled range and performance.
1–5km IR ZLID IR Laser infrared Illumination
Many laser illuminators overexpose the center of the screen and leave the edges dark. Our laser has an adjustable 0.5° to 19.5° angle of view, and Infiniti’s ZLID (Zoom Laser IR Diode) technology synchronizes IR intensity and area illumination with the zoom lens for outstanding active IR performance, eliminating over-exposure, washout, and hot-spots for clear images in complete darkness. An optional LRF is also available that can automatically turn off the laser if an object is detected within the NOHD making it safe.
Weapons Grade Gyro Stabilized Pan Tilt Drive/ positioner
The integrated Dual Elliptical Synchronous Drive P/T Positioner is weapons systems grade positioner designed for
military applications and is able to withstand shock and vibration for use on tanks and navy vessels. The pan tilt implements an Elliptical Synchronous Drive for high torque to handle large payloads while providing micro steps as precise as 0.00025° for smooth manual control or automatic slew to cue tracking when used with Video Analytics, VTMS systems, Radar, AIS and weapon systems. The integrated multi-axis gyro stabilization uses a high-rate MEMS gyro in combination with the pan/tilt to mechanically stabilize the payload, reducing the effects of vibration, oscillation, pitch and roll for
unparalleled stabilization on tanks, humvees, assault vehicles and more.
Rugged And Robust military grad MIL-810-STD
The Viper is comprised of military grade, precision engineered
components and manufactured using unique processes to offer absolute performance. It uses a military style connector to supply power, video, and communication over a single cable and does not require a junction box or external electronics of any kind, increasing reliability and the amount of time required to install the system. The entire system is designed for the most demanding mobile applications.
It is MIL-STD-810F/G tested and certified and is sealed to a minimum of IP66 making it water and dust proof. Its internal heater/blower allows it operate in conditions from –50°C to +65°C and both the pan/tilt and enclosure use a tough anti corrosion finish for continued operation in the most brutal and harsh climatic conditions.
Intuitive And User Friendly
While the Viper is an extremely sophisticated multi-sensor system it is also a user friendly plug-and-play solution controllable by touch screen, mouse, VMS systems, DVR/NVR or 3-axis joystick. This allows the Viper to be operated by any individual with little or no training and ensures compatibility with new and existing equipment.
Remote Connectivity IP Internet Ready ONVIF 2.2 Profile -S
The Viper is an IP system that allows you to instantly and remotely connect, and control it through the internet in real-time from anywhere in the world using Ascendent Remote Management Software (ARMS) on your laptop, iPhone, or Android device. For remote or mobile applications Internet bandwidth is often limited, which why our DVRs, NVRs and IP cameras can record at one resolution and stream
at another. Our web client also allows you to change your settings, update firmware and activate image enhancements in real time even including back focus lens adjustment.
Applications
Force Protection
Perimeter Security
Embassy Protection Forces
Mobile/Fixed Command Centers
Ruggedized Surveillance
Tactical Command and Control
Day/Night Situational Awareness
Anti-Pirate systems
Wireless Secured Communication
Enterprise Video Management
GPS Enabled Video Analytics
Threat Detection Technologies
Radar, Microwave and Electromagnetic
Ranger Finders and Target Acquisition
UAV Equipped with Multi-Sensor
Sniper Detection
Options:
Extreme Low light Progressive Scan and EMCCD imaging
Ultra HD 12MP 4k Resolution Day Night Zoom Cameras
SWIR Short Wave Infrared 400~2,200nm Cameras
LWIR Long Wave Infrared Thermal Imaging 7~13um
MWIR Mid Wave Infrared Thermal Imaging 3-5UM
EO/IR Electro Optical and Thermal IR imaging multi sensor
ZLID Zoom Laser IR Infrared invisible light illumination 1-5km
Integrated Window Wiper with Nano Coating
Non ITAR long range Night Vision cameras
10~40km LRF Laser Range Finders
Fiber Optic Gryo Stabilization
Laser Pointer and Designators
LRAD Long Range Acoustic Hailing Device
Radar Slew To Cue Auto Target Tracking
Contact Information:
Website: www.infinitioptics.com
Email: info@infinitioptics.com
Phone: 1.866.200.9191
playing "burritos to go" - a solo at the end, improved 10 times of last weeks practice. Quiet confidence should servie her well
I’ve agonized over this stupid engine. And I wouldn’t be as intent on accuracy if the original MOC hadn’t been my oldest build.
I’ve attempted as much detail as I can without compromising structure or coming across too garish. This compromise meant abandoning loose coal to hide the techniques and shifting the ’tanks’ all over the body to accommodate wiring and an attempt at representing internal running gear.
The sanding gear, bunker steps, cab detail, and brakes were all labors of love to incorporate and I finally feel rest in my soul that this 1400 can no longer be called an inaccurate Jinty or green Thomas. Pieces have ALL arrived finally from blubrix and bricklink so I can now start on my ‘big’ new project. Happy to shelve this tank.
The Brihat Samrat Yantra (Greater Sundial) at the Jantar Mantar can tell the local time within 2 seconds of accuracy! What amazes me is the precise construction of all these instruments in the early 18th century!
The reason for the large size Brihat Samrat Yantra was accuracy. In the past, it was not possible to finely grade the time markings. Therefore the only way to get a finer resolution was to enlarge the dimension of the scale!
The Jantar Mantar is one of the oldest astronomical observatories in the world featuring multiple instruments to observe celestial objects with astonishing accuracy. The observatory was build by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II in the year 1727 in Jaipur. An earlier observatory was built by him in Delhi in 1724.
The Maharaja himself was an avid astronomer, having been educated in Persian, Indian and Western principles of astronomy and mathematics.
The word Jantar Mantar is a combination of Sanskrit words Yantra (यंत्र) and Mantra (मंत्र), which mean "Instrument" and "Formula". Instruments were constructed in accordance with mathematical formulae and astronomical principles.
Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II established five observatories in India - at Delhi, Jaipur, Ujjain, Mathura and Varanasi.
Today, the Jantar Mantar complex in Jaipur is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site and attracts a large number of visitors every day. I first visited the Jantar Mantar in 1986, and have been fascinated every time I went there subsequently!
These pictures are a part of our journey through Northern Rajasthan and Agra. Sit back and view my Jaipur slideshow.
Type : Special automatic pistol
Accuracy : +2
Availability : Extremely Rare
Concealability : Jacket/Longcoat
Magazine : 25
Rate of fire : 750 rounds / min
Cartridge : 10mm SW
Reliability : very reliable
Range : 100 meters
Cost : N/A
Length : 37 cm (Without the silencer)
Country : Germany
One of the most accurate automatic pistol ever made.
play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=sr.bussimulator.bus...
Bus Simulator: New City Coach Bus Game will give you real experience of how to run Bus company or how you feel being Bus Driver.
Your job is to transport passengers around an attractive and realistic world’s top class city like London, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Dubai etc. Transport passengers from one station to another. People are using public transport so take care of them. You must drive bus on a planned route, whilst obeying traffic rules, and taking care not to upset or injure your passengers. This makes Bus Simulator: New City Coach Bus Game unlike any other bus driving game - the experience of driving a bus is very different from blazing through a racing circuit as in most driving games.
How to play New City Coach Bus Game:
Choose bus from different model of bus
Auto calculation of total expenses and profit
Follow traffic rules and maintain accuracy to get maximum profit
Blow Horn and stop at traffic signal to get more money
Complete given route in given time or else you will lose it.
Feature of Bus simulator 2020 : City coach Bus Game :
An extensive and realistic city environment with various city
World’s top most 5 city’s real bus routes with fluctuating weather conditions
5 different models of bus to drive, such as double-decker and Volvo
Real bus business calculation, Bus wash, repair, passenger tickets calculation.
Living roads, with intelligent traffic controlled by our AI system.
Detail Interior of bus with multiple camera views
It’s a realistic bus driving simulation experience. If you’re looking for a fresh bus driving experience and you’re not afraid to try something new, we highly recommend this bus game. Bus Simulator: Bus wala game is 21st centuries most realistic bus business game.
Do you like complicated watches? This is one of the most complicated watch on planet. But, it's worth it! Because, this watch has two beautiful things. (1). You won't need battery change forever! You will only need light (Any light). (2). You will get SUPERIOR ACCURACY by atomic radio controlled wave.
CITIZEN JY0005-50E Commercial ....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yPyG_XuZZo
Japan Only Version:....
www.vagsg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34130
This is CITIZEN SKYHAWK A-T "BLACK EAGLE" 3RD Generation Watch for men. Designed for Pilots. Bezel has slide rule. Eco-Drive Power with Atomic Radio Controlled feature. Also has orange color LED light for digital displays. Battery status dial feature. Luminous hands & hour markers can glowing longtime in the dark and easy to read the time.
SPECIFICATIONS:
Model: JY0005-50E
Movement Caliber/ Module: U600
Case Caliber: S053030
Model Name: SKYHAWK A-T "BLACK EAGLE"
Case Diameter: 46mm
Lug Size: 22mm
Lug to Lug: 49mm
Thickness: 12mm
Case Material: Solid Stainless Steel
Band Material: Solid Stainless Steel
Plating: YES, Black Ion Plated
Crystal: Mineral Domed Crystal
Crystal Scratch Resistant: NO
Water Resistant: YES (200Meter/ 20Bars)
Light/ Illuminate: YES (Orange Color LED Light)
Features:
(1 ). Atomic Timekeeping with radio-controlled superior accuracy
(2). Light-Powered Eco-Drive Japanese Quartz movement charges in natural or indoor light.
This is a multi-functionals Eco-Drive watch, which is equipped with a solar power function for powering the watch by converting light energy into electric energy.
Never needs battery change!
(3). Power reserve Indicator dial/ Charge Level display function.
This function displays the charge level in four grades, to give an approximate indication of how much the rechargeable cell is charged.
(4). Atomic Radio Reception source meter
Automatic Reception:
The watch will automatically receive the radio wave up to three times a day, at 2:00AM, 3:00AM, and 4:00AM., and adjust the time and date accordingly. However, note that if the watch successfully receives the radio wave at 2:00AM., it will not perform automatic reception again at the later times.
On demand reception:
The radio wave can be received at anytime of the day to adjust the time and date. In the event that a radio signal cannot be received, the watch can be manually set and will operate keeping time within +/-15 seconds per month.
(5). Low-Charge warning/ Insufficient Charge Warning Function.
(6). Overcharging Prevention Function.
When the rechargeable cell becomes fully charged by exposing the watch face to light, the overcharging prevention function is automatically activated to prevent the battery from being charged further.
No matter how much the watch is charged, it will not affect the rechargeable cell, timekeeping, functions or performance of the watch.
(7). Perpetual calendar which automatically adjusts between odd and even months, until the year 2100.
(8). World Time (43 cities)
UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), the time and date of 43 cities [or regions] from around the world and one city [any can be set] can be displayed and easily called up. It is convenient when traveling overseas on business or vacation. Daylight saving time can also be set.
(9). 99-minutes countdown timer
Setting Range:
From 1 minute up to 99 minutes, in 1-minute units. Fly back function, auto return function.
(10). 1/100 second Chronograph/ Stop Watch up to 24 Hours
(11). Back lid for all digital sections. (Orange color LED Lights)
(12). 2 Alarms for local & world time
(13). Slide Rule bezel
There are two types of calculation can make with slide rule bezel.
(A). Navigation Calculation.
Such as: Calculation of the Time Required.
: Speed (Ground Speed) Calculation.
: Flying Distance Calculation.
: FUEL Consumption rate Calculation.
