I’ve been wanting to make a new version of this set for a while now. I posted a very similar set to my old blog, and I liked it but the extremely sloppy rendering of the silhouettes really bothered me. So here’s a new, improved version
my opinions on the instruments since you guys are asking (reblog and add yours!!1!)
french horn: honestly so pure. i always think of Dvorak’s 9th when i hear them and u g h y e a s
tuba: my bias here should be obvious
euphonium / baritone: honestly they’re so pretty and cute and nice to listen to. basically improved versions of tubas (sorry @me)
flute: pretty but anyone who can play them is clearly dabbling in dark magic
mellophone: i haven’t met one but i really like their sound. its so nice and… not to be redundant but mellow
trumpet: tbh i could listen to trumpets all day. even beginning players sound amazing to me
trombone: i always listen to the trombones when i’m confused on my part, so they’re sort of my anchor. thanks frens
piccolo: similar to flutes but the notes are even prettier and the players are using even more dark magic
saxophone: honestly saxophones=awesome jazz to me, and i love jazz, so
clarinet: they sound like the ethereal wood fairy version of flutes (im not sure why i think this). there’s a really good clarinet player at our school so i always think of their solos when clarinets get brought up
oboe: like clarinets but more flute and less wood fairy
bassoon: oboes but stronger
percussion: thank you kind friends for keeping the beat when i am too lazy to count
piano: probably the very purest musical insturment
viola: like with french horns i always think of Dvorak and how awesome y'all’s parts are in his stuff
violin: amazing but also definitely dark magic
cello: i live to listen to cello solos. (also just Dvorak in general, but the two are intertwined)
bass: you’re the string version of me. i respect you
She changed the world of feminine care with the invention of the sanitary belt, the precursor to the self-adhesive maxi pad. She also has five patents covering various household items, including an improved version of the bathroom tissue holder. What else did she invent?
After the British Expeditionary Force’s retreat from Dunkirk in June 1940, Germany was expected to attempt a full-scale invasion of Britain. In order to accomplish this, they would need to eliminate the Royal Air Force, and as such, the RAF’s airfields were at serious risk. The RAF wanted a Schmeisser-type submachine gun issued to their personnel in the event of an attack from German paratroopers. The Navy had already ordered 2000 Smith & Wesson 9mm carbines and the Army, who by now had realized that they had vastly underestimated the military effectiveness of the submachine gun, began buying Thompsons from the United States.
The Biwarip machine carbine, an early precursor to the Sten made in 1938 and tested by the Small Arms Committee. Remarkably modern for its time.
The RAF initially examined captured MP-38s and ordered 10,000 British-made copies, but there were complications that resulted not only in the weapons being changed from copies of the MP-38 to the MP-28, but also the order being increased to 50,000 to satisfy the Navy as well, who had been forced to abandon the S&W carbines due to serious malfunctions. Sterling Armaments Co. was contracted to produce the initial prototypes of the MP-28 copy. The resultant weapon was finished, in the form of two pilot guns, in late 1940 and demonstrated on the 8th of November. The pilot guns were designed by George Lanchester and thus were named after him.
Lanchester Pilot Gun 3. For whatever reason, this model appears to have no rear sights. It was tested in November 1940.
Lanchester Pilot Gun 4. This is the model used for endurance trials and was essentially the finished product. Tested on the 28th of November 1940.
The Lanchester pilot guns were tested again on the 13th of November 1940 and were tested with a variety of 9x19mm catridges, including Winchester flat-nose, ICI, Bergmann, Beretta, and German military issue. The first pilot gun failed to discharge the Winchester and ICI ammunition, but the second did not run into any major issues and was considered on-par with the German MP-38.
On November 28th, further trials of the Lanchester pilot guns took place in the presence of both George Lanchester and Major Reginald V. Shepherd of the Design Department at RSAF Enfield. The Lanchester was now in its fourth pilot gun form and fired 5204 rounds with 26 stoppages. It passed all the mandatory tests but did not function when loaded with Beretta-made ammunition. Otherwise it was considered good to go and production rights were handed over to the Royal Navy for immediate manufacture as the Lanchester Mk.I. This weapon was issued to the Air Force and Navy until 1941, when it was simplified as the Mk.I*, which had no fire selector and fixed iron sights.
The Lanchester Mk.I. Known as the “British Schmeisser”. It was heavy, sturdy, and solidly built - typical of Naval manufacture.
The Lanchester Mk.I*. Fully-automatic only with fixed iron sights. Many Mk.I*s were simply modified Mk.Is, but were not marked as such.
The Lanchester was good but production costs were too high to equip the army. Something cheaper and quicker to manufacture was sought. In January 1941, an extremely simplified model was designed by George Lanchester and demonstrated at Enfield on the 10th of January 1941, and at Hythe on the 21st. The prototype was essentially a Lanchester stripped down to the bare minimum. It consisted of a simple tubular body made from steel and grips made from Tufnel. It was supposed to have a folding buttstock but for whatever reason this was never fitted. The only real change to the base design was the inclusion of a fire selector just in front of the trigger grouping. Otherwise it was internally the same as the Lanchester Mk.I.
