In this episode, we can’t decide on one item for each topic, so instead we bring you a grab bag of grab bags. Jay talks about backwards aircraft carriers and the origin of the minimap, John tells you about news which was fresh when we recorded and old when we publish, and new audio setup reduces Jay’s obnoxious breathing noises by up to 80%.
Further reading
John breaks the Wilson Combat EDC X9 story several hours before any major source
John decides the EDC X9 is stupid
Continue reading
Back in 1983, Sgt. Dennis Tueller of the Salt Lake Police Department posited a fun problem. Suppose you are a police officer with a gun in a duty rig1. Suppose that in front of you, there’s an evildoer with a knife. He will take his knife and charge you.2 As he does, you will draw and shoot him. Clearly, when he is far away, you will shoot him before he gets to you. And clearly if he is very close, he will stab you before you get your gun out. What’s the distance at which you will tie? I.e. you shoot him and he stabs you.
Sgt. Tueller worked this distance out to be about 21 feet.
Which isn’t a lot. Let’s look further. Clearly, Tueller couldn’t actually run the test as written. Officers aren’t likely to want to get stabbed or shot. So he had officers draw to a man-sized target at a given distance (say seven yards) away, and another officer that same distance behind the shooter. On a buzzer, the first officer would try to draw and shoot, and the second officer would try to tap the first one on the shoulder. Ties happened when that distance was seven yards, or 21 feet.
Sgt. Tueller also worked this out theoretically. He and his cop buddies worked on their gunfighting skills, including their draw. They averaged a time to draw and get a hit on a man sized target of 1.5 seconds. And in 1.5 seconds, a reasonably athletic adult (e.g. one of them) could run an average of 21 feet (also their distance to target).
Of course, it’s all a thought experiment. There are many other avenues of attack available to the foe with a melee weapon. But let’s tug at this further.
You might have noticed a bit of an assumption above. The man size target is fixed at the starting distance, when we are thinking or testing. But our hypothetical attacker will be charging. So the target will get larger. By the time we get our gun out and up, he might be only a couple yards from us, and that’s a significantly easier shooting problem.
Since he will be so close, we might also consider shooting without full extension. We might call this a retention position. Specifically, we have the gun in a full, two-handed grip, pointed at the target, only a few inches from our chest. The same position we’re in partway through a draw. Note that the gun should be close to your chest, but not so close that the slide will thwack you. Also, it bears repeating, two hands in a full, firm grip, pointed at the target. If you’re in position Sul, you’re doing it wrong.
Why are we using this position? Well, the target will be close enough that we can get away without using our sights all that much. Plus, it’ll give us time to get a few more shots on the target. We have a pistol. Pistols are not good at making people stop. We can make them a little better at this by shooting often. If he’s worth shooting once, he’s worth shooting a lot.
Okay. So we’ve attacked two assumptions already. There’s another big one here. Have you spotted it yet?
We’re not moving. In the above problem, our shooter is stationary. Probably not very realistic.
If someone is charging you with a knife, it’s not likely that you’ll stand still. You might turn and run. And you could shoot over your shoulder; the knife wielder will be close. But he’s charging. And frankly, I don’t like my odds. I suspect I’ll probably end up getting run down if I tried this.
We might try moving sideways. Now we’re getting somewhere. We’re forcing him to change direction. This will make him slow down a bit, and keep the attacker in front of us, making our shots easier. But we’re not forcing a radical change of direction, and we can’t move sideways all that fast while shooting. Better.
Our sideways move is good because it forces a direction change, which forces the attacker to slow down. Time is our friend. Let’s try to force more direction changes.
Suppose we moved at an oblique angle towards the attacker. So if he’s coming at us on a bearing of zero degrees, move on the 60-75ish degree line. We’ll have to move that way and turn to keep our sights on the target, but that’s fine. We’re going to force the attacker to turn aggressively, since we’re going out wide. And we can repeat the process every time he orients himself on us. Which will look goofy and spiral-like from above, but it will maximize our time to riddle our foe with bullets before he can get all stabby.
This isn’t exactly intuitive, but that’s ok. We train so that we develop correct thinking and proper technique. That is the point of training.
There’s a notion floating about the internet that to “Get Good” at shooting, one ought to shoot a gun that is difficult to shoot well. E.g. to learn follow through, you ought to shoot a flintlock rifle, as these have long lock times. In fact, you should shoot it offhand (read: standing), so that you don’t have good support to assist you.
Bullshit.
What should you train with? The gun you use most, which is probably a gun you like. If you haven’t a gun, buy something modern and use that. If you buy a hunting rifle, for example, put the sort of glass you’d use in the field on it. If you buy a carbine, mount the red dot or variable power optic you’d want to use on it.
The notion in the opening assumes that you’re a very self-disciplined shooter, that you’re a good enough shooter to correctly understand how to apply the fundamentals in question (in the above example, follow through, but this could be whatever aspect of shooting you please), that you know how to self-diagnose your own errors, and that your other fundamentals are reasonably sound.
So yes, you need good follow through to shoot a flintlock rifle well. You also need good eyesight to use the small irons on a flintlock rifle, and good upper body strength and offhand shooting technique to properly hold the rifle steady. If you lack those other things, your shots will not hit the mark, and you won’t have any idea why.