: FUEL Consumption Calculation
: Maximum Flying Hours.
: Conversion.
(B). General Calculation Functions
Such as: Multiplication
: Division
: Reading Ratios
: Determining Square Root
(14). Non-Reflective Crystal
(15). Black color plated on solid stainless steel case and band.
CITIZEN U600 Movement and Case made in Japan. Bracelet made in China.
(16). Water Resistant 200m/20Bars
(17). Automatic Power Saving Feature
The watch is equipped with two power saving functions. If the watch face is not exposed to light for 30 minutes or longer, all the LCD display sections turn OFF [Power Saving 1 ].
If the watch face is not exposed to light for one week or longer, some of the watch functions stop working in order to minimize the watch's power consumption.
Canceling the power saving function:
The power saving function will be automatically canceled when the watch face is exposed to light.
(18). WARRANTY:
Limited Five Years Warranty by CITIZEN watch Company of America, Inc.
1000 West 190th Street Torrance, California 90502.. United States.
Truly reliable and can provide SUPER accurate time everyday. 100% Highly Recommended.
Rating: **** (4.5Stars)
Bad things/ Weakness for this CITIZEN SKYHAWK-A-T Models:
(1). Snap-On back cover (Not a screw down back cover)
(2). Crystal is made of mineral glass (Not Sapphire Crystal) and slightly domed.
(3). One other annoying thing is that to access the various functions of the watch (calendar, countdown, chronograph etc), you have to pull out the crown and rotate it. A bit annoying if you use the functions a lot.
(4). There is no hourly beeper/ chime feature.
(5). It's really is annoying not being able to display the date in your current time zone.
(6). Stainless steel band quality is cheap because of it was made in China.
(7). This is not a Japanese Domestic Model like U680. It's meant the watch overall quality is little bit lower than domestic models. Available in Europe, United States and Asia.
Same Caliber with Different Design Models:
* JY0010-50E All Titanium Case & Band
* JY0050-55L All Titanium Case & Band Blue Angel Series
* JY0000-53E All Stainless Steel Case & Band
* JY0000-02E Stainless Steel Case & Rubber Band
* JY0040-59L All Stainless Steel Case & Band Blue Angel Series.
Questions & Answers:
Q: Will the Skyhawk A – T automatically change time zones and adjust time accordingly?
A:
As the Skyhawk A – T does not know where you are located (no GPS system), you must manually adjust the radio control time zone shown on the left digital display (digital display 2). As the analog time is run from the radio control time, this will update as well.
Q: How do I know if my Skyhawk AT updated via radio signal?
A:
Normal radio updating on the Skyhawk A – T will adjust the time by a second or fraction thereof. As such, there is no visible cue to see the hands change.
You may however check to see results of the last update attempt. While in the time, calendar or reception set modes, press and release the lower right button. The second/signal strength hand will move to indicate either a high, medium or low signal. It may indicate that no signal was received.
If no signal was received, rest assured your watch is keeping accurate time to specification of 15-20 seconds per month (note: many users find the Skyhawk A – T keeps time to 1 to 5 seconds per month, even without radio signal updating)
From left to right: Anne Hale Miglarese, Founder & CEO, Radiant Earth Foundation and Walter Volkmann, Owner & President, Micro Aerial Projects L.L.C.
Cadets from 8th Regiment, Advanced Camp, set their weapons out during Group and Zero training at Fort Knox Ky., July 12, 2023. This training focuses on weapon accuracy while shooting targets down-range. Photos by Connor Kerwin, Carson Newman University, CST Public Affairs Office
Before the digital age, mathematical calculations for commerce and industry were performed on manual, gear driven, table top calculator machines as showcased on this Sumlock badge. The 'comptometer' calculator shown above is in all probability a 912/S British model (9 rows,12 columns, S for sterling, hence the 912/S). Sumlock comptometers were made by the Bell Punch Company and distributed by Sumlock Comptometer Ltd. The model shown here was active in the 1950s and up to the mid-1960s. Trained operators would have received a badge similar to the one shown here; working hours were long and repetitive pressure on the keys required considerable stamina and focus.
The majority of operators were women and training, at various centres in Britain and across the globe, was rigorous. The Sumlock training school moto was 'Accuracy First, Speed Later'' and a British trained operator on a 912/S machine would have memorised, for example, every decimal in 16ths, 12ths, 8ths and 6ths. Operators were taught subtraction, multiplication and square roots as well as receiving a thorough understanding of the various calculations used by various companies and specialist industries.
However, with the dawn of the digital age taking a grip, Sumlock Comptometer machines became redundant and eventually superseded by digital computer technology.
Photography, layout and design: Argy58
(This image also exists as a high resolution jpeg and tiff - ideal for a
variety of print sizes e.g. A4, A3, A2 and A1. The current uploaded
format is for screen based viewing only: 72pi)
The ''Grand Old Lady'' of No-Mans Land, without doubt, the finest Medium Machine Gun ever made by anyone. Sustained fire that does exactly that, water cooled, feeding belted .303 in ammunition from canvas belts holding 250 rounds, this gun had a rate of fire of 10,000 rounds per hour, day upon day, in fact the only limiting factor was the supply of ammunition and if accuracy was vital a new barrel every hour.
The Vickers was designed by Hiram Maxim, American-born British inventor who moved from the United States to the United Kingdom, in 1897 setting up the Vickers Sons and Maxim Company. He then went on to re-design his earlier Maxim toggle lock, short recoil water cooled gun. Lightening almost every component, inverting the lock and by paring down where possible, design the gun that weighted 28lbs without its 7 pints of water. The tripod however weighed 40lbs and efforts to lighten this assembly resulted in loss of extreme accuracy and so, the mount remained at 40lbs. It was carried and set up by the No.1 in the 3 man team. No.2 carried the gun, No.3 carried the water can and as much ammunition as he could. Whole companies of men were often used to bring ammunition to the gun.
