I can speak with 90% certainty that in the 1997 classic song tubthumping when Chumbawamba said “I get knocked down, but I get up again.” they were talking about gravity.
This a-hole is literally doing everything in its power all day every day to keep us down. It’s like having a SNCO that wants you to fail just because he doesn’t like your nearly-longer-than-standards-permits haircut.
Today we are talking about how to make gravity your bitch. We might even uncover how to get one step ahead of that E-7 that wants your chevrons.
The concept of straight bar path is about to blow your mind.
[instagram https://www.instagram.com/p/BsY5-ThgBWq/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link expand=1]Pulse Physiotherapy on Instagram: “B A R P A T H ↕️ . The shortest distance between 2 points is in a straight line… ? . ✅ Hitting your knees on the way up or down during…”
When lifting weights, you aren’t actually lifting weights. You are overcoming gravity’s effect on the objects you are moving AKA the weights.
Our perception of gravity’s effect on a weight changes based on how inline the weight is with the muscles we are using to move the weight.
When the barbell holding the weights is perfectly inline with our balance point and the muscles we are using, the weight only feels as heavy as it actually is.
When the barbell is not inline with our balance point and muscle mass, the weight feels heavier than it actually is. It feels as if it is being pulled away from us by gravity.
[instagram https://www.instagram.com/p/BtvxNkwB2Iy/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link expand=1]Eugen Loki on Instagram: “⭕️CORRECT SQUAT BAR PATH⭕️ – A lot of people have the idea that if you don’t have a perfectly vertical bar path, your squat is inefficient.…”
The further from center mass, the heavier the weight feels.
Moving with a straight bar path is our best attempt to prevent gravity from pulling the weight away from us.
The straighter the path, the less extra resistance we have to overcome.
This is why form is so important in the barbell lifts. Poor form doesn’t only increase the risk of potential injury, it also makes the weight feel heavier than it actually is.
The bench press requires a curved bar path for the benefit of our shoulder health, not because we want to give into gravity’s force.
(@pheasyque via Instagram)
Straight Bar Path and Neuromuscular connection
Nearly all of the strength gains an individual experiences in the first 6-8 weeks of lifting is due to these two things.
You become more efficient at lifting. Your bar path becomes straight in your search for the path of least resistance. Also, the connections between your muscles and your brain become stronger and more efficient to ensure that straight bar path on every rep.
Sometimes straightest bar path is just to shut up and color…
(Air National Guard photo by Airman 1st Class Katie Schultz)
How you can use this to your advantage when dealing with higher ranks
We squat and deadlift to fulfill a higher purpose, to get stronger. We utilize the straightest bar path possible so we can move the most weight possible so that we can become stronger faster.
Likewise, we serve to fulfill a higher purpose. In order to fulfill that purpose, whatever it may be for you, we must work with superiors that make our lives difficult.
There is a straight bar path equivalent here. Dealing with gravity is the easiest when we only push vertically directly against it, not on an angle. Dealing with a stubborn boss is easiest when you find the path of least resistance as well.
Maybe that means getting the hardest part of your job done when they are at lunch.
Life is like the back squat; difficult while forcing growth.
(U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Danny Gonzalez/Released)
Maybe it means only reporting to them when they absolutely need to be informed.
Maybe it simply means always responding in a respectful manner, even if you don’t necessarily feel respect for them.
I know that sounds like some bologna advice. Imagine a scenario in which you get ripped into every time you neglect a salute or to say “Sir/Ma’am.” That ass tearing might take 10-15 minutes out of your day and make you feel butt-hurt for the rest of the day, which in turn will make you worse at your job and perpetuate more sessions of getting chewed out.
That’s inefficiency at its worst.
By finding the “straight bar path” for each person that outranks you, you can fulfill your purpose with the least resistance possible. There will still be resistance, don’t get me wrong, but that’s why we join. To overcome that which we previously thought insurmountable.
We all experience resistance to different degrees. It is always an opportunity to overcome, never a reason to quit.
(U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Kalie Frantz)
A friend of mine recently said something to the effect of:
Life is like a video game, if you’re going in a direction with no bad guys, you’re going the wrong direction. The purpose of the game is to kill bad guys.
The same goes for life. Resistance should exist, whether it be gravity and a barbell or a particularly difficult job. We are here to overcome that resistance with the straightest bar path possible and get stronger as a result.
Since the start of Syria’s uprising in March 2011, Russia has vetoed 12 UN Security Council resolutions concerning the conflict. Among other things, these resolutions covered human rights violations, indiscriminate aerial bombing, the use of force against civilians, toxic chemical weapons, and calls for a meaningful ceasefire.
Russia’s behavior at the Security Council is not motivated by humanitarian concerns. Its vetoes have provided political cover for the Assad regime, protected Moscow’s strategic interests and arms deals with the Syrian state, and obstructed UN peacekeeping. They’ve helped shift the locus of peace talks from a UN-backed process in Geneva to a Russian-led one in Astana. And they’ve had real and dire consequences for the people of Syria.
The Syrian conflict has claimed more than 500,000 lives, turned millions of people into refugees, and all but destroyed the country. While all sides have contributed to this catastrophe, the Assad regime in particular has made repression, brutality, and destruction its signature tactics — and Russia has chosen to protect it.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Some seem resigned to dismiss this behavior as everyday international politicking. Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary of the UK’s opposition Labour Party, recently offered an excuse: “People will always block resolutions. If you look at the number of resolutions America has blocked, I mean that’s the way of politics.”
This is nothing more than idle whataboutism. Yes, it’s right to note what the US has done in defiance of the UN over the years, not least over Iraq and with its 44 Israel-related vetoes in the Security Council. But Russia has taken vetoes to another level on Syria, covering for and enabling atrocities while working to make sure the UN cannot do what it needs to do to stop the carnage.