I don’t know about you, dear reader, but if I am honest with myself, or ask my subconcious, whom I cannot lie to, I’ll tell you that the above doesn’t describe me on my best days. If I fired a flintlock rifle as a training aid I would get incredibly frustrated at just about everything. And I’d have a bunch of convenient excuses for my poor shooting, presuming the frustration didn’t make me hurl the thing over the berm and take up golf.
No gun that has ever been called “hard to shoot well” is ever called that for one single thing. It is a collection of many factors. So you’re not isolating a single thing to work on. This isn’t the gym where you get to isolate muscle groups. You’ve got the whole thing. So did you miss with that Kentucky Rifle because it’s heavy and the gun wobbled a lot? Or was it because you couldn’t see the sights? Or because the trigger is heavy and gritty? Or because you didn’t follow through? Or maybe you flinched? See, it could be any one of those things. Or a combination of all of the above.
Self diagnosis is hard. It’s one of the reasons why training classes are so good. Because it’s a lot easier to see errors in others. And to be honest with what you see in others. It’s hard to be honest with yourself. There’s a gun that’s hard to shoot right there! And we like to lie to ourselves. A trained professional instructor will spot things we’re doing badly, and things we think we are doing well but aren’t.
Or you could set yourself up with a pretty good gun and not have excuses. You don’t need to spend a fortune. Just get something modern and solid. Example: I carry Glocks. I compete with Glocks. So guess what gun comes with me to class and to the range for practice? Yep: A Glock. Now, I don’t put a crazy race trigger in most of my Glocks, but I do like the factory “minus” or the TTI “minus” connectors. And I certainly don’t make myself miserable by putting in an NY2 trigger spring for a 12 lb trigger pull. My Glock 34, for example, has a few optimized controls that I like. And a factory minus connector. The pull was pretty good out of the box. I did my best to zero the sights from a bench. And then, at class, or when I’m practicing on my own, I know that errors are on me. Maybe my follow through needs work. Ok. No problem. I can work on that with the Glock, or any other gun. And as I do so, I’m going to be having fun.
I like shooting my Glocks. They’re fun to shoot. They fit me well. And I’m also quite used to the characteristics of them. All that practice means that they’re very familiar. And, given all the training, I know what I can do with them. Which means there’s nothing more comforting on my hip than the Glock 34 that I took to class. And with that on my hip in class, and sights zeroed beforehand, I knew that any screwups are on me. Could I make it easier to shoot? Sure. But I could also make life suck for myself. And I didn’t. I could have been dumb and taken a brace of flintlock pistols to a class, but I didn’t.
If you like shooting weird and exotic things, knock yourself out. But don’t feel that you have to. Or that its optimal. Truth be told, focusing on one quality platform is almost certainly the optimal route if you want to minimize the time taken. But “minimize” is a relative term. It’s gonna take a lot of shooting to make USPSA Grandmaster Class. So do it on a platform you love.
Also, if you want to occasionally pick up something else, and enjoy shooting it for it’s own sake, feel free. Feel free to enjoy it for its own sake, and don’t feel like it has to be your training tool.
We often remark that it’s the shooter, not the tool, to discourage newer shooters from chasing every gadget under the sun in a vain effort to make up for skill. Well, just like a new Blastomatic 2000 won’t magically make you a better shooter overnight, it won’t make your practice better overnight either. You still have to put in the work, and focus.
Want to make it faster? The right answer is training with a good instructor. Bad equipment will just make you take up golf.
Wilson Combat’s new EDC X9 is stupid.
There, I said it!
This isn’t to say it’s a bad gun, or that you’re stupid for wanting one ‘just cause’. That’s fine. This is America1. A free country. And you can buy whatever you like with your hard-earned money. I won’t stop you. It’s a nifty design from an engineering perspective.
But selling stuff isn’t just about engineering. It’s also about marketing. So let’s review what we know about the EDC X9 and then put on our business-guy hats.
The EDC X9 is a double-stack 1911 design (a ‘2011’), that comes with 15 round magazines derived from those in the Walther PPQ M2. It has an aluminum frame and weighs a bit over 29 oz. empty. The trigger pull should be between 3.5 and 4.5 lbs. And the pistol costs just shy of $2,900.
Now, a double stack 1911 screams competition. That’s where those pistols live. They are most popular in the Limited and Open divisions of USPSA (and IPSC, the parent organization). They’re very popular because you can combine a great trigger with a lot of ammo and plenty of weight. Other popular limited guns include the Glock 35 and the CZ-75 family (including derivatives made by EAA and Tanfoglio). Let’s see how the EDC X9 compares with them.
Caliber: The EDC X9 is chambered in 9 mm. Nearly all serious Limited guns are chambered in .40, to take advantage of Major Power Factor scoring, which is lower score penalties for hits outside the A-Zone of the IPSC target. This lower penalty is pretty significant, and as a result most serious competitors make Major, usually by going with a .40 gun, since it’s easy to make power factor in .40.
Magazines: Magazine length in Limited must not exceed the 140 mm gauge. In this length, a 2011 can fit 20 rounds of .40. Stock full-size .40 Glock magazines hold 15 rounds, and can be combined with an extender to also hold 20 rounds of .40 while staying under the 140 mm length limit. On a PPQ M2, you’re looking at 18 rounds of .40 with the basepad extensions, which is what we could compete with in an EDC X40, if there was such a thing. A little less than ideal.