A second simplified prototype was also conceived by George Lanchester and differed in that the cocking slot was now on the left side of the gun and had a much lighter bolt which was about an inch shorter than the original. The grips were redesigned to be more ergonomic, and a simple single-strut stock was fitted to the rear of the pistol grip.
The first simplified Lanchester prototype. Essentially the forerunner to the Sten. The cocking slot has a safety recess.
The second simplified Lanchester prototype. This version had left-hand cocking and a three-position fire selector.
Both simplified prototypes of the Lanchester were tested but rejected. But from this concept, the Sten was born. It was developed in early 1941 by Major Shepherd and Harold J. Turpin, who worked at the Design Department at Enfield. Thus the weapon was christened the STEN (Shepherd, Turpin, ENfield). The design was an incredibly simple blowback system based on the Lanchester with a fixed firing pin and simple cylindrical bolt. The first version of the Sten, the Mk.I, had wooden furniture, a conical flash hider, and a hinged fore grip, a feature not seen on any of the subsequent models. The Mk.I was cheaper than the Lanchester but still too expensive; it was simplified further as the Mk.I* in late 1941. The Mk.I* ditched the wooden embellishments, the flash hider and the fore grip feature. Throughout 1941, over 100,000 Mk.I and Mk.I* Stens were produced and issued to the army.
The Sten Mk.I. The original model of the Sten, with features such as a folding fore grip and a flash hider that were not seen in later models.
The Sten Mk.I*. The first of many steps to simplifying an already very basic gun. Although production was somewhat brief, thousands were made.
In mid-1941, the Mk.II Sten was designed. It was a bare-bones version of a gun which was already very basic. The main difference between the Mk.I and the Mk.II Stens was that the Mk.II had a new barrel that could not be interchanged with the original Mk.I barrel. The Mk.II barrel had only two grooves whereas the Mk.I had six. Externally, the Mk.II was incredibly minimalist. There were two main versions of the Mk.II produced: one with a wireframe stock and one with a single-strut stock. Neither were particularly pleasant to shoot, owing to the poor ergonomics. The upshot of all this was that the Mk.II Sten was incredibly cheap to produce en masse for the army and, as an added bonus, proved very easy for anti-Nazi partisans to copy in workshops.
The Mk.II Sten was tested at Pendine on from the 7th to the 25th of August 1941 and a glaring fault was discovered. The magazines were made from stamped sheet metal, which meant that the feed lips were prone to failure. If the magazine feed lips were misaligned even slightly with the magazine well, the gun would jam. The magazines were also highly susceptible to dirt and sand. All of this basically meant that the Mk.II Sten was highly unreliable if not handled with care, and even then it was probably inevitable that it would fail at some point during the heat of battle. But the army was faced with a choice between a mass of unreliable Mk.IIs, or a handful of Thompsons, Lanchesters and Mk.I Stens. They opted for the former.
The Sten Mk.II. The most successful version of the Sten, with several millions being manufactured during the war and used by various countries.
The Sten Mk.II with bayonet and single-strut stock.
Prototype T42 submachine gun, based on the Sten Mk.II. It had a single-column magazine and a redesigned trigger group.
Sten Mk.II with SMLE stock. This was made as an experimental model only and never issued.
Sten Mk.II with wireframe pistol grip, designed for paratroopers.
Copy of the Sten Mk.II made in a workshop by Danish partisans.
The Mk.II Sten was by far the most successful model of the Sten gun, with over 2,000,000 being produced throughout World War II. It was first issued to British and Canadian troops during the raid on Dieppe on the 19th of August 1942 and continued to be issued until 1945. It was also issued in considerable numbers to the Free French Forces, including the French Resistance.
In 1943, the toy manufacturer Line Brothers Ltd. were contracted to produce the Mk.III Sten, which was made from a single, riveted sheet metal tube that was welded at the top. The ejection also had an extra safety precaution that consisted of a simple finger guard. The barrel was fixed inside the tubular body, which could not be disassembled. In Canada, the Mk.III was manufactured by Long Branch Arsenal.
The Sten Mk.III. Manufactured by Line Bros. Yet another simplification to lower the cost of manufacture.
On the other hand, this prototype Mk.III with a wooden SMLE-style stock would have been substantially more expensive to manufacture.
An experimental Mk.III made at Enfield. The trigger grouping is level with the ejection and the cocking handle is on top.
The Mk.IV was the only one of the Sten “marks” not to be issued to the army. In fact, it never evolved past the prototype stage. It was designed in 1943 with paratroopers in mind, with a shorter barrel and folding stock. The first version of the Mk.IV had a conical flash hider and a very unusual pistol grip and trigger guard arrangement that was designed to facilitate for thick winter gloves. It was a mere 27 inches in length. After it was trialed at Pendine at rejected for improvements, a second version known as the Mk.IVB was developed which was designed to be fired with one hand. To achieve this, the balance of the weapon was changed by moving the trigger grouping forward to the middle of the gun. The trigger mechanism had to be completely redesigned to allow this. It was 24 inches in length but uncomfortable to fire. Besides its flaws, there was no immediate requirement for the Mk.IV model so it was never developed any further.