As stated, these early models made before the Boer War weighed 28lbs. and were known as the lightweights or 5 archers referring to the 5 slots under the back sight on the top cover. These early guns carried an “L” prefix to the serial number although when war started in 1914 many lightening cuts were left off in an attempt to ease production and these simplified guns were over 2lbs heavier at just over 30 lbs. Production prior to the Great War was around one gun per day. Later, the gun was also produced in Lithgow in Australia. The cooling water in the jacket began to boil after about 3 belts at rapid rate (750 rounds). The steam was led down a condenser hose into, normally, a 2 gallon can containing some water. At intervals, the condensed steam was poured back into the barrel jacket.
Accurate ranges depended on what type of ammunition was being used:-
▪︎Mk.7 - 2,900 yards.
▪︎Mk.7z - 3,500 yards.
▪︎Mk.8z - 4,500 yards.
It might seem very strange, but in the quagmire, filth and water filled trenches and shell holes in places like Passchendaele (1917) one of the hardest things to locate was water clean enough to keep the barrel jacket full. The old story about letting rip with a few rounds of ammunition in order to make a brew is not true. The water in the jacket came out mixed with oil, asbestos from the gland packing and cordite fouling that would have produced a liquid even worse than Army's tea ! When at last the Vickers was withdrawn from service in 1968, it was given a full military funeral at Bisley and many who used or worked on the Vickers were reduced to tears. However, it is still being used around the world and for example, the South Africans have converted their guns to fire 7.62mm (Nato ammunition) at least others know a good thing when they see it.
General characteristics -
▪︎Type: Medium Machine Gun
▪︎Place of Origin: United Kingdom
▪︎In service: 1912 to 1968
▪︎Conflicts: World War One / Irish Civil War / Chaco War / Spanish Civil War / Winter War / World War Two/ Greek Civil War / First Indochina War / Bangladesh Liberation War / Indo-Pakistan War of 1947 / 1948 Arab–Israeli War / Malayan Emergency / Korean War / Algerian War / Cypriot Intercommunal Violence / 1971 JVP Insurrection / Congo Crisis / Aden Emergency / South African Border War / Syrian Civil War
▪︎Designed: 1912
▪︎Manufacturer: Vickers
▪︎Unit Cost: £175 in 1914 / £80 in 1918 / £50 in 1926
▪︎Mass: 33lb to 51lb / All-up Length: 3ft 8in / Barrel Length: 28in
▪︎Crew: Three man team
▪︎Cartridge: .303in British / .30-06 Springfield / 11mm Vickers / Others
▪︎Action: Recoil with gas boost
▪︎Rate of Fire: 450 to 500 round/min
▪︎Muzzle Velocity: 2,440 ft/s (.303 Mk.VII ball) / 2,525 ft/s (.303 Mk.VIIIz ball)
▪︎Effective Firing Range: 2,187 yards
▪︎Maximum Firing Range: 4,500 yards indirect fire (.303 Mk.VIIIz ball)
▪︎Feed System: 250-round canvas belt.
Sourced from
On the #FlipSide #insidecover of this #folded #silk and #mulberry #paper #livrejaponais the #architect #painted a #Caterpillar #trackloader, D6 it #appears, #judging by its #proportions, as #overall #detail and #accuracy seem to #matter #little in this #architect's #attention
26 Likes on Instagram
1 Comments on Instagram:
sofianotes: ❤️
Yes, the Sony a7 IV has Eye-AF accuracy issues. It often tends to front focus at normal portrait distances and I've experienced a back focus for full body portraits as well.
The camera had a very good day. But still several shots have been out of focus.
Do you like complicated watches? This is one of the most complicated watch on planet. But, it's worth it! Because, this watch has two beautiful things. (1). You won't need battery change forever! You will only need light (Any light). (2). You will get SUPERIOR ACCURACY by atomic radio controlled wave.
CITIZEN JY0005-50E Commercial ....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yPyG_XuZZo
Japan Only Version:....
www.vagsg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34130
This is CITIZEN SKYHAWK A-T "BLACK EAGLE" Watch for men. Designed for Pilots. Bezel has slide rule. Eco-Drive Power with Atomic Radio Controlled feature. Also has orange color LED light for digital displays. Battery status dial feature. Luminous hands & hour markers can glowing longtime in the dark and easy to read the time.
SPECIFICATIONS:
Model: JY0005-50E
Movement Caliber/ Module: U600
Case Caliber: S053030
Model Name: SKYHAWK A-T "BLACK EAGLE"
Case Diameter: 46mm
Lug Size: 22mm
Lug to Lug: 49mm
Thickness: 12mm
Case Material: Solid Stainless Steel
Band Material: Solid Stainless Steel
Plating: YES, Black Ion Plated
Crystal: Mineral Domed Crystal
Crystal Scratch Resistant: NO
Water Resistant: YES (200Meter/ 20Bars)
Light/ Illuminate: YES (Orange Color LED Light)
Features:
(1 ). Atomic Timekeeping with radio-controlled superior accuracy
(2). Light-Powered Eco-Drive Japanese Quartz movement charges in natural or indoor light.
This is a multi-functionals Eco-Drive watch, which is equipped with a solar power function for powering the watch by converting light energy into electric energy.
Never needs battery change!
(3). Power reserve Indicator dial/ Charge Level display function.
This function displays the charge level in four grades, to give an approximate indication of how much the rechargeable cell is charged.
(4). Atomic Radio Reception source meter
Automatic Reception:
The watch will automatically receive the radio wave up to three times a day, at 2:00AM, 3:00AM, and 4:00AM., and adjust the time and date accordingly. However, note that if the watch successfully receives the radio wave at 2:00AM., it will not perform automatic reception again at the later times.
On demand reception:
The radio wave can be received at anytime of the day to adjust the time and date. In the event that a radio signal cannot be received, the watch can be manually set and will operate keeping time within +/-15 seconds per month.