Size/Sight Radius: Competitors don’t have to bother with concealment, so they tend to go for full size or long slide pistols. The EDC X9 is a compact. Less slide to work with. Less sight radius.
Further, at the price point you’re looking at for an EDC X9, you’re also looking at semicustom 2011s from guys like Brazos. They’ll be able to set up a gun the way you like. Want specific trigger tuning? You got it. Want a superlight slide and a superheavy frame/barrel/guiderod? No problem. Big mag funnel? But of course. The EDC X9 is a pretty specific package, and they don’t have the same kind of options as the hardcore 2011 builders. Entry level open guns are also price competitive with the EDC X9, not to mention ridiculous custom packages for Glocks and CZs. And practice ammo.
Okay. Suppose you’re not looking for the ultimate competition gun. Suppose you want a really good trigger. Maybe for carry. Maybe for more casual competition. Whatever. Well, you can get much better mag availability, and save a lot of money by looking elsewhere and having some modifications done. If you like striker fired guns, you can get some really great triggers in them if you know where to look. For example, if you start with a Glock, or have one lying around, talk to DK Custom Triggers for a phenomenal trigger kit. Professionally tuned, and serious competitors love these triggers. If you like HKs or SIGs (striker or hammer fired), contact Gray Guns. Get an awesome trigger. If you like hammer fired guns, CZ Custom also sets up some fantastic triggers in their guns. And if you’re heart is set on a real Single Action trigger, take a long, hard look at the SIG P226 Legion SAO. You’ll really like the trigger.
Any of those options will come in significantly cheaper than the EDC X9. They’ll have really good triggers. You’ll be able to afford a whole bunch of ammo to get to know your new blaster better. And some professional instruction so you don’t practice bad habits.
And yes, I know EDC is probably intended to stand for Every Day Carry. Very unwise. Get in a shooting, that gun is going to spend some time in an evidence locker. Are you going to want your $2,900 blaster to sit in an evidence locker for a while? Didn’t think so. You’ll carry something cheaper. And I’m not even talking about all those people who think something a bit bigger than a Glock 19 is ‘too much gun for carry’. And all of the above applies if you’re looking for a carry gun with a great trigger too. You can get a pair of matching, tuned pistols from the list above for less than $2,900.
So, whatever you’re looking for, the EDC X9 is suboptimal. Unless you just think it’s cool. Then go for it. Also, feel free to show off that you have more money than sense.
[Editor’s note (11/2020): okay, Internet randos, I spend an awful lot of time cleaning up garbage comments on this post. So, since most of you land here from God knows where, get fired up, and start mashing your keyboards to bang out yet another rage-fueled diatribe like so many before you whose comments I also unceremoniously deleted, I’d like to direct you to our comment policy: you are permitted to be at most one of rude and wrong. We, being the people who go to the effort of running this place, are allowed to be both. Take a look at the existing comments, remember that I’m a lot less patient about this post now than I was a few years ago when I allowed them, and save yourself the trouble of slaving over that assault on English and reason for an hour and so save me the trouble of sending it immediately to the trash can. -Fishbreath (i.e., not the author of this piece, but still fed up with its readership)]
I’m a nerd. I love Star Wars. And I also love tactics and training in martial arts. What better way to combine them than by talking movie fights and what they do right/wrong? Let’s take a look at the fight between Jango and Obi-Wan on the Kamino platform. It’s a really exciting fight. Like most movie fights not directed by Michael Mann, it does this without being technically well executed. I’ll break it down into sections and comment on each.
I’ll be covering Jango’s (and a couple things from Boba) here, mostly because my expertise is there. I know a good bit about shooting and punching people. However, I’m not a Jedi, and I don’t know the limitations of the Force. Also, I’m a poor swordsman and a worse force user. So I won’t comment on Obi-Wan’s techniques here.
The fight opens with Boba seeing Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan draws and ignites his lightsaber, and Jango goes for his blaster pistols. Screw talking.
Jango opens fire, and uses his jetpack to get some standoff range.
1.) Jango has a reasonably quick rate of fire here. I might expect better with two guns, but then, I don’t know how well that scales. His times between shots are pretty good here. I’ll save any further snarking about the inferiority of the use of two pistols at once for another article.
2.) Using the jetpack to maintain separation (and get more) is a good idea.
3.) Jango does quite a bit of shooting on the move in the opening. Ordinarily, I’d be very strongly opposed to it. Generally, you give up more in accuracy than you gain in becoming a harder target to hit. Of course, that conventional wisdom assumes an enemy who also has a ranged weapon and that you’re moving on your feet. Given that the jetpack seems to move him in a relatively stable fashion, I’ll give this one to him. His accuracy isn’t affected in much of a negative way compared to his initial volley either.
Jango uses his jetpack to hide behind a column. Having given Obi-Wan a visual slip (and having holstered his blasters), he fires a missile from his jetpack.
4.) That’s a good move. Not sure why he didn’t do that earlier, since he doesn’t appear to need his hands free to do it. The missile is sort of effective–it gets Obi-Wan to drop his lightsaber. As usual, Hollywood has no idea what explosions do. That should have hurt a lot more judging by proximity of the blast and likely fragments. Hollywood explosions are big on pretty fireballs. Real explosions are big on fragments, pressure waves, perforated eardrums, and death. They don’t look as good as a big, gasoline-based fireball.