The Sten Mk.IV. Produced as a prototype only. It was designed for paratroopers and soldiers operating in cold weather conditions.
The Sten Mk.IVB. Designed to be fired one-handed. The shortest version of the Sten by far, it was more a machine pistol than a submachine gun.
The Sten Mk.IVS. A silenced prototype of which only one was ever made.
In 1944, the Mk.V Sten appeared. It was a much more presentable weapon and a far cry from the crude Mk.II The Mk.V featured a wooden butt, pistol grip and fore grip. The fore grip was ditched in later models. The front sights were also redesigned and lifted from the No.4 SMLE service rifle. Internally, the bolt was improved with a cutaway that cleared the trigger disconnector when the bolt came over the sear. The resultant weapon was of excellent quality and made to a much higher standard than its precursors. Unfortunately, cheaply-made magazine were still being issued and consequently the Mk.V was still just as liable to failure as the earlier models, although this was not the fault of the gun itself.
The Mk.V Sten was issued extensively to paratroopers after D-Day and saw considerable use during Operation Market Garden in Arnhem, and issue of the Mk.V continued until the war in Europe ended in May 1945.
An early model Mk.V. This version had a fore grip which was not seen on later models. The stock could be detached for paratroopers.
The Sten Mk.V. The most polished version of the Sten manufactured during the war. It was much more reliable than the Mk.II and was issued in 1944.
Many variations of silenced Sten guns were also developed. British interest in silenced weapons began in 1940 when British Commandos demanded a quiet gun for eliminating lone sentries during covert raids. Initially they were issued silenced Thompsons made by RSAF Enfield, but these were too heavy and expensive to deploy in any numbers. When the Sten Mk.II appeared, Enfield developed a suppressed model called the Mk.IIS. It was designed by a Polish exile who was now serving with the Special Operations Executive, Lt. Kulikowski. The suppressor consisted of a series of metal cups wrapped around and in front of the barrel, with a rubber plug at the end. When the weapon was fired, the gases seeped out the sidewall of the barrel and their energy dissipated. The bullet traveled through the metal cups and penetrated the plug, which prevented the gases from escaping. These metal cups were encased in a perforated jacket which was surrounded by an additional jacket.
Prototype Mk.IIS. The silencer contained 24 baffles. With so much weight at the front end and so little in the stock, it would have been awkward to handle.
The Sten Mk.IIS. The most successful silenced weapon of World War II.
The Mk.IIS was issued to Commandos, the SOE, and other British special forces units, as well as resistance fighters across Europe. It was designed to be fired in single shots. Reportedly, the sound of the bolt was louder than the gunshot itself. The main drawback of the Mk.IIS was that it had an effective range of only 100 meters.
Sten Mk.II with an SOE-made silencer and basic wooden stock, issued to special agents in France.
The Sten Mk.VI. Basically the Mk.IIS principle applied to the Sten Mk.V. It replaced the Mk.IIS late in the war.
Late in the war, the Mk.V Sten was successfully silenced using a similar principle and this model was called the Mk.VI. It did not see as much use as the Mk.IIS but was probably, all factors considered, the best silenced weapon of the war. It was succeeded by the Sterling L34A1 silent submachine gun.
Unpopular Opinion: Brutal Doom is quite good, The gore physics and the ability to execute demons to gain hp adds a new layer of game feel and feedback, i only play classic mode tho. I actually wanna know why you seem to hate brutal doom so much and why you think its bad for a first time player. I personally think new players should get the best possible experience.
brutal doom is boring. last time i played it, all the enemies moved and attack so much faster than the player that the only viable way to play was stop-and-pop, which is boring. the billion buckets of gore stuff is entertaining for like five minutes and then it gets old fast. the fatality animations take way to fucking long, it completely destroys any semblance of fast and smooth gameplay flow, not to mention extremely repetitive considering there’s only a handful of animations.
sgt mark is still a giant piece of racist shit who stole art and code, and claimed credit for shit he didn’t do until like half the community called him out on it, and had the gall to cry like a little baby when it he thought new doom was “ripping him off” fuck you you stole so much from other people you fucking asshole.
and for the love of fuck why would you play a mod of a game for your first time playing it? it’s not an “improved” version of doom, it’s not the “definitive way” to play doom, and it’s certainly not the best possible experience for new players. it’s honestly probably the worst.
don’t even get me started on that giant wave of dumb kids who flooded doom communities and harassed other mod makers to try and make everything compatible with brutal doom. fuck you. that’s why a lot of doom mods nowadays have “anti-brutal” checks in them, to prevent stupid idiots from running brutal doom with fucking everything like it’s the only mod that exists.