(5). Low-Charge warning/ Insufficient Charge Warning Function.
(6). Overcharging Prevention Function.
When the rechargeable cell becomes fully charged by exposing the watch face to light, the overcharging prevention function is automatically activated to prevent the battery from being charged further.
No matter how much the watch is charged, it will not affect the rechargeable cell, timekeeping, functions or performance of the watch.
(7). Perpetual calendar which automatically adjusts between odd and even months, until the year 2100.
(8). World Time (43 cities)
UTC (Coordinated Universal Time), the time and date of 43 cities [or regions] from around the world and one city [any can be set] can be displayed and easily called up. It is convenient when traveling overseas on business or vacation. Daylight saving time can also be set.
(9). 99-minutes countdown timer
Setting Range:
From 1 minute up to 99 minutes, in 1-minute units. Fly back function, auto return function.
(10). 1/100 second Chronograph/ Stop Watch up to 24 Hours
(11). Back lid for all digital sections. (Orange color LED Lights)
(12). 2 Alarms for local & world time
(13). Slide Rule bezel
There are two types of calculation can make with slide rule bezel.
(A). Navigation Calculation.
Such as: Calculation of the Time Required.
: Speed (Ground Speed) Calculation.
: Flying Distance Calculation.
: FUEL Consumption rate Calculation.
: FUEL Consumption Calculation
: Maximum Flying Hours.
: Conversion.
(B). General Calculation Functions
Such as: Multiplication
: Division
: Reading Ratios
: Determining Square Root
(14). Non-Reflective Crystal
(15). Black color plated on solid stainless steel case and band.
CITIZEN U600 Movement and Case made in Japan. Bracelet made in China.
(16). Water Resistant 200m/20Bars
(17). Automatic Power Saving Feature
The watch is equipped with two power saving functions. If the watch face is not exposed to light for 30 minutes or longer, all the LCD display sections turn OFF [Power Saving 1 ].
If the watch face is not exposed to light for one week or longer, some of the watch functions stop working in order to minimize the watch's power consumption.
Canceling the power saving function:
The power saving function will be automatically canceled when the watch face is exposed to light.
(18). WARRANTY:
Limited Five Years Warranty by CITIZEN watch Company of America, Inc.
1000 West 190th Street Torrance, California 90502.. United States.
Truly reliable and can provide SUPER accurate time everyday. 100% Highly Recommended.
Rating: **** (4.5Stars)
Bad things/ Weakness for this CITIZEN SKYHAWK-A-T Models:
(1). Snap-On back cover (Not a screw down back cover)
(2). Crystal is made of mineral glass (Not Sapphire Crystal) and slightly domed.
(3). One other annoying thing is that to access the various functions of the watch (calendar, countdown, chronograph etc), you have to pull out the crown and rotate it. A bit annoying if you use the functions a lot.
(4). There is no hourly beeper/ chime feature.
(5). It's really is annoying not being able to display the date in your current time zone.
(6). Stainless steel band quality is cheap because of it was made in China.
(7). This is not a Japanese Domestic Model like U680. It's meant the watch overall quality is little bit lower than domestic models. Available in Europe, United States and Asia.
Same Caliber with Different Design Models:
* JY0010-50E All Titanium Case & Band
* JY0050-55L All Titanium Case & Band Blue Angel Series
* JY0000-53E All Stainless Steel Case & Band
* JY0000-02E Stainless Steel Case & Rubber Band
* JY0040-59L All Stainless Steel Case & Band Blue Angel Series.
Questions & Answers:
Q: Will the Skyhawk A – T automatically change time zones and adjust time accordingly?
A:
As the Skyhawk A – T does not know where you are located (no GPS system), you must manually adjust the radio control time zone shown on the left digital display (digital display 2). As the analog time is run from the radio control time, this will update as well.
Q: How do I know if my Skyhawk AT updated via radio signal?
A:
Normal radio updating on the Skyhawk A – T will adjust the time by a second or fraction thereof. As such, there is no visible cue to see the hands change.
You may however check to see results of the last update attempt. While in the time, calendar or reception set modes, press and release the lower right button. The second/signal strength hand will move to indicate either a high, medium or low signal. It may indicate that no signal was received.
If no signal was received, rest assured your watch is keeping accurate time to specification of 15-20 seconds per month (note: many users find the Skyhawk A – T keeps time to 1 to 5 seconds per month, even without radio signal updating)
AK-2013 EAGLE (Enhanced Accuracy Gun for Long-range Encounters)
Manufacturer:
Izhmash
Cartridge: 5.56x45mm NATO
Rate of Fire: 750 RPM
Effective Range: 900m
Features:
NEW EOTech X13 EOScope
Adjustable Length Stock
Extended Charging Handle
Errrrrrrrgonomic Grip
Badass Magazine with Ammo window and Izhmash brand magazine pulling handle.
Rail Mounted Foregrip
Quad Railed Handguard
Receiver mounted top Rail
Black and Green color scheme for operatin purposes. Also available in full black, tan, and Universal Camoflauge Pattern (WARNING: HOLDING AN IZHMASH AK-2013 EAGLE WITH UCP FURNITURE INSTANTLY RAISES YOUR CHANCES OF BEING SHOT BY 82%, JUST ASK THE U.S. ARMY IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE US)
"You thought the Galil ACE was good? Think again motherfuckers." - Direct Quote from Izhmash CEO Konstantin Busygin.
Painting Cabinet 71
Jan van der Heyden (1637 - 1712), worked in Amsterdam and Brussels
Canal in a Dutch Town
Oil on oak wood
Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe
The attraction of van der Heyden's image lies in the detail accuracy, the atmospheric reproduction and the surprising point of view. Presumably it is a bridge in Amsterdam to which was added the placed left at the image border statue of Minerva. The warlike goddess of the arts, the sciences and the craft was considered a patroness of cities. She illustrates the self-confidence and the flourishing of Holland in the 17th century.