5.) He really should press the attack once the missile hits. Shock and awe only works if you keep with the up-tempo attacks. Jango is old enough and experienced enough to know better than to sit back and admire his handiwork.
Boba now gets in on the action by deploying Slave I’s blasters, which knocks Obi-Wan back again.
6.) Not sure why Boba stops shooting to watch. He seems to have done okay using shipboard sensors before. Don’t admire your handiwork! Press your advantage! Boba’s a kid though, so maybe Jango hasn’t gotten this lesson in his head yet. It usually takes a lot of coachly yelling in the boxing gym or wherever you learn hitting for this lesson to stick.
Jango leaves his perch to engage Obi-Wan, apparently closing the distance, blasters drawn. Obi-Wan catches Jango with a flying sidekick, sending his blasters flying.
7.) And you were doing so well. This part makes no sense. Why leave your perch? Why come down? Why close the distance? There’s the column you were hiding behind, another column, and your ship in terms of high places to be. Blasters are ranged weapons. You can shoot the lightsaber-less jedi from your perch. Or from midair. You should not be close enough for a flying sidekick, force-assist or no. Maintain distance on the melee fighter and shoot him. The jetpack should be helping you keep your distance here.
8.) If he wanted to change position, doing it while the ship attacks would have been better. Or in a direction not towards the Jedi.
9.) During his descent, Jango isn’t shooting, even though his blasters are clearly drawn. He was shooting during the ascent, so he can clearly shoot in flight reasonably well. If it made sense on the ascent (and it seemed to) it should here as well. Probably even more so since Obi’s not blocking without his lightsaber.
There’s a good bit of hand-to-hand fighting between Jango and Obi Wan, who are pretty evenly matched. Obi-Wan has some more good kicks, some blocked, some aren’t. Jango has a wild right haymaker that gets blocked and gets separation with a headbutt.
10.) Not sure why he doesn’t fire his jetpack to regain separation here. Unless he’s trying to keep Obi-Wan’s hands occupied. In which case, he’s not doing it well, and he should be going for the wrestling/grappling stuff.
11.) Jango has a very strange arsenal. He seems to carry a shitton of gear, but lacks a knife, which would help a lot in a close fight like this.
12.) Jango does have wrist blades, at least in his right gauntlet. But he does not use them here, and this is the perfect opportunity. Blades are great in a close fight. Admittedly, blades on the side of the forearm look cool but are really hard to actually use.
13.) He also doesn’t use the flamethrower in his left gauntlet. Again, this seems a good time for it. Unless his armor/clothing aren’t flame resistant.
14.) Nor does he use the mini rocket that appears to be on his left gauntlet (but he never uses this ever in the movie, so who knows what that actually is).
15.) It’s also odd to me that Jango doesn’t carry a small blaster as a back up gun, given how much other shit he’s got. If he gained separation with the jetpack (or after the headbutt) he could use a back up gun to good effect.
16.) That wild punch. That is the kind of punch you expect from an untrained dude. Probably a big dude. Jango isn’t big. He’s about medium height (Obi-Wan is a bit taller) and fit. He isn’t super heavy. As someone whose profession depends on his ability to kick ass, he should be a lot more technical with his striking. One telegraphed, wild haymaker is not what I’d expect from him. We should see a tighter combo.
17.) The headbutt was a good choice. Especially because he’s got a helmet and Obi-Wan doesn’t.
Obi-Wan tries to retrieve his lightsaber with the force. Jango activates his jetpack, uses a whipcord to tie Obi Wan’s hands, and starts dragging him.
18.) I don’t understand this either. Clearly lacking another blaster, Jango chooses to use his whipcord to wrap up Obi-Wan’s hands. And then drag him. A more effective choice here given the equipment would be to activate his jetpack and hit Obi-Wan linebacker style. You’ve got a helmet, he doesn’t. It’s gonna hurt him a lot more than it hurts you.
19.) Another good chance for flamethrower usage, depending on its range. In general, Hollywood flamethrowers are propane torches, which look cool, but don’t have the range of the real deal (which use heavier fuel).
Jango drags Obi-Wan along the platform. Obi-Wan wraps the cable around a pylon, forcing Jango to crash and his jetpack to malfunction.
20.) Yeah, still don’t see the point of this, and it lost you your damn jetpack. Fucking moron. Why he doesn’t drag Obi-Wan directly towards the water is beyond me. Or just jettison the cord.
Jango goes for his dropped blaster. Obi-Wan charges him and knocks him off the platform with another flying sidekick.
21.) Jango gets tunnel vision here for that gun. He’s not really aware of how quickly Obi-Wan is closing in.
22.) A backup blaster would be helpful here too. It’d be a lot quicker to get into action than running to retrieve your dropped pistol.
23.) Dealing with the charging opponent is more important than getting your blaster into play. This could easily be a tackle or a takedown. Avoid or stuff that first before getting your gun into action. This is running into Tueller territory, which is probably for another post. Suffice to stay, standing still is a bad idea.