Moscow first intervened militarily to prop up Assad’s deadly authoritarian rule in September 2015; had it not entered the fray, Assad’s reign would have almost certainly given way to a successor. But Russian backing for Assad began well before 2015.
For a start, his government has long been a major Russian arms client. While public data is incomplete because many transactions are highly opaque, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has tracked the build up of Syrian weapons purchases in the years leading up to the 2011 uprising. Russian military resources to Syria increased from 9m in 2000 to 272m in 2011.
Consider the Russian (and Chinese) veto of February 4 2012, which blocked a draft resolution calling on Assad to relinquish power. At the time, there was uncertainty about whether Russia would abstain or vote no. Facing defeat amid mass protests and now armed resistance, the Assad regime accelerated its brutality through bombing. On the eve of the scheduled Security Council meeting, Assad’s forces bombarded the city of Homs, murdering scores of civilians.
Was this massacre designed to signal to Russia that Assad was prepared to go all out, burn the country, and win at any cost, meaning Moscow might as well back him? Or was Assad informed in advance that Russia would cast the veto, so he could slaughter with impunity? Does a veto clear the way for more brutality, or do acts of brutality force Russia to veto UN reprisals?
A poster of Syria’s president at a checkpoint on the outskirts of Damascus.
(Photo by Elizabeth Arrott)
The most likely answer is both. The pattern is now firmly established: Assad kills civilians and political opponents, the Security Council considers a resolution, Russia vetoes it and puts outs propaganda to provide cover for Assad’s abuses, and the cycle of mass killings goes on. As Russian vetoes have become routine, they have emboldened Assad. As an Oxfam report said, even UN resolutions which were not blocked “have been ignored or undermined by the parties to the conflict, other UN member states, and even by members of the UNSC itself”.
But Russia still has a choice: it can be a force for peace, liberty, and inclusion, or it can continue to shelter and defend tyrants. Given the Kremlin’s general hostility towards equality, liberalism, and democracy, it has chosen another path: to thwart the Security Council, violate its own ceasefire agreements, and overlook the consequences for civilians. This implicates it in the deaths of thousands of Syrians – more than the so-called Islamic State and the rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra combined.
To be sure, not all Security Council resolutions are worthy of support, and Russia cannot be held responsible for all of Assad’s crimes and human rights abuses. Western nations are certainly not unbiased; their decisions and interventions have had long-lasting pernicious effects on civilian populations in the Middle East, and they too have failed civilians in Syria and elsewhere.
The US intervened in Iraq to oust a dictator, Russia intervened in Syria to preserve one in power. Both moves have turned out to be disasters. But to document that Russia has killed civilians via its military and political interventions is not Russophobic. The death of each Syrian matters, regardless of who fired the shot, dropped the bomb, or maintained the siege.
Providing political cover for one tyrant will embolden others everywhere, as they learn how far they can push the boundaries of oppression. And all along, steps could have been taken to prevent or at least limit the carnage. Russia’s failure to do so in Syria and elsewhere will be to its eternal shame.
The Lord of the Rings saga is a gripping tale of teamwork, magic, and the triumph of good over evil against all odds… if you’re degenerate, decadent capitalist swine. The problem with the Lord of the Rings, in Russia’s view, is that history is written by the victors, Mordor might have been misunderstood, and it could have prospered if it weren’t for the external meddling of men, elves, and dwarves.
“Look, Sauron had a lot of good ideas.”
In 1999, Russian author Kirill Eskov penned, The Last Ringbearer, a version of the Lord of the Rings written from the view of Sauron’s forces. This alternative view of the saga features a lot of common historical ideas from the real Earth’s 20th Century applied to the fictional universe created by Tolkien, a departure from the Hobbit propaganda the Deep State (aka dwarves) would have you believe.
Eskov writes his novel under the premise that history is written by the victors, and a novel written by the vanquished would present an entirely different view of Tolkien’s creation. The Last Ringbearer is meant to counter Hobbit Propaganda that wants you to think that Gandalf and elves are anything but thieves and war criminals.
The Last Ringbearer actually accuses Gandalf of “crafting the Final Solution to the Mordorian problem.”
While readers of the Lord of the Rings were led to believe Mordor is an evil place, desolate and dedicated to the destruction of the world of men, The Last Ringbearer wants you to know the glorious world of Mordor was filled with engineers and artisans on the brink of a new industrial revolution, whose beauty was cut down in its prime by the imperialist pigs led by the Elves allied with the Elvish puppet Aragorn.
After the forces of Middle Earth slaughter orc civilians during an invasion of the land of Mordor, two orcs fleeing the elvish onslaught rescue a Gondorian noble who was sentenced to die for opposing the massacres of civilians. Together, they work to free the land of men from Elvish magic.
As if I needed any more proof Cate Blanchett is the root of all evil.
The book has never been officially translated into English, although amateur translations are available on the internet. The reason for this being the Tolkien estate is very protective of his work and will sue Eskov all the way to Vladivostok if given the opportunity. All kidding aside, it would be an interesting exercise for us all to consider our favorite stories and even real-world events from the point of view of the losers – maybe we would come to understand why some people are the way they are and accept them a little more.
A new study was recently released by the VA that monitored the effects of drinking alcohol heavily on a daily basis. In case you weren’t yet aware, regularly binge drinking is bad for you.
So, instead of joining in with the rest of society and bashing the VA for studying the painfully obvious, I’m actually going to take their side. Tracking. Sure, it’s still a gigantic waste of time and money, but it’s clever as f*ck if you think about it. Imagine being a doctor on that study. You’ve got nothing to do for a few months but drink free booze, you’re still getting paid a doctor’s salary, and the answer is clear as day well before you’re done? F*ck yeah! Sign my ass up!