Malereikabinett 71
Jan van der Heyden (1637 - 1712), tätig in Amsterdam und Brüssel
Gracht in einer holländischen Stadt
Öl auf Eichenholz
Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe
Der Reiz von van der Heydens Bild liegt in der Detailgenauigkeit, der atmosphärischen Wiedergabe und dem überraschenden Blickwinkel. Vermutlich handelt es sich um eine Brücke in Amsterdam, der die links am Bildrand platzierte Minerva-Statue hinzugefügt wurde. Die streitbare Göttin der Künste, der Wissenschaften und des Handwerks galt als Schutzherrin der Städte. Sie veranschaulicht das Selbstbewusstsein und das Aufblühen Hollands im 17. Jahrhundert.
Collection
The foundation of the collection consists of 205 mostly French and Dutch paintings from the 17th and 18th centuries which Margravine Karoline Luise acquired 1759-1776. From this collection originate significant works, such as The portrait of a young man by Frans van Mieris the Elder, The winter landscape with lime kiln of Nicolaes Pieterszoon Berchem, The Lacemaker by Gerard Dou, the Still Life with hunting equipment and dead partridge of Willem van Aelst, The Peace in the Chicken yard by Melchior de Hondecoeter as well as a self-portrait by Rembrandt van Rijn. In addition, four still lifes of Jean Siméon Chardin and two pastoral scenes by François Boucher, having been commissioned directly by the Marchioness from artists.
A first significant expansion the museum received in 1858 by the collection of canon Johann Baptist von Hirscher (1788-1865) with works of religious art of the 15th and 16th centuries. This group includes works such as two tablets of the Sterzinger altar and the wing fragment The sacramental blessing of Bartholomew Zeitblom. From 1899 to 1920, the native of Baden painter Hans Thoma held the position of Director of the Kunsthalle. He acquired old masterly paintings as the tauberbischofsheim altarpiece by Matthias Grünewald and drove the expansion of the collection with art of the 19th century forward. Only his successors expanded the holdings of the Art Gallery with works of Impressionism and the following generations of artists.
The permanent exhibition in the main building includes approximately 800 paintings and sculptures. Among the outstanding works of art of the Department German painters of the late Gothic and Renaissance are the Christ as Man of Sorrows by Albrecht Dürer, the Carrying of the Cross and the Crucifixion by Matthias Grünewald, Maria with the Child by Lucas Cranach the Elder, the portrait of Sebastian Brant by Hans Burgkmair the elder and The Nativity of Hans Baldung. Whose Margrave panel due to property disputes in 2006 made it in the headlines and also led to political conflicts. One of the biggest buying successes which a German museum in the postwar period was able to land concerns the successive acquisition of six of the seven known pieces of a Passion altar in 1450 - the notname of the artist after this work "Master of the Karlsruhe Passion" - a seventh piece is located in German public ownership (Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne).
In the department of Dutch and Flemish paintings of the 16th century can be found, in addition to the aforementioned works, the portrait of the Marchesa Veronica Spinola Doria by Peter Paul Rubens, Moses strikes the rock and water flows for the thirsty people of Israel of Jacob Jordaens, the still life with kitchen tools and foods of Frans Snyders, the village festival of David Teniers the younger, the still life with lemon, oranges and filled clay pot by Willem Kalf, a Young couple having breakfast by Gabriel Metsu, in the bedroom of Pieter de Hooch, the great group of trees at the waterfront of Jacob Izaaksoon van Ruisdael, a river landscape with a milkmaid of Aelbert Jacobsz. Cuyp as well as a trompe-l'œil still life of Samuel van Hoogstraten.
Further examples of French paintings of the 17th and 18th centuries are, the adoration of the golden calf of Claude Lorrain, preparations for dance class of the Le Nain brothers, the portrait of Marshal Charles-Auguste de Matignon by Hyacinthe Rigaud, the portrait of a young nobleman in hunting costume of Nicolas de Largillière, The storm of Claude Joseph Vernet and The minuet of Nicolas Lancret. From the 19th century can be found with Rocky wooded valley at Civita Castellana by Gustave Courbet, The Lamentation of Eugène Delacroix, the children portrait Le petit Lange of Édouard Manet, the portrait of Madame Jeantaud by Edgar Degas, the landscape June morning near Pontoise by Camille Pissarro, homes in Le Pouldu Paul Gauguin and views to the sea at L'Estaque by Paul Cézanne further works of French artists at Kunsthalle.
One focus of the collection is the German painting and sculpture of the 19th century. From Joseph Anton Koch, the Kunsthalle possesses a Heroic landscape with rainbow, from Georg Friedrich Kersting the painting The painter Gerhard Kügelgen in his studio, from Caspar David Friedrich the landscape rocky reef on the sea beach and from Karl Blechen view to the Monastery of Santa Scolastica. Other important works of this department are the disruption of Adolph Menzel as well as the young self-portrait, the portrait Nanna Risi and The Banquet of Plato of Anselm Feuerbach.
For the presentation of the complex of oeuvres by Hans Thoma, a whole wing in 1909 at the Kunsthalle was installed. Main oeuvres of the arts are, for example, the genre picture The siblings as well as, created on behalf of the grand-ducal family, Thoma Chapel with its religious themes.
Of the German contemporaries of Hans Thoma, Max Liebermann on the beach of Noordwijk and Lovis Corinth with a portrait of his wife in the museum are represented. Furthermore the Kunsthalle owns works by Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller, Carl Spitzweg, Arnold Böcklin, Hans von Marées, Wilhelm Leibl, Fritz von Uhde, Wilhelm Trübner and Max Klinger.