24.) Full arm extension is a poor choice for that sort of shot, given how close Obi-Wan is. A chest index is a lot better for not leaving your gun out there to be grabbed, and getting more than one shot off. This is kind of hard to explain, but what Jango does here is a Bad Idea.
There’s not much tactics to the rest of the fight. Jango falls, dragging Obi-Wan with him, and manages to release the cable before Obi-Wan drags him into the sea. Cue dramatic escape, homing beacon, and another fight, now with starships.
The double stack 1911, colloquially known as a “2011”, is super popular amongst competitive shooters. And for good reason. Combining the short, light, tunable 1911-type trigger with modern magazine capacities is a winning recipe. The problem is in the magazines. They’re not reliable. Want ones that work? Be prepared to shell out $140 per tuned magazine. And don’t drop them in the dirt. And there’s not any kind of overinsertion stop on the magazines, so if you jam them in with the slide locked back, you can jam them inside the gun, and you’ll need tools to get it out. Have fun.
Wilson Combat is working to change that. They’re about to release a brand new pistol: the EDC X91. It’s chambered in 9 mm. It’s got that 1911 SAO trigger goodness. And best of all, it uses reliable, modified PPQ M22 mags. Yes, that’s right. A 2011 with cheap, reliable mags.
It should sell well at it’s price point of a trifle under $3000. I’m sure competitors would prefer it in .40 for that major power factor scoring. And it’s competing with a bunch of tuned limited and open guns at that price. But they don’t take reliable magazines.
Let’s have some fun with rumors, speculation, and armchair analysis, shall we?
We don’t know very much about Russia’s new tank, the T-14. In my review, I made the tacit (and completely groundless) assumption that the turret shell concealed some heavy protection for the gun. Something tank-like, i.e. that the frontal armor of the gun could be expected to withstand APFSDS rounds as well as big, high end ATGMs. Like the front of the turret of a Leopard 2A6/-A7/-E or an M1A2.
Let’s try to poke at this assumption a little, shall we?
First off, let’s forget about side protection. No tank in existence can take a modern sabot round to the turret flank and not care. Focus on the front. Clearly, the outer “shell” has negligible protective value. It does hold a lot of systems, most of which are fragile. Of course, there’s nothing else behind the turret face, so hits there will probably tear straight through the fragile sensors and APS effectors. The gun mantlet is not readily apparent, and the outer shell seems to be in the way. Compare the M1A2 and the Leopard 2A6, both of which have big, thick mantlet armor atop and around the main gun. This is curiously absent from the T-14.
Remember, composite armors trade weight for thickness especially when compared to an equivalent mass of steel. So if we want to stop sabot rounds from a tank, we’re going to need a bunch of bulk. And since we’d like to be able to elevate and depress our gun, we’re going to expect to see quite a bit of exposed, movable bulk.
We can also find some images showing a T-14 turret mounted on the relatively light (28-30 tonne) Kurganets APC hull. So there’s at least one lightweight version of the turret out there. Of course, the shell could hide more armor on the T-14 version, maybe. We can’t rule out two versions. Now, it’s hard to figure out how one could hide bulky composites under the shell, given its shape and attachment methods, but we really can’t be sure about anything. The Kurganets hull is a little unusual if only because this idea has gotten very little traction elsewhere. The Swedes have a CV90 version with a low-pressure 120 mm gun prototyped, but have not ordered it and have not achieved any sales. The US Army has a version of the Stryker with a 105 mm gun and autoloader, but this version hasn’t been too popular. The US Army has moved to add more conventional autocannon firepower to some Stryker APCs to get more firepower in the Stryker Brigade Combat Team. So no one else really likes this concept.
We should also note that T-14 has a lot of active protection system effectors. There are ten tubes for the Afghanit hard-kill APS, five on each side of the turret. Additionally, there are two boxes of twelve soft-kill (likely some kind of obscurant) effectors facing outward, one box on each side of the turret, and another twenty-four soft kill effectors in a vertically configured box to protect the roof. That is an awful lot of active protection.
For comparison, the Merkava IV has a Trophy (hard-kill) APS launcher on each side of the turret. Each launcher holds three effectors. No additional soft-kill system is mounted on Merkava. Of course, Merkava IV is also heavily armored, and Trophy is seen as a supplement for flank protection against high-end ATGMs (e.g. Kornet).
So what might this mean? Well, we know that the T-14 has a bigger hull than T-72. Scaling comparisons will tell us this. Also, we know that we have to fit all three crewmen up front, so that front compartment must be significantly bigger to accomodate the three crewmen plus all of the displays and computers. Also, loads of hull armor, since the front appears to be quite thick (it’s sloped, and likely some kind of composite or composite + ERA, all of which takes space). We don’t actually save all that much room in the turret basket, since we still have to have some sort of (probably vertical) carousel for enough rounds to make all this worthwhile. And while the engine is a weird X-configuration model, it’s quite a bit more powerful than the one on T-72, and it still needs a radiator, transmission, and of course fuel. So we’d expect the hull to be noticeably bigger, and this agrees with what we can see from playing with scaling.
We also know that while the T-14 is heavier than the T-72, it’s still a light MBT. While it’s hard to draw comparisons to Western analogues, we do note the large hull and thick glacis armor would eat up a lot of mass.
