#wrote the bulk of this on 2/12/23 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

i-am-an-abyss-of-gender · 3 years ago

Note

Panzer IV The Panzerkampfwagen IV (Pz.Kpfw. IV), commonly known as the Panzer IV, was a German medium tank developed in the late 1930s and used extensively during the Second World War. Its ordnance inventory designation was Sd.Kfz. 161. Panzerkampfwagen IV Sd.Kfz. 161/VK 622 (Ausf. A) Panzermuseum Munster 2010 0128.JPG A Panzer IV Ausf. G "413" in desert colours, bearing the palm tree insignia of the Afrika Korps, "Friederike" script written on the gun barrel near the mantlet. This tank was on display at the Deutsches Panzermuseum. Type Medium tank Place of origin Nazi Germany Service history In service 1939–1945 (Nazi Germany) 1954[1]–1967 (Syria) Used by Nazi Germany Romania Turkey Hungary Bulgaria Italy Finland Spain Croatia Syria Wars World War II, 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Six-Day War Production history Designer Krupp Designed 1936 Manufacturer Krupp, Vomag, Nibelungenwerk Unit cost ≈103,462 Reichsmarks and 115,962 Reichmarks With 7,5 cm KwK 40 (L/43)[2] Produced 1936–1945 No. built ≈8,553 of all tank variants[3] Variants StuG IV, Jagdpanzer IV, Brummbär/Sturmpanzer IV, Nashorn, Wirbelwind, Ostwind Specifications (Pz. IV Ausf. H, 1943[5]) Mass 25.0 tonnes (27.6 short tons; 24.6 long tons) Length 5.92 metres (19 ft 5 in) 7.02 metres (23 ft 0 in) gun forward Width 2.88 m (9 ft 5 in) Height 2.68 m (8 ft 10 in) Crew 5 (commander, gunner, loader, driver, radio operator/bow machine-gunner) Armor Hull front: 80 mm (3.1 in) Hull side (upper and lower): 30 mm (1.2 in) Hull rear (upper and lower): 20 mm (0.79 in) Hull roof and floor: 10 mm (0.39 in) Schürzen: 5 mm (0.20 in) to 8 mm (0.31 in)[4] Turret front: 50 mm (2.0 in) Turret side and rear: 30 mm (1.2 in) Turret roof: 10 mm (0.39 in) Main armament 7.5 cm (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/48 main gun (87 rounds) Secondary armament 2 × 7.92 mm MG 34 machine guns (3,150 rounds) Engine Maybach HL120 TRM 12-cylinder gasoline engine 300 PS (296 hp, 220 kW) Power/weight 12 PS (8.8 kW) / tonne Transmission (Synchromesh ZF SSG 77) 6 forward and 1 reverse ratios Suspension Leaf spring Fuel capacity 470 l (120 US gal) Operational range 200 km (120 mi) Maximum speed 38 to 42 km/h (24 to 26 mph) maximum, 25 km/h (16 mph) max sustained road speed 16 km/h (9.9 mph) off road The Panzer IV was the most numerous German tank and the second-most numerous German armored fighting vehicle of the Second World War, with some 8,500 built. Its chassis was also used as the base for many other fighting vehicles, including the Sturmgeschütz IV assault gun, the Jagdpanzer IV tank destroyer, the Wirbelwind self-propelled anti-aircraft gun, and the Brummbär self-propelled gun. The Panzer IV saw service in all combat theaters involving Germany and was the only German tank to remain in continuous production throughout the war. It was originally designed for infantry support, while the similar Panzer III was to fight armoured fighting vehicles. However as the Germans faced the formidable T-34, the Panzer IV had more development potential, with a larger turret ring to mount more powerful guns, so the two switched roles. It received various upgrades and design modifications, intended to counter new threats, extending its service life. Generally, these involved increasing the armor protection or upgrading the weapons, although during the last months of the war, with Germany's pressing need for rapid replacement of losses, design changes also included simplifications to speed up the manufacturing process. The Panzer IV was partially succeeded by the Panther medium tank, which was introduced to counter the Soviet T-34, although it continued to be a significant component of German armoured formations to the end of the war. It was the most widely exported tank in German service, with around 300 sold to Finland, Romania, Spain and Bulgaria. After the war, Syria procured Panzer IVs from France and Czechoslovakia, which saw combat in the 1967 Six-Day War. 8,553 Panzer IVs of all versions were built during World War II, a production run in Axis forces only exceeded by the StuG III assault gun with 10,086