Shout-out to J.D. Simkins at the Military Times for making an actually funny, sarcastic rebuttal to this gigantic waste of time and money.
The M1126 Stryker is a beautifully designed vehicle. It’s packed with 16.5 tons of high-hardness steel to shield the passengers from direct attacks and a unique underbelly design to help defend against IEDs. Many are outfitted with remote weapon systems, allowing troops to engage the enemy without fear of snipers. It even has one of the most state-of-the-art fire-extinguishing systems in the world in case the worst happens.
With all that protection, it seems strange that someone decided a bunch of steel bars around it would make great armor…
It also works great for extra storage space for things you don’t mind losing. (Photo from U.S. Army)
Though it might look flimsy, the simple fence design is an excellent counter considering how explosives blow up. Having thick, reactive armor works wonders against conventional fragmentation rounds, but HEAT (High explosive, anti-tank) rounds are designed specifically to burst through it.
Take a standard RPG-7 single-stage HEAT round for instance: The explosion isn’t what makes it deadly. By forcing the explosion into a narrow cone, it’s used to blow a hole through whatever it hits. It’s the molten copper follows and uses the pathway cleared by the explosion that’s truly deadly.
In comes what we’ve been calling “fence armor.” This type of armor is actually called “slat armor” and has been used since the World War II on German panzers. The Germans needed an extra layer of defense from Russian anti-tank rifles and low velocity, high explosive rounds. They added steel plates. set a few inches away from the actual shell of the vehicle, so when it’s hit, the cheaper plates would be hit and the copper would have time to cool, causing minimal damage.
This method of stopping common HEAT rounds is still used today by armies going against enemies with RPGs. While slat armor isn’t 100% effective (no armor is, truly), it does have up to 70% effectiveness, which is remarkable for a solution that costs nearly nothing, is an addition to existing armor, and doesn’t negatively affect the mission.
Though nowhere near as effective, even ISIS tried to Mad Max their vehicles. Note, for this to work, slat armor needs to be a few inches away from the vehicle, it should cover vital spots, and shouldn’t be welded on (since the point of it is to be destroyed and swapped out).
B- for effort. F for forgetting that missiles drop down — not across — at three feet above ground. (Image via Reddit)
“Spider-Man: Far From Home” is in theaters. And if you head out to see it, make sure you stay until the very end.
There are two must-watch end-credits scenes that will have fans talking long after the movie is over. The last one will change the way you see the entire movie.
If you left the theater early, or were confused at all, INSIDER has you covered.
The first end-credits scene
MJ and Peter Parker are officially a couple.
The scene picks up right where the movie ended with MJ and Peter Parker across the street from Madison Square Garden in New York City after the two flew through the city skies.
“Are you OK?” asks Peter Parker.
“Yeah, I’m never doing that again,” MJ tells Parker.
Peter’s about to head off when a breaking news report comes on a screen on the side of Madison Square Garden. The newsman says he has “disturbing revelations” about last week’s attack in London.
“An anonymous source provided this video,” says the newsman. “It shows Quentin Beck aka Mysterio moments before his death.”
The news stream then cuts to Mysterio looking right into the camera saying that he managed to send the Elementals back through an inter-dimensional rip in time and space, but he’s not confident he’s going to make it.
“Spider-Man attacked me for some reason,” says Beck. “He has an army of weaponized drones. Stark technology. He said he’s going to be the next Iron Man.”
The video then cuts to footage of Spider-Man speaking with his Stark technology glasses, E.D.I.T.H.
“Are you sure you want to commence the drone attack? There will be significant casualties,” says E.D.I.T.H. The Stark glasses stand for “Even Dead, I’m the hero.”
Spider-Man is then heard saying he doesn’t care.
“Execute them all,” Spider-Man appears to say.
The newsman says the video was released on the “controversial news website” theDailyBugle.net.
J.K. Simmons then appears on screen reprising his role as J. Jonah Jameson, the head of the fictional New York City tabloid.
“There you have it, folks. Conclusive proof that Spider-Man was responsible for the brutal murder of Mysterio, an inter-dimensional warrior who gave his life to protect our planet and who, will no doubt, go down in history as the greatest superhero of all time,” says Jameson.
Jameson’s not done yet. He then shows another clip of Mysterio.
“Spider-Man’s real name is Peter Parker,” he says.
Photos of Parker show up on the big screen. Parker, shocked, yells out, “What the —?”
The scene cuts to black.
J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson in “Spider-Man.”
The return of J. Jonah Jameson!
None other than J.K. Simmons, who played the same character in the original “Spider-Man” trilogy starring Tobey Maguire, appears at the film’s end.
In the original trilogy, which ran from 2002 until 2007, Jameson plays a newspaperman who is constantly demanding photos of the webslinger. Jameson thinks Spider-Man is a menace and is set on exposing the vigilante in The Daily Bugle.
In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Jameson has left the newspaper business behind and is running his own Daily Bugle website.
Jameson has aged accordingly since the last time we’ve seen him on screen; however, his appearance leaves a big question up in the air. Is this the same version of Jameson who we saw in the Tobey Maguire era of “Spider-Man” movies? Probably not.
If you’re familiar with 2018’s “Into the Spider-Verse,” which introduced different versions of Peter Parker living in parallel dimensions, we’re thinking this is simply a different version of Jameson suited for the MCU. We’re here for it.
Peter’s going to be panicking for a little.
What this means for future “Spider-Man” movies: It’s not looking great for Peter at the moment.
Not only does Parker have to juggle a new relationship with his superhero responsibilities, but now he’s probably going to be on the run, at least for a little now that his secret identity is out there.