Historically, the Russians have been quite strict about the weight of their tanks, simply because their infrastructure can’t take the weight of big Western tanks.1 For this reason, they pioneered the autoloader in the 1960s, and made heavier use of ERA than anyone else. Both are lighter than their respective alternatives. It’s quite possible that something had to give to keep the weight within tolerances, and the designers chose to accept a less well protected gun. Active protection systems are pretty good at defeating ATGMs, and they’ve made sure to have something for both direct-attack and top-attack weapons. In the current small wars, they’re not likely worried about sabots.
Further, the roof seems like it would blow-out in the event the ammunition storage compartment is compromised, and there are a pair of blow-out panels on the T-14’s belly. So ammunition cook-off will not likely kill the crew. Further, the Russians have put an escape hatch on the floor of the crew compartment. Good for them.
Could Afghanit be effective against sabot rounds? Specifically, the kind of APFSDS rounds fired by a modern tank gun (120 or 125 mm). Again, we can’t know for sure. It might be possible. But I’m disinclined to believe the present statements about it. Afghanit looks to shoot some kind of fragmentation or mini-EFP warhead to damage incoming projectiles. It’s simple and cheap, and works great against RPGs and ATGMs. But these are relatively fragile. An APFSDS round is a solid rod of some dense alloy (based on depleted uranium or tungsten), and it’s moving a lot faster than a missile.
It’s certainly not impossible to intercept an APFSDS round, but it’s a lot more difficult than intercepting a rocket. And the extent to which you disrupt it is important. You intercepted it. Great. What’s the effect? Is it destroyed? Damaged? Destabilized? If the round is still incoming, how much armor is needed to stop it? And what was the incoming speed and penetrator design? Test details are, naturally, hard to find. So color me skeptical that Afghanit can reduce the effectiveness of modern APFSDS rounds2 sufficiently for a lightly armored turret3 to be able to stop them.
Okay. So what do we think? Given the large amount of active protection systems, the reported wait, the size of the hull, and the nature of the turret shell, I think it’s quite possible the Russians are taking the T-14 in a new direction with a less protected main gun. They’ve pushed the envelope before. Some things have caught on, some things haven’t. This isn’t a notion I’m overly fond of, but that’s ok. The proof is in the combat, and the Russians will likely get into some before too long4. The keen observer might then be able to learn something as to whether or not these ideas work.
I’m a big fan of the VP9. It’s a great pistol at a good price point. It has the best ergonomics around, an excellent trigger, and it handles recoil well. Of course, there are always things people want.
And HK has listened.1
The new models (currently released in the European SFP- series nomenclature, because someone else has the trademark for VP- there) are as follows:
Am I interested? Of course I am. There are also two other pistol options available that aren’t of much interest to me, but might be of interest to you:
Finally, HK is introducing new, bigger, badder, factory 20 round magazines. Score. I love me some extended magazines.
I’ve found these to be quite hard to find on the net. All do not include supplementary drop tank options. Except where specified, variants have the same capacity of the original.
| Vehicle | Fuel (US Gal) | Fuel (L) |
|---|---|---|
| M1 | 505 | 1,907.6 |
| M1 with UAAPU | 450 | 1,703.4 |
| Leopard 2 | 317.0 | 1,200 |
| Challenger 2 | 420.6 | 1,592 |
| Leclerc | 343.4 | 1,300 |
| K2 | 342.4 | 1,296 |
| Namer | 369.8 | 1,400 |
| Merkava IV | 369.8 | 1,400 |
| T-72 | 264.2 | 1,000 |
| T-80B | 486.1 | 1,840 |
| T-80U | 467.6 | 1,770 |
| T-90 | 317.0 | 1,200 |
| T-14 | 426.6 | 1,615 |
| M2 | 197 | 745.7 |
| CV9030/CV9035 | 221.9 | 840 |
| SPz Puma | 237.8 | 900 |
| ASCOD | 227.2 | 860 |
| Boxer MRAV | 145.3 | 550 |
| BMP-1 | 122.0 | 462 |
| BMP-2 | 122.0 | 460 |
| BMP-3 | 184.9 | 700 |
| M113 | 80 | 302.8 |
| M113A1 | 95 | 359.6 |
| Marder 1 | 172.2 | 652 |
| Stryker | 52.8 | 200 |
| BTR-80 | 79.3 | 300 |
| BTR-90 | 79.3 | 300 |
| M270 | 163 | 617.0 |
| M109 | 135 | 511 |
| 2S1 | 145.3 | 550 |
| Panzerhaubitze 2000 | 264.2 | 1,000 |
| K9 Thunder | 224.5 | 850 |
| Centauro | 137.4 | 520 |
| G6/G6-52/G6-52L | 184.9 | 700 |
This post is largely superseded by a new post on the same topic. The new post includes more step-by-step setup instructions for an audio-focused Linux distribution, tips for how to use digital audio workstation tools to manage multiple microphones, and hardware recommendations for podcasting use.
The Crossbox Podcast is going upmarket: I now have two USB microphones, and for the March episode, parvusimperator and I will each have one directly in front of us. This is a wonderful advance for audio quality, but it does pose some problems:
Modern Linux, fortunately, can help us out here. We have need of several components. First, obviously, we need two microphones. I have a Blue Snowball and a CAD Audio U37, with which I’ve tested this procedure1. Second, we need a computer with at least two USB ports. Third, we need the snd-aloop kernel module. (If your Linux has ALSA, you probably already have this.) Fourth, we need JACK, the Linux low-latency audio server. Fifth, we need the QJackCtl program.