In the building of the adjacent Orangerie works of the collection and new acquisitions from the years after 1952 can be seen. In two integrated graphics cabinets the Kupferstichkabinett (gallery of prints) gives insight into its inventory of contemporary art on paper. From the period after 1945, the works Arabs with footprints by Jean Dubuffet, Sponge Relief RE 48; Sol. 1960 by Yves Klein, Honoring the square: Yellow center of Josef Albers, the cityscape F by Gerhard Richter and the Fixe idea by Georg Baselitz in the Kunsthalle. The collection of classical modernism wandered into the main building. Examples of paintings from the period to 1945 are The Eiffel Tower by Robert Delaunay, the Improvisation 13 by Wassily Kandinsky, Deers in the Forest II by Franz Marc, People at the Blue lake of August Macke, the self-portrait The painter of Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, the Merzpicture 21b by Kurt Schwitters, the forest of Max Ernst, Tower gate II by Lyonel Feininger, the Seven Deadly Sins of Otto Dix and the removal of the Sphinxes by Max Beckmann. In addition, the museum regularly shows special exhibitions.
Sammlung
Den Grundstock der Sammlung bilden 205 meist französische und niederländische Gemälde des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, welche Markgräfin Karoline Luise zwischen 1759 und 1776 erwarb. Aus dieser Sammlung stammen bedeutende Arbeiten, wie das Bildnis eines jungen Mannes von Frans van Mieris der Ältere, die Winterlandschaft mit Kalkofen von Nicolaes Pieterszoon Berchem, Die Spitzenklöpplerin von Gerard Dou, das Stillleben mit Jagdgeräten und totem Rebhuhn von Willem van Aelst, Der Friede im Hühnerhof von Melchior de Hondecoeter sowie ein Selbstbildnis von Rembrandt van Rijn. Hinzu kommen vier Stillleben von Jean Siméon Chardin und zwei Schäferszenen von François Boucher, die die Markgräfin bei Künstlern direkt in Auftrag gegeben hatte.
Eine erste wesentliche Erweiterung erhielt das Museum 1858 durch die Sammlung des Domkapitulars Johann Baptist von Hirscher (1788–1865) mit Werken religiöser Kunst des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Zu dieser Gruppe gehören Werke wie zwei Tafeln des Sterzinger Altars und das Flügelfragment Der sakramentale Segen von Bartholomäus Zeitblom. Von 1899 bis 1920 bekleidete der aus Baden stammende Maler Hans Thoma die Position des Direktors der Kunsthalle. Er erwarb altmeisterliche Gemälde wie den Tauberbischofsheimer Altar von Matthias Grünewald und trieb den Ausbau der Sammlung mit Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts voran. Erst seine Nachfolger erweiterten die Bestände der Kunsthalle um Werke des Impressionismus und der folgenden Künstlergenerationen.
Die Dauerausstellung im Hauptgebäude umfasst rund 800 Gemälde und Skulpturen. Zu den herausragenden Kunstwerken der Abteilung deutsche Maler der Spätgotik und Renaissance gehören der Christus als Schmerzensmann von Albrecht Dürer, die Kreuztragung und Kreuzigung von Matthias Grünewald, Maria mit dem Kinde von Lucas Cranach der Ältere, das Bildnis Sebastian Brants von Hans Burgkmair der Ältere und die Die Geburt Christi von Hans Baldung. Dessen Markgrafentafel geriet durch Eigentumsstreitigkeiten 2006 in die Schlagzeilen und führte auch zu politischen Auseinandersetzungen. Einer der größten Ankaufserfolge, welche ein deutsches Museum in der Nachkriegszeit verbuchen konnte, betrifft den sukzessiven Erwerb von sechs der sieben bekannten Tafeln eines Passionsaltars um 1450 – der Notname des Malers nach diesem Werk „Meister der Karlsruher Passion“ – eine siebte Tafel befindet sich in deutschem öffentlichen Besitz (Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Köln).
In der Abteilung niederländischer und flämischer Malerei des 16. Jahrhunderts finden sich, neben den erwähnten Werken, das Bildnis der Marchesa Veronica Spinola Doria von Peter Paul Rubens, Moses schlägt Wasser aus dem Felsen von Jacob Jordaens, das Stillleben mit Küchengeräten und Lebensmitteln von Frans Snyders, das Dorffest von David Teniers dem Jüngeren, das Stillleben mit Zitrone, Orangen und gefülltem Römer von Willem Kalf, ein Junges Paar beim Frühstück von Gabriel Metsu, Im Schlafzimmer von Pieter de Hooch, die Große Baumgruppe am Wasser von Jacob Izaaksoon van Ruisdael, eine Flusslandschaft mit Melkerin von Aelbert Jacobsz. Cuyp sowie ein Augenbetrüger-Stillleben von Samuel van Hoogstraten.
Weitere Beispiele französischer Malerei des 17. bzw. 18. Jahrhunderts sind Die Anbetung des Goldeen Kalbes von Claude Lorrain, die Vorbereitung zur Tanzstunde der Brüder Le Nain, das Bildnis des Marschalls Charles-Auguste de Matignon von Hyacinthe Rigaud, das Bildnis eines jungen Edelmannes im Jagdkostüm von Nicolas de Largillière, Der Sturm von Claude Joseph Vernet und Das Menuett von Nicolas Lancret. Aus dem 19. Jahrhundert finden sich mit Felsiges Waldtal bei Cività Castellana von Gustave Courbet, Die Beweinung Christi von Eugène Delacroix, dem Kinderbildnis Le petit Lange von Édouard Manet, dem Bildnis der Madame Jeantaud von Edgar Degas, dem Landschaftsbild Junimorgen bei Pontoise von Camille Pissarro, Häuser in Le Pouldu von Paul Gauguin und Blick auf das Meer bei L’Estaque von Paul Cézanne weitere Arbeiten französischer Künstler in der Kunsthalle.