Any new potential threats to Spidey will likely come after Aunt May, MJ, or anyone else close to Peter. While this may present immediate concern, it shouldn’t be a danger to Parker forever.
We’re not that concerned about Peter’s identity being leaked to the world. Something tells us Parker’s pals Pepper Potts and S.H.I.E.L.D. will be able to swoop in and fix this real quick. We’d be surprised if they’re not able to show that the video footage from Jameson is fake news, at some point, and make it seem as if Peter isn’t really Spidey. This is a minor hiccup for the young Spidey.
Unfortunately, Spidey’s now on Jameson’s radar and you better believe he’s probably going to be asking for more photos of Parker and Spider-Man to get further proof that the two are one and the same.
The second end-credits scene
Nick Fury and Maria Hill go for another car ride similar to the end of “Avengers: Infinity War.”
We open up to Maria Hill and Nick Fury driving around in an Audi, a scene that’s reminiscent to the end of “Infinity War.”
As they’re in the car, Hill shapeshifts back into the Skrull, Soren.
“You gotta tell him, Talos,” Soren says.
Fury shapeshifts back into Soren’s husband, Talos.
“It was fine,” says Talos. “The little boy handled it. We helped.”
“How was I supposed to know that the whole thing was fake? I mean that was all very convincing,” he adds. “This is embarrassing for a shapeshifter.”
Talos decides to call the real Nick Fury.
“Hey, I hope your mission is going well. We gave the glasses to Parker about a week ago, like you said,” Talos tells Fury. “Shortly after that, everything kind of went off the rails, and so we need you to come back. Everyone kept asking where the Avengers are and I don’t know what to say to that.”
The scene cuts to the real Nick Fury who hangs up on Talos. He’s on a beach with a drink in a coconut. Fury gets up and stretches to reveal that he’s not really on a beach. He’s on a ship with other Skrulls.
“Back to work,” Fury claps. He walks further around the ship barefoot to show that he’s in space.
The scene cuts to black.
Talos was introduced in “Captain Marvel.”
Who are those green aliens?
If you haven’t seen “Captain Marvel,” you may have been surprised by the reveal of the shapeshifters. Soren and Talos (Ben Mendelsohn) are two friendly skrulls who were first introduced in the March 2019 movie.
A general in the Skrull Empire, Talos’ people were caught in a war with the Kree, who destroyed their home planet. Talos was reunited with his wife, Soren, and his child by the movie’s end.
Where is Nick Fury and what is he up to?
Fury’s been hanging out with the Skrulls since returning from Thanos’ life-altering Snap in “Avengers: Infinity War.” It looks like he’s trying to relax a little bit more after initially vanishing for five years.
That doesn’t mean Fury isn’t still focused on work. We see him on some unidentified Skrull ship alongside a flurry of the green guys. Fury tells everyone to get back to work. What kind of work?
Our best guess is that Fury is probably off looking for more alien life to recruit more superheroes. He’s the one who started the Avengers’ initiative. Now that Captain America and Iron Man are toast, he may need some new heroes to fill their shoes. Space seems like a good place to search.
There’s a little piece of evidence to support this. Captain Marvel tells Black Widow early in “Avengers: Endgame” that she can’t be back on Earth because she’s busy on other planets. Thanos’ Snap affected life throughout the universe and Carol Danvers looked like she was checking in on a lot of different people. We wouldn’t be surprised if Fury was going to meet Danvers on one of these planets that needed her help or if he’s looking into beings on another one of the worlds.
Peter Parker’s been to space, but he may not be ready for what’s next in the MCU.
What does this mean for the next phase of Marvel movies? Prepare to get more celestial
“Spider-Man: Far From Home” closes out the third phase of the MCU. After more than 20 movies, where are we heading next?
The sight of Fury in space has us thinking about the future lineup of Marvel movies and most of them are reportedly pretty cosmic. Of Disney’s upcoming movie slate, there are eight untitled Marvel movies. Among the movies Marvel is currently working on are “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3” and “The Eternals,” two movies which deal with space and cosmic beings.
While James Gunn is returning to direct the third “GOTG” movie, we’re more interested in the latter film. Marvel Studios’ president Kevin Feige previously told TheWrap the film was in development. Ma Dong-seok (“Train to Busan”), Richard Madden (“Game of Thrones”), and Kumail Nanjiani (“Silicon Valley”) are reportedly among the cast, with Angelina Jolie in talks to join. We could easily see Fury hearing about these characters and jetting off to find them.
Jack Kirby created the Eternals in 1976.
Perhaps the answer is simpler. The end of “Far From Home” could simply be teasing the next “Captain Marvel” and filling us in on what Carol Danvers has been up to since the ’90s and since Fury vanished at the end of “Infinity War.”
Hopefully, we’ll only have to wait for San Diego Comic-Con in a few short weeks to potentially hear more about the upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe films.
This article originally appeared on Insider. Follow @thisisinsider on Twitter.
How is it possible that two members of the same military service branch are so different? Like so many other behavioral traits, it all has to do with upbringing.
Enlisted troops go straight from the recruiter’s office and into active service while officers study to get a bachelor’s degree, go through officer leadership training, and learn a service-specific career field.
Neither is better than the other, but there are a few old tropes that make each easy to identify — even out of uniform. But sometimes, the lines start to blur…
1. Having gray hair in civilian attire
Every so often a Marine will have the blessing (and the curse) of naturally gray hair. Sometimes the cause is hereditary, other times it’s because they’re the only one with common sense. When I was in the Corps, one platoon would send a particular gray-haired Marine to the Postal Exchange because nobody would stop this distinguished-looking man from cutting to the front of the line. In the case of acquiring energy drinks and tobacco before a month-long field operation, the ends justify the means.