vehicles. Development history Origins The Panzer IV was the brainchild of the German general and innovative armored warfare theorist Heinz Guderian.[6] In concept, it was intended to be a support tank for use against enemy anti-tank guns and fortifications.[7] Ideally, each tank battalion in a panzer division was to have three medium companies of Panzer IIIs and one heavy company of Panzer IVs.[8] On 11 January 1934, the German army wrote the specifications for a "medium tractor", and issued them to a number of defense companies. To support the Panzer III, which would be armed with a 37-millimetre (1.46 in) anti-tank gun, the new vehicle would have a short-barreled, howitzer-like 75-millimetre (2.95 in) as its main gun, and was allotted a weight limit of 24 tonnes (26.46 short tons). Development was carried out under the name Begleitwagen ("accompanying vehicle"),[9] or BW, to disguise its actual purpose, given that Germany was still theoretically bound by the Treaty of Versailles ban on tanks.[10] MAN, Krupp, and Rheinmetall-Borsig each developed prototypes,[8] with Krupp's being selected for further development.[11] The chassis had originally been designed with a six-wheeled Schachtellaufwerk interleaved-roadwheel suspension (as already adopted for German half-tracks), but the German Army amended this to a torsion bar system. Permitting greater vertical deflection of the roadwheels, this was intended to improve performance and crew comfort both on- and off-road.[11][12] However, due to the urgent requirement for the new tank, neither proposal was adopted, and Krupp instead equipped it with a simple leaf spring double-bogie suspension, with eight rubber-rimmed roadwheels per side. The prototype had a crew of five; the hull contained the engine bay to the rear, with the driver and radio operator, who doubled as the hull machine gunner, seated at the front-left and front-right, respectively. In the turret, the tank commander sat beneath his roof hatch, while the gunner was situated to the left of the gun breech and the loader to the right. The torque shaft ran from the rear engine to the transmission box in the front hull between the driver and radio operator. To keep the shaft clear of the rotary base junction, which provided electrical power to the turret including the motor to turn it, the turret was offset 66.5 mm (2.62 in) to the left of the chassis center line, and the engine was moved 152.4 mm (6.00 in) to the right. Due to the asymmetric layout, the right side of the tank contained the bulk of its stowage volume, which was taken up by ready-use ammunition lockers.[11] Accepted into service under the designation Versuchskraftfahrzeug 622 (Vs.Kfz. 622), "experimental motor vehicle 622",[10] production began in 1936 at Fried. Krupp Grusonwerk AG factory at Magdeburg.[13] Ausf. A to Ausf. F1 Panzer IV Ausf. A in 1939 Panzer IV Ausf. C 1943 The first mass-produced version of the Panzer IV was the Ausführung A (abbreviated to Ausf. A, meaning "Variant A"), in 1936. It was powered by a Maybach HL108 TR, producing 250 PS (183.87 kW), and used the SGR 75 transmission with five forward gears and one reverse,[14] achieving a maximum road speed of 31 kilometres per hour (19.26 mph).[15] As main armament, the vehicle mounted the short-barreled, howitzer-like 75 mm (2.95 in) Kampfwagenkanone 37 L/24 (7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24) tank gun, which was a low-velocity weapon mainly designed to fire high-explosive shells.[16] Against armored targets, firing the Panzergranate (armor-piercing shell) at 430 metres per second (1,410 ft/s) the KwK 37 could penetrate 43 millimetres (1.69 in), inclined at 30 degrees, at ranges of up to 700 metres (2,300 ft).[17] A 7.92 mm (0.31 in) MG 34 machine gun was mounted coaxially with the main weapon in the turret, while a second machine gun of the same type was mounted in the front plate of the hull.[11] The main weapon and coaxial machine gun were sighted with a Turmzielfernrohr 5b optic while the hull machine gun was sighted with a Kugelzielfernrohr 2 optic.[18] The Ausf. A was protected by