Einen Schwerpunkt der Sammlung bildet die deutsche Malerei und Skulptur des 19. Jahrhunderts. Von Joseph Anton Koch besitzt die Kunsthalle eine Heroische Landschaft mit Regenbogen, von Georg Friedrich Kersting das Gemälde Der Maler Gerhard Kügelgen in seinem Atelier, von Caspar David Friedrich das Landschaftsbild Felsenriff am Meeresstrand und von Karl Blechen den Blick auf das Kloster Santa Scolastica. Weitere bedeutende Werke dieser Abteilung sind Die Störung von Adolph Menzel sowie das Jugendliche Selbstbildnis, das Bildnis Nanna Risi und Das Gastmahl des Plato von Anselm Feuerbach.
Für die Präsentation des Werkkomplexes von Hans Thoma wurde 1909 in der Kunsthalle ein ganzer Gebäudetrakt errichtet. Hauptwerke des Künstlers sind etwa das Genrebild Die Geschwister sowie die, im Auftrag der großherzöglichen Familie geschaffene, Thoma-Kapelle mit ihren religiösen Themen.
Von den deutschen Zeitgenossen Hans Thomas sind Max Liebermann mit Am Strand von Noordwijk und Lovis Corinth mit einem Bildnis seiner Frau im Museum vertreten. Darüber hinaus besitzt die Kunsthalle Werke von Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller, Carl Spitzweg, Arnold Böcklin, Hans von Marées, Wilhelm Leibl, Fritz von Uhde, Wilhelm Trübner und Max Klinger.
Im Gebäude der benachbarten Orangerie sind Werke der Sammlung und Neuankäufe aus den Jahren nach 1952 zu sehen. In zwei integrierten Grafikkabinetten gibt das Kupferstichkabinett Einblick in seinen Bestand zeitgenössischer Kunst auf Papier. Aus der Zeit nach 1945 finden sich die Arbeiten Araber mit Fußspuren von Jean Dubuffet, Schwammrelief >RE 48:Sol.1960< von Yves Klein, Ehrung des Quadrates: Gelbes Zentrum von Josef Albers, das Stadtbild F von Gerhard Richter und die Fixe Idee von Georg Baselitz in der Kunsthalle. Die Sammlung der Klassischen Moderne wanderte in das Hauptgebäude. Beispiele für Gemälde aus der Zeit bis 1945 sind Der Eiffelturm von Robert Delaunay, die Improvisation 13 von Wassily Kandinsky, Rehe im Wald II von Franz Marc, Leute am blauen See von August Macke, das Selbstbildnis Der Maler von Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, das Merzbild 21b von Kurt Schwitters, Der Wald von Max Ernst, Torturm II von Lyonel Feininger, Die Sieben Todsünden von Otto Dix und der Abtransport der Sphinxe von Max Beckmann. Darüber hinaus zeigt das Museum regelmäßig Sonderausstellungen.
Focus accuracy test with my new 2nd Contax G2 camera body and the Carl Zeiss Sonnar 90mm. Fuji Velvia 50. Scanned with Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 without any post processing. Tübingen, Neckarinsel, November 2014.
Pinky Orchid from Royal Adelaide Show for you for this Monday my dear friends!!!
Have a super great week ahead!!!!!!!!!!!
Parachuting Accuracy rounds at the FAI World Air Games 2015, Dubai, on the morning of 9 December 2015.
Photos; James Pagram / FAI Media Team
In 2014 LRAM INC. and Accuracy International Came together to produce a new Anti-Tank Rifle for the British. The Product was the LRAM ASR-30. taking concepts from both LRAM and the AS-10's designs, this product became very successful. This Rifle was given the name "Mountain Rifle" because it was mainly used on high mountain peaks to provide long distance coverage.
RealLifeSkin™ hand prostheses are custom designed for each individual to ensure proper fit, accuracy and maximum prosthetic function. Passive RealLifeSkin™ hand prostheses are attached by suction and form fitting, usually donned in the morning and removed at the end of the day.
Custom designed Phalanx-Phlex™ passive-adjustable armatures can be placed into the fingers of the prostheses. These armatures enable the prosthetic fingers to be bent into different positions. This is an important feature for those who wish to enable passive grasp or active grasp when there is a partial or total digit remaining.
The inside of RealLifeSkin™ hand prostheses are filled with a semi-soft silicone that is conformed around the remaining portion of the hand, filling the missing area. This formed silicone acts as a “three-dimensional puzzle piece” which cradles the residual hand allowing vibration transfer from the prosthetic fingers. This vibration transfer allows wearers to feel like the prosthesis is an extension of themselves- rather than a foreign attachment. This feeling is called proprioception.
There are numerous functional options, components and suspension methods available for our arm prostheses. These prosthetic options are explored during consultation.
An FDA inspector checks the accuracy of a scale during a feed mill establishment inspection in the early 1960s.
For more information about FDA history visit www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/default.htm
And now a side view to appreciate the accuracy of the car profile
Building Instructions and Sticker Sheet are available on Rebrickable:
rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-98638/AbFab74/ferrari-f40-speed-...
Melons (Cucumis melo) in fruit and vegetable markets of the Oloy Bozori Bazaar in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. Photographed on 22 October 2006.
400 students from five campuses attended the 14th Annual Careers Fair at ESCP Europe’s London Campus in October 2019.
Participants took part in speed-interview sessions with top employers, and had the opportunity to meet and network with international recruiters based in the UK and Europe.
Over 200 students attended the speed interviews moderated by 20 representatives from different companies. These were followed by a presentation on careers at the global financial services firm UBS, delivered by the UBS Talent Recruitment team, which drew 120 ambitious students.
The Careers Fair exhibition took place in the afternoon, welcoming 17 guest companies from industries such as Banking, Private Equity, Consultancy, Marketing and Digital Marketing, Media, Tech, Fintech and Aviation. These included Bloomberg, Babcock International, ING, NHS Property Services, Houlihan Lokey, SKY, Splunk, S&P Global, Accuracy, Jellysmack, StepStone, and more.