2. Saying things like ‘outstanding’ instead of ‘great work’
Officers are notorious for saying this unironically. It’s succinct and professional, but if used enough, it will spread faster than that “cold” everyone got before pre-deployment leave.
3. Never helping when you see others struggle
If you ever see an officer lend a hand in loading or unloading gear, report them to the nearest law enforcement agency because that person is a spy.
4. Walking around with a green log book and clipboard
If you want to be left alone, these two items will render you invisible. Troops will avoid you because it’s safer to assume you’re doing something important than to find out for certain. Even senior enlisted will about-face if the words ‘staff duty’ are overheard in conversation.
5. Getting lost during land navigation
Land navigation is an important skill to master because a GPS will not always work in-country. The sheer weight of a lieutenant’s butter bar will offset the azimuth of even the strongest compass.
6. Marrying for love, not BAH
Barracks life can become so unbearable that you’ll be willing to sign another contract. Some Marines will roll the dice with just about anyone to escape the bullsh*t on base. Officers have had time to nurture their relationships prior to their service, before the green weenie tries to break them up.
7. When you get in trouble, the command has your back
Rank has its privileges and officers are often given the benefit of the doubt or a slap on the wrist. If you receive the same courtesy, you’re in danger of promotion.
Six sailors from HMS Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s largest and most powerful aircraft carrier, were reportedly arrested and taken into custody over drunk and disorderly behavior in Jacksonville, Florida, in September 2018.
The sailors, who were on shore leave, were arrested after locals found them fighting and and urinating in public, the BBC reported.
Three of them were also charged with resisting arrest. One pushed and pulled an officer, one was actively fighting and refused to stop, and another refused to put his hands behind his back and was ultimately stunned by a Taser, according to WJAX-TV.
The group were held overnight before being released back onboard the warship on Sept. 7, 2018, The Sun reported.
HMS Queen Elizabetharrived in the US in September 2018 after leaving the UK on Aug. 18, 2018. It is on its way to carry out F-35 trials at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland with US and British pilots late September 2018.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth passes by the Florida coast, where it is stopping to refuel before sailing north to Maryland. Sept. 5, 2018.
(WJXT News / Youtube)
The British navy acknowledged the incident but declined to provide further comment.
A spokesperson for the Royal Navy told Business Insider in a statement:
“We can confirm that a number of naval personnel are assisting US police with their enquiries — it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.
“The Naval Service places great importance on maintaining the highest possible standards of behaviour from its personnel at all times.”
Sergeant Larry Smith of the Jacksonville Beach Police Department also confirmed that all the arrests were related to alcohol, but that they were “a case of good people making bad decisions.”
Smith told the Sun:
“Our officers went down to the ship to speak to their commanders, and while they were still out on the town on Thursday night, there were no more problems from the sailors.
“It was a case of good people making bad decisions, they got drunk and they fought among themselves.
“It happens. They seem to beat the mess out of each other and knock their teeth out, but once they pick up their teeth off the ground they hug and then are best friends again.”
Seven Navy SEALs were warned that reporting the alleged war crimes of their teammates and calling for a formal investigation could jeopardize their careers, a Navy criminal investigation report revealed.
Chief Special Warfare Operator Edward “Eddie” Gallagher has been accused of killing an unarmed ISIS fighter with a hunting knife and firing on civilians with a sniper rifle while deployed in Iraq, as well as obstructing justice by attempting to intimidate his fellow SEALs. He allegedly threatened to kill teammates that spoke to authorities about his alleged actions.
Gallagher was arrested in September 2018 following allegations of intimidating witnesses and obstruction of justice, and he was detained at San Diego’s Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar. He was officially charged in January 2019 with premeditated murder, among other crimes.
In late March 2019, after a tweet by President Trump, Gallagher was moved from the brig at Miramar to a facility at Balboa Naval Medical Center, where he is presently awaiting trial.
His direct superior, Lt. Jacob Portier, is accused of failing to report Gallagher’s alleged crimes and burying/destroying evidence. Portier has pleaded not guilty.
Gallagher, a decorated SEAL who earned a Bronze Star for valor, has pleaded not guilty, and his defense is denying all charges.
When his teammates, members of SEAL Team 7’s Alpha Platoon, met privately with their troop commander at Naval Base Coronado in March 2018 to discuss Gallagher’s alleged crimes, they were encouraged to keep quiet. The message was “stop talking about it,” one SEAL told investigators, according to The New York Times, which obtained a copy of the 439-page report.
Their commander, Lt. Cmdr. Robert Breisch, reportedly told the SEALs that the Navy “will pull your birds,” a reference to the eagle-and-trident badges the SEALs wear to represent their hard-earned status as elite warfighters.
Navy SEAL insignia.
His aide, Master Chief Petty Officer Brian Alazzawi, told them that the “frag radius” or the area of impact for an investigation into alleged war crimes could be particularly large and damaging to a number of SEALs, The New York Times reported.
The accusers ignored the warning and came forward with their concerns. Now, Gallagher is facing a court-martial trial, which is currently scheduled for May 28, 2019.
Gallagher’s defense attorney Tim Parlatore told The New York Times that the Navy’s investigation report is incomplete, arguing that there are hundreds of additional pages that are sealed. He insists that these documents include testimony stating that Gallagher did not commit the crimes of which he is charged.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider. Follow @BusinessInsider on Twitter.
When the cheers of the viral military homecomings have dissipated and the videos stop playing, real life begins. Netflix’s new documentary, Father Soldier Son, pulls back the curtain and brings the viewer into the reality of the military family and the devastating cost of a 20-year war.