Before I describe what we’re going to do, I ought to provide a quick refresher in Linux audio infrastructure. If you use Ubuntu or Mint, or most other common distributions, there are two layers to your system’s audio. Closest to the hardware is ALSA, the kernel-level Advanced Linux Sound Architecture. It handles interacting with your sound card, and provides an API to user-level applications. The most common user-level application is the PulseAudio server, which provides many of the capabilities you think of as part of your sound system, such as volume per application and the ‘sound’ control panel in your Linux flavor of choice. (Unless you don’t use Pulse.)
JACK is a low-latency audio server; that is, a user-level application in the same vein as Pulse. It has fewer easily accessible features, but allows us to do some fancy footwork in how we connect inputs to outputs.
Now that you have the background, here’s what we’re going to do to connect two mono USB microphones to one computer, then send them to one two-channel ALSA device, then record in Audacity. These instructions should work for any modern Linux flavor. Depending on the particulars of your system, you may even be able to set up real-time monitoring.
We’ll also look at some extended and improved uses, including some potential fixes for real-time monitoring.
Create an ALSA loopback device
The ALSA loopback device is a feature of the kernel module snd-aloop. All you need to do is # modprobe snd-aloop and you’re good to go. Verify that the loopback device is present by checking for it in the output of aplay -l.
The loopback device is very straightforward: any input to a certain loopback device will be available as output on a different loopback device. ALSA devices are named by a type string (such as ‘hw’), followed by a colon, then a name or number identifying the audio card, a comma, and the device number inside the card. Optionally, there may be another comma and a subdevice number. Let’s take a look at some examples.
hw:1,0: a hardware device, card ID 1, device ID 0.hw:Loopback,1,3: a hardware device, card name Loopback, device ID 1, sub-device ID 3.For the loopback device, anything input to device ID 1 and a given sub-device ID n (that is, hw:Loopback,1,n) will be available as output on hw:Loopback,0,n, and vice versa. This will be important later.
Install JACK
You should be able to find JACK in your package manager2, along with Jack Rack. In Ubuntu and derivatives, the package names are ‘jackd’ and ‘jack-rack’.
Build QJackCtl
QJackCtl is a Qt5 application. To build it, you’ll need qt5 and some assorted libraries and header packages. I run Linux Mint; this is the set I had to install.
Once you’ve installed those, unpack the QJackCtl archive in its own directory, and run ./configure and make in that directory. The output to configure will tell you if you can’t continue, and should offer some guidance on what you’re missing. Once you’ve successfully built the application, run make install as root.
Run QJackCtl
Run qjackctl from a terminal. We should take note of one feature in particular in the status window. With JACK stopped, you’ll notice a green zero, followed by another zero in parentheses, beneath the ‘Stopped’ label. This is the XRUN counter, which counts up whenever JACK doesn’t have time to finish a task inside its latency settings.
Speaking of, open the settings window. Front and center, you’ll see three settings: sample rate, frames per period, and periods per buffer. Taken together, these settings control latency. You’ll probably want to set the sample rate to 48000, 48 kHz; that’s the standard for USB microphones, and saves some CPU time. For the moment, set frames per period to 4096 and periods per buffer to 2. These are safe settings, in my experience. We’ll start there and (maybe) reduce latency later.
Close the settings window and press the ‘Start’ button in QJackCtl. After a moment or two, JACK will start. Verify that it’s running without generating any XRUN notifications. If it is generating XRUNs, skip down to here and try some of the latency-reduction tips, then come back when you’re done.
Use JACK’s alsa_in and alsa_out clients to let JACK access devices
Now we begin to put everything together. As you’ll recall, our goal is to take our two (mono) microphones and link them together into one ALSA device. We’ll first use the alsa_in client to create JACK devices for our two microphones. The alsa_in client solves problem #2 for us: its whole raison d’être is to allow us to use several ALSA devices at once which may differ in sample rate or clock drift.
Now, it’s time to plug in your microphones. Do so, and run arecord -l. You’ll see output something like this.
$ arecord -l
**** List of CAPTURE Hardware Devices ****
card 0: PCH [HDA Intel PCH], device 0: ALC295 Analog [ALC295 Analog]
Subdevices: 1/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
card 1: Audio [CAD Audio], device 0: USB Audio [USB Audio]
Subdevices: 1/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
card 2: Snowball [Blue Snowball], device 0: USB Audio [USB Audio]
Subdevices: 0/1
Subdevice #0: subdevice #0
This lists all the currently available capture hardware devices plugged into your system. Besides the first entry, the integrated microphone on my laptop, I have hw:1 or hw:Audio, the CAD Audio U37, and hw:2 or hw:Snowball, the Blue Snowball.
Next, set up alsa_in clients so JACK can access the microphones.
$ alsa_in -j snow -d hw:Snowball -c 1 -p 4096 -n 2 &
$ alsa_in -j cad -d hw:Audio -c 1 -p 4096 -n 2 &
Let’s go through the options. -j defines the label JACK will use for the microphone; make it something descriptive. -d declares which ALSA device JACK will open. -c declares the number of channels JACK will attempt to open.
On to the last two options: like the JACK settings above, -p defines the number of frames per period, and -n defines the number of periods per buffer. The documentation for alsa_in suggests that the total frames per buffer (frames per period multiplied by period) should be greater than or equal to JACK’s total frames per buffer.
Next, set up an alsa_out client for the ALSA loopback device.
$ alsa_out -j loop -d hw:Loopback,1,0 -p 4096 -n 2 &
The arguments here are the same as the arguments above.
Use QJackCtl to hook everything up
Now, we’re almost done. Go back to QJackCtl and open the Connect window. You should see a list of inputs on the left and a list of outputs on the right. Your inputs should include your two microphones, with the names you provided in your -j arguments. Your outputs should include system, which is linked to your system’s audio output, and an output named ‘loop’, the ALSA loopback device.
Assuming you have mono microphones, what you want to do is this: expand a microphone and highlight its input channel. Then, highlight the system output and hit ‘connect’ at the bottom of the window. This will connect the input channel to the left and right channels of your system audio output. At this point, you should be able to hear the microphone input through your system audio output. (I would recommend headphones.) The latency will be very high, but we’ll see about correcting that later.
If the audio output contains unexpected buzzing or clicking, your computer can’t keep up with the latency settings you have selected3. Skip ahead to the latency reduction settings. That said, your system should be able to keep up with the 4096/2 settings; they’re something of a worst-case scenario.
If the audio output is good, disconnect the microphones from the system output. Then, connect one microphone’s input to loop’s left channel, and one microphone input to loop’s right channel. Open Audacity, set the recording input to Loopback,04, and start recording. You should see audio from your microphones coming in on the left and right channel. Once you’re finished recording, you can split the stereo track into two mono tracks for individual editing, and there you have it: two USB microphones plugged directly into your computer, recording as one.
Recording more than two channels
Using Jack Rack, you can record as many channels as your hardware allows. Open Jack Rack, and using the ‘Channels’ menu item under the ‘Rack’ menu, set the number of channels you would like to record. In QJackCtl’s connections window, there will be a jackrack device with the appropriate number of I/O channels.
In Audacity, you can change the recording mode from ALSA to JACK, then select the jackrack device, setting the channel count to the correct number. When you record, you will record that many channels.
Jack Rack is, as the name suggests, an effects rack. You can download LADSPA plugins to apply various effects to your inputs and outputs. An amplifier, for instance, would give you volume control per input, which is useful in multi-microphone situations.
Reduce frames per period
If you’re satisfied with recording-only, or if you have some other means of monitoring, you can stop reading here. If, like me, you want to monitoring through your new Linux digital audio workstation, read on.
The first step is to start reducing the frames per period setting in JACK, and correspondingly in the alsa_in and alsa_out devices. If you can get down to 512 frames/2 periods without JACK xruns, you can probably call it a day. Note that Linux is a little casual with IRQ assignments and other latency-impacting decisions; what works one day may not work the next.
You can also try using lower frames per period settings, and higher periods per buffer settings, like 256/3 or 512/3. This may work for you, but didn’t work for me.
If you come to an acceptable monitoring latency, congratulations! You’re finished. If not, read on.
Fixing latency problems
Below, I provide three potential latency-reducing tactics, in increasing order of difficulty. At the bottom of the article, just above the footnotes, is an all-in-one solution which sacrifices a bit of convenience for a great deal of ease of use. My recommendation, if you’ve made it this far, is that you skip the three potential tactics and go to the one which definitely will work.
Further latency reduction: run JACK in realtime mode
If JACK is installed, run sudo dpkg-reconfigure -p high jackd (or dpkg-reconfigure as root).
Verify that this created or updated the /etc/security/limits.d/audio.conf file. It should have lines granting the audio group (@audio) permission to run programs at real-time priorities up to 95, and lock an unlimited amount of memory. Reboot, set JACK to use realtime mode in QJackCtl’s setup panel, and start JACK. Try reducing your latency settings again, and see what happens.
Further latency reduction: enable threaded IRQs
Threaded IRQs are a Linux kernel feature which help deliver interrupt requests5 more quickly. This may help reduce latency. Open /etc/default/grub. Inside the quotation marks at the end of the line which starts with GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX_DEFAULT, add threadirqs, and reboot.
Further latency reduction: run a low-latency or real-time kernel
If none of these help, you might try running a low-latency kernel. You can attempt to compile and use low-latency or real-time kernels; the Ubuntu Studio project provides them, and there are packages available for Debian. If you’ve come this far, though, I’d recommend the…
All-of-the-above solution: run an audio-focused Linux distribution
AV Linux is a Linux distribution focused on audio and video production. As such, it already employs the three tactics given above. It also includes a large amount of preinstalled, free, open-source AV software. It isn’t a daily driver distribution; rather, its foremost purpose is to be an audio or video workstation. It worked perfectly for me out of the box, and met my real-time monitoring and audio playback requirements for The Crossbox Podcast6. I recommend it wholeheartedly.
Given that my laptop is not primarily a podcast production device, I decided to carve a little 32gb partition out of the space at the end of my Windows partition, and installed AV Linux there. It records to my main Linux data partition instead of to the partition to which it is installed, and seems perfectly happy with this arrangement.
So am I. Anyway, thanks for reading. I hope it helped!