The public perception of a military service member leans toward words like heroic and exceptional. But they are human beings with real struggles as they live with the aftereffects of their commitment to this country. Father Soldier Son reveals that to the public. To create the documentary, two journalists from The New York Times spent 10 years (yes, 10 years) following American soldier Brian Eisch and his family.
What initially began as a film to document a battalion’s year-long deployment in 2010 during a troop surge evolved into an unexpected new project for directors Leslye Davis and Catrin Einhorn.
“We really wanted to tell the stories of American soldiers and Brian was just one of many [in that deployment]. But his kids were just so captivating and they spoke with such honesty, openness and emotion about what they were going through. They really stuck with us,” Einhorn explained.
The documentary begins with Eisch’s sons, Issac and Joey. They share their feelings about their dad being deployed overseas and their deep fears for his safety. This is another unique perspective of this film; the public is given a glimpse of how deployment impacts military children.
The viewer then witnesses the joyful reunion for the boys when their dad comes home for a break in his deployment. It’s not unlike the homecomings that go viral on social media. But then, the directors bring you in deeper with the emotional, compelling moments when the boys have to say goodbye; something not many members of the public ever witness.
When Eisch returned to combat in Afghanistan, he was shot.
Viewers are then brought on Eisch’s journey of being a wounded warrior. “We were able to show the before and what the boys were going through while he was away and the anxiety and fear that they have. Then we showed what happened after,” Einhorn explained. She continued, “There’s this sort of iconic idea of a hero, but what does that really mean? What is the sacrifice? Brian had a truck drive into a field and then jumped out of it to try and rescue this wounded ally of his. That is a very heroic thing by all accounts and he received an award for that. But what did that mean for him and his life afterward?”
Every time the directors thought the film was done, things kept happening in Eisch’s life that brought them back. “We got to take this personal and deep dive into this family to show how it [war] impacted them over time,” Davis said.
Three years after his combat injury, the constant pain forced Eisch to undergo a leg amputation.
The events that unfold after following that are a reality for many service members experiencing physical or invisible wounds of war. This film will bring viewers on a journey filled with hope, but also devastating loss and pain. “As journalists we really wanted to make it a window into a military family…These quiet consequences and how they can ripple through a family and reshape things. That’s what we witnessed with this family and felt hadn’t been explored,” said Einhorn.
Directors Catrin Einhorn (left) and Leslye Davis (right).
Both directors were asked how the family reacted to the documentary once it was revealed.
“We got to watch it with the family…He [Eisch] thinks it’s true. He thinks the story accurately depicts his life. The first time the family watched it – it was very retraumatizing. They were in grief watching it, and shock. But it seems that it has their seal of approval,” Davis shared. Einhorn added, “He said it was both joyful and devastating for them to watch it. He turned to us at the end and said, ‘It’s true, I am struggling.'”
“We look forward to what people take away from the film,” Davis said.
The documentary is available at midnight on July 17 to Netflix subscribers. The directors shared that the New York Times will be releasing a follow up a few days after the release to give viewers an update on the family.
When watching the film, it will take viewers into the unadulterated reality for military families. Father Soldier Son is a stark reminder of the far reaching ripple effects of war.
A newly released investigation from a submarine mishap in 2015 that caused some $1 million worth of damage shows that an inexperienced crew was given the go-ahead to complete a tricky return-to-port mission in the dark, despite warnings from the commanding officer that they weren’t ready.
The Ohio-class submarine Georgia ran aground in the predawn hours of Nov. 25, 2015, the day before Thanksgiving, as it prepared to return to port at Kings Bay, Georgia, to replace a failed towed array sonar. While conducting a scheduled pick-up of a new pilot at Fort Clinch, Florida, near the entrance to St. Marys River, which approaches the base, the sub inadvertently exited the channel, then collided with a buoy amid the crew’s efforts to re-orient. The grounding occurred as the crew worked to get clear of the buoy, the investigation shows.
Ultimately, the sub was able to return to port to assess damages, which were mostly cosmetic, save for the ship’s screw propeller, an acoustic tracking device and an electromagnetic log meter that measured the sub’s speed. The Georgia was taken into dry dock in December 2015 for assessment and the costly repairs.
The investigation, which was completed in March 2016 but just released to Military.com this month through a public records request, found that the “excessive speed” of the sub as it approached the pilot pick-up made it more difficult for the crew to control the ship, and that the tugboat carrying the pilot was positioned poorly, making the maneuver more complex.
Ultimately, though, blame for running aground is laid at the feet of the commanding officer. In the wake of the incident, the commander of Georgia’s blue crew, Capt. David Adams, was relieved of his post due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command. Like all submarines in its class, Georgia has two identical crews — a blue and a gold — that alternate manning and patrols.
“His inability to effectively manage the complexity of the situation and failure to respond to the circumstances in a manner sufficient to protect the safety of the ship and crew is beneath my expectations for any CO,” an investigation endorsement by Rear Adm. Randy Crites, then-commander of Submarine Group 10, reads.
In his detailed and thorough endorsement of findings, Crites also dismisses the notion that maneuvering in the dark and with a green crew was what led to the sub’s disastrous mishap.
“Ultimately, had this crew (and the Pilot) executed the same plan in the same manner during broad daylight, there is nothing in the ship’s planning effort, demonstrated seamanship, or response to tripwires that indicates the outcome would be any different,” he said.
While coming in for the brunt of the blame, Adams was not alone in being designated for punishment. Crites indicated his intent to take administrative action against the sub’s executive officer; chief of boat; navigation/operations officer; weapons officer, who was the officer of the deck; and assistant navigator. He also said he’d issue non-punitive letters of caution to the commander of Submarine Squadron 16 and his own chief of staff and director of operations — all Navy captains — for failure to take appropriate action toward resolution regarding Adams’ concerns around the sub’s transit into port.
The Ohio-class guided-missile submarine USS Georgia (SSGN 729) exits the dry dock at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia, following an extended refit period. Georgia is one of two guided-missile submarines stationed at the base and is capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles.
The 475-page investigation, which includes witness statements, logs and other supporting documentation, offers insight into what those concerns were. In a Nov. 24 email to the commodore of Squadron 16 marked “confidential,” Adams, the Georgia blue crew commander, lays out his qualms about the plan he has been ordered to execute, particularly the predawn return to port for a brief one-day stop with a crew that had spent just three weeks underway together on a new ship.
“CO/XO/NAV have not piloted into Kings Bay in the last 20 years. All of the untoward [incidents] I know of occurred between [St. Marys] and Fort Clinch,” he wrote. “My assessment is that this is not a prudent plan for [return to port] … Having just been at sea for a few weeks, I have not built enough depth. I am concerned about the fatigue level of my command element.
“Given an all day evolution and subsequent [underway], we will have spent the majority of 36 hours awake and are set to pilot out and submerge on the mid-watch at 0330.”
The two-page memo, it appears, was never received and read by Submarine Squadron 16’s commodore, Capt. John Spencer. But Adams testified he had relayed the same concerns face-to-face with Spencer days before, on Nov. 22. He also discussed the same issues, he said, in a follow-up phone call.
This much is clear: the plan wasn’t called off, and the mission was cleared to proceed. But murky communication dogged the lead-up to the operation, and later the mission itself.
Spencer and others testified that Adams had been given leeway to “slow things down a little” if he felt uncomfortable. Adams said he believed any delay would have been viewed as insubordination.
On the day of the mishap, communication was also flawed, in ways that underscore the crew’s unfamiliarity with each other, and possibly the sleep deprivation that had left some members running on just two to three hours of rest.
According to the investigation, as the Georgia approached the point at which it was to meet with the tug and pick up the pilot — the navigation expert who would drive the ship into port — it became clear that the tug was well west of its expected position. The sub, meanwhile, was approaching too fast and slowing too gradually. The investigation found it was still making 15 knots, or about 17 miles per hour, when it passed the set “all stop” point. That speed and positioning would make every maneuver that followed more risky and difficult.
Initial attempts to communicate with the tug and the pilot aboard via radio were unsuccessful, and the planned transfer happened late. Adams did not want to scrap the transfer and proceed into port without the pilot, the investigation found, because of the challenges of pulling into port without one.
When the sub exited the channel at the west end of the Fort Clinch basin, the crew’s communication skills faced a major test. The assistant navigator recommended to the navigator that the sub go to “all back emergency,” a call the navigator then passed to the bridge. The officer of the deck seemed to agree, but said nothing, the investigation found. Adams, however, overrode the order, believing it would not work, and ordered “all ahead full” instead. He started directing the officer of the deck, but did not fully take control of the sub or give direct orders to the helm, the report states.
Despite a series of maneuvers — right hard rudder, left hard rudder, all ahead full, right hard rudder — the sub collided with Buoy 23 in the channel. But the worst was still to come.
“When [Adams] asked [the lookout] if the ship hit buoy 23, [the lookout] informed the CO that he did not care about the buoy, but thought the ship was going to run aground on the beach forward of the ship,” the investigation states.
As grounding looked imminent, the Georgia asked the driver of the C-tractor tugboat if the tug could cross in front of the sub on the starboard, or right, side, and push the bow around. The tug master refused, according to the investigation, worried that the water was too shallow.
The sub ended up, as the lookout put it, “hitting Fort Clinch.”
In this file photo from July 12, 2018, Gen. John E. Hyten, commander, U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), views the dry dock at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Georgia. The base is home to six of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines that make up the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad and support strategic deterrence.
The mishap, and the misgivings that preceded it, came against the backdrop of a Navy grappling with a culture in which overworked and unready crews were regularly put underway in service of operational needs. After two separate deadly destroyer collisions in 2017, service leaders found, among other things, that a “‘can-do’ culture” had undermined safety and led to unduly high operational tempo and fatigue.
“The can-do culture becomes a barrier to success only when directed from the top down or when feedback is limited or missed,” the Navy’s comprehensive review of the destroyer mishaps, released in October 2017, found.
Whether these factors came into play with the Georgia is more difficult to say.
In a statement for the investigation, Adams emphasized that he took full responsibility for what had transpired.
“Despite my significant reservation – expressed face-to-face, on the phone, and In emails with staff and leadership … concerning the risks of proceeding Into Kings Bay In the dark with an inexperienced team, when my requests to delay [return to port] one hour later were denied, I failed in my command responsibilities by driving to achieve mission success at the expense of appropriately acting to mitigate risks to increase our margin of safety,” he said.
“In retrospect, I should have loitered at [St. Marys] until I was satisfied that the risks were commensurate with the mission gain.”
Reached for comment by Military.com, Adams, who retired in 2016, referred to a public statement he had released at the time of his relief, in which he called the actions that caused the grounding “mine alone.”
“I ask that my lapses not be used to denigrate the terrific service of the Sailors and families of GEORGIA BLUE,” he said at the time “After thirty years of serving in the world’s finest Navy, my only regret is that I will miss sailing with them again to stand against our nation’s enemies.”
But the fact that some above Adams were also warned offers insight into how the higher command viewed the incident.
Crites faulted Spencer, the Squadron 16 commodore, with “failure to provide his ship a plan with adequate margin to safety, specifically in not providing sufficient guidance and training to his staff that developed the plan in his absence and not aggressively pursuing complete resolution of the ship’s requested arriva through personal intervention with the Type Commander staff.”
The chief of staff and director of operations for Submarine Group 10, Crites said in the report, had failed to “pursue acceptable resolution to the concerns they had with the plan for the ship’s arrival.”
Holly Carey, deputy public affairs officer for Submarine Force Atlantic, declined to say whether all administrative actions recommended by the investigation were carried out.
“What I can tell you is that the Navy is confident that leadership took appropriate corrective actions against several personnel assigned to the squadron and submarine based on the findings of the investigation,” she said.
“Following the investigation, which concluded in 2016, leadership took appropriate accountability measures and has taken all necessary steps to prevent a recurrence in the future. USS Georgia, and her current crew, serve proudly today among the U.S. Submarine Force and has leadership’s full confidence to protect the interest of the United State and allies.”
When you think ‘sherpa,’ the first thing that comes to mind is probably the folks who help people climb Mount Everest, not an Army aircraft. Unless you’re a pro, you’re probably not thinking about the Army’s C-23 transport plane.
Wait, the Army has a transport plane? That’s right. You see, the Army operates unarmed, fixed-wing aircraft. After the Army and Air Force split, the Air Force got the armed aircraft in the divorce settlement.
One of the unarmed transports the Army flies is the C-23 Sherpa. According to MilitaryFactory.com, the Sherpa was acquired to serve as an intra-theater transport between U.S. Army bases in Europe. However, the plane soon took on responsibilities beyond that limited role. The C-23 can haul up to 30 troops or three pallets of cargo. The plane is also capable of using smaller runways than the C-130 Hercules and is cheaper to operate than a CH-47 Chinook. With a top speed of 281 miles per hour and a range of 771 miles, this particular aircraft soon found work outside Europe as well.
According to a 2014 United States Army release, the C-23 was used in the American peacekeeping mission in the Sinai Peninsula. The plane was also a valuable asset during Operation Iraqi Freedom, moving cargo to places where C-130s couldn’t land, which was particularly valuable in humanitarian relief missions.
Ultimately, the United States bought 62 airframes and, aside from losing one in a crash, the planes remained in service until it was retired in 2014 to be replaced by the C-27J Spartan. Still, the C-23 isn’t going away just yet. Ethiopia, Djibouti, and the Philippines are receiving some of these short-haul airlifters as second-hand assets. As for the C-27J, it was retired by the Air Force and Air National Guard without replacement.
To learn more about this aircraft, check out the video below:
If a pilot gets shot down behind enemy lines, their ultimate goal is to survive and make it back to friendly lines. Downed pilots are still considered combatants and allowed to carry weapons under the Geneva Conventions. However, due to the limitations of carrying gear in an aircraft, pilots were generally only equipped with a pistol and a survival knife. In 1952, the Air Force introduced the M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon. The folding weapon had a .22 Hornet barrel and a .410 bore. However, it was really only suitable for hunting animals for food. Pilots needed something with more punch to defend themselves. That’s where the GAU-5A comes in.
In the 1960s, the Air Force introduced the Model 608 CAR-15 Survival Rifle. Modified from the existing CAR-15, a compact version of the M16 similar to a modern M4, the Model 608 had a 10-inch 5.56x45mm barrel. It had a minimalist stock, a very thin handguard, a chopped pistol grip, and a conical flash hider. The rifle was broken down between its upper and lower receiver for easier storage and was stowed in the pilot’s seat pack with four 20-round magazines. With modern firearm technological evolutions, the Model 608 was improved upon for today’s pilots.
In June 2018, the Air Force announced the new Aircrew Self Defense Weapon. Different from the previous survival weapons, the ASDW is designed to give pilots as much firepower as possible if they have to defend themselves behind enemy lines. Designated the GAU-5A, it is based on the standard-issue M4 carbine. However, the rifle weighs less than 7 pounds and can be stowed in the seat kit of the modern ACES 2 ejection seat.
The GAU-5A utilizes a 12.5-inch barrel instead of the M4’s 14.5-inch barrel. It also uses flip-up front and rear sights to do away with the M4’s bulky triangular front sight and gas assembly. The GAU-5A’s pistol grip also folds back and locks against the collapsible buttstock which is unmodified from the M4. Unlike the Model 608, the GAU-5A features a quick-detach barrel to reduce its footprint in storage. The Cry Havoc Tactical Quick Release Barrel allows the barrel and handguard to attach and detach from the receiver in a matter of seconds. In total, the deployment of the GAU-5A from storage takes just 30 seconds.
With a complement of four 3-round magazines, the GAU-5A puts more firepower in the hands of a downed pilot than ever before. “We were asked to design a stand-off weapon that was capable of hitting a man-size target at 200 meters,” said Air Force Gunsmith Shop chief Richard Shelton. While the GAU-5A itself is only available to the military, there is a civilian version of the rifle.
The Midwest Industries MI-GAU5A-P is a pistol clone of the Air Force’s GAU-5A. It uses the same QRB system from Cry Havoc, a set of flip-up Magpul MBUS Pro iron sights, a FAB Defense folding pistol grip, and an SBA3 pistol brace. Due to the 12.5-inch barrel, the MI-GAU5A-P is built and sold as a braced pistol rather than a rifle with a stock. It is possible to file it as an SBR in order to use the proper Mil-Spec stock. Of course, the biggest difference is that the pistol clone is restricted to semi-auto fire. “THIS IS NOT FULL AUTO, STOP CALLING AND ASKING IF THIS IS FULL AUTO,” Midwest Industries notes on its product page. Whether you’re looking for an easy-to-pack 5.56mm truck or bugout bag gun, or want to get as close as you can to what Air Force pilots carry in their ejection seat, the MI-GAU5A-P comes with a lifetime warranty and is proudly 100% made in the U.S.A.