14.5 mm (0.57 in) of steel armor on the front plate of the chassis, and 20 mm (0.79 in) on the turret. This was only capable of stopping artillery fragments, small-arms fire, and light anti-tank projectiles.[19] A total of 35 A versions were produced.[10] The 300 horsepower Maybach HL 120TRM engine used in most Panzer IV production models. PzKpfw IV Ausf. D In 1937 production moved to the Ausf. B.[10] Improvements included the replacement of the original engine with the more powerful 300 PS (220.65 kW) Maybach HL 120TR, and the transmission with the new SSG 75 transmission, with six forward gears and one reverse gear. Despite a weight increase to 16 t (18 short tons), this improved the tank's speed to 42 kilometres per hour (26.10 mph).[20] The glacis plate was augmented to a maximum thickness of 30 millimetres (1.18 in),[19] while a new driver's visor was installed on the straightened hull front plate, and the hull-mounted machine gun was replaced by a covered pistol port and visor flap.[20] The superstructure width and ammunition stowage were reduced to save weight.[20] A new commander's cupola was introduced which was adopted from the Panzer III Ausf. C.[20] A Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung (smoke grenade discharger rack) was mounted on the rear of the hull starting in July 1938[20] and was back fitted to earlier Ausf. A and Ausf. B chassis starting in August 1938.[21] Forty-two Panzer IV Ausf. Bs were manufactured.[10] The Ausf. C replaced the B in 1938.[10][22] This saw the turret armor increased to 30 mm (1.18 in), which brought the tank's weight to 18.14 t (20.00 short tons).[22] After assembling 40 Ausf. Cs, starting with chassis number 80341, the engine was replaced with the improved HL 120TRM. The last of the 140 Ausf. Cs was produced in August 1939. Production changed to the Ausf. D; this variant, of which 248 vehicles were produced, reintroduced the hull machine gun and changed the turret's internal gun mantlet to a 35 mm (1.38 in)[23] thick external mantlet.[22] Again, protection was upgraded, this time by increasing side armor to 20 mm (0.79 in).[16] As the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 came to an end, it was decided to scale up production of the Panzer IV, which was adopted for general use on 27 September 1939 as the Sonderkraftfahrzeug 161 (Sd.Kfz. 161).[10] In response to the difficulty of penetrating the thick armor of British infantry tanks (Matilda and Matilda II) during the Battle of France, the Germans had tested a 50 mm (1.97 in) gun — based on the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun — on a Panzer IV Ausf. D. However, with the rapid German victory in France, the original order of 80 tanks was cancelled before they entered production.[24] In October 1940, the Ausf. E was introduced. This had 30 millimetres (1.18 in) of armor on the bow plate, while a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) appliqué steel plate was added to the glacis as an interim measure. A new driver's visor, adopted from the Sturmgeschütz III was installed on the hull front plate.[25] A new commander's cupola, adopted from the Panzer III Ausf. G, was relocated forward on the turret eliminating the bulge underneath the cupola.[26] Older model Panzer IV tanks were retrofitted with these features when returned to the manufacturer for servicing. 206 Ausf. Es were produced between October 1940 and April 1941.[3] The short-barreled Panzer IV Ausf. F1. In April 1941, production of the Panzer IV Ausf. F started. It featured 50 mm (1.97 in) single-plate armor on the turret and hull, as opposed to the appliqué armor added to the Ausf. E,[22] and a further increase in side armor to 30 mm (1.18 in).[27] The main engine exhaust muffler was shortened and a compact auxiliary generator muffler was mounted to its left.[25] The weight of the vehicle was now 22.3 tonnes (24.6 short tons), which required a corresponding modification of track width from 380 to 400 mm (14.96 to 15.75 in) to reduce ground pressure. The wider tracks also facilitated the fitting of track shoe "ice sprags", and the rear idler wheel and front sprocket were modified.[28] The

designation Ausf. F was changed in the meantime to Ausf. F1, after the distinct new model, the Ausf. F2, appeared. A total of 471 Ausf. F (later temporarily called F1) tanks were produced from April 1941 to March 1942.[3] Ausf. F2 to Ausf. J On 26 May 1941, mere weeks before Operation Barbarossa, during a conference with Hitler, it was decided to improve the Panzer IV's main armament. Krupp was awarded the contract to integrate again the 50 mm (1.97 in) Pak 38 L/60 gun into the turret. The first prototype was to be delivered by 15 November 1941.[29] Within months, the shock of encountering the Soviet T-34 medium and KV-1 heavy tanks necessitated a new, much more powerful tank gun.[30] In November 1941, the decision to up-gun the Panzer IV to the 50-millimetre (1.97 in) gun was dropped, and instead Krupp was contracted in a joint development to modify Rheinmetall's pending 75 mm (2.95 in) anti-tank gun design, later known as 7.5 cm Pak 40 L/46. Because the recoil length was too great for the tank's turret, the recoil mechanism and chamber were shortened. This resulted in the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/43.[31] When the new KwK 40 was loaded with the Pzgr. 39 armor-piercing shell, the new gun fired the AP shell at some 750 m/s (2,460 ft/s), a substantial 74% increase over the howitzer-like KwK 37 L/24 gun's 430 m/s (1,410 ft/s) muzzle velocity.[28] Initially, the KwK 40 gun was mounted with a single-chamber, ball-shaped muzzle brake, which provided just under 50% of the recoil system's braking ability.[32] Firing the Panzergranate 39, the KwK 40 L/43 could penetrate 77 mm (3.03 in) of steel armor at a range of 1,830 m (6,000 ft).[33] The longer 7.5 cm guns were a mixed blessing. In spite of the designers' efforts to conserve weight, the new weapon made the vehicle nose-heavy to such an extent that the forward suspension springs were under constant compression. This resulted in the tank tending to sway even when no steering was being applied, an effect compounded by the introduction of the Ausführung H in March 1943.[34] The 1942 Panzer IV Ausf. F2 was an upgrade of the Ausf. F, fitted with the KwK 40 L/43 anti-tank gun to counter Soviet T-34 medium and KV heavy tanks. The Ausf. F tanks that received the new, longer, KwK 40 L/43 gun were temporarily named Ausf. F2 (with the designation Sd.Kfz. 161/1). The tank increased in weight to 23.6 tonnes (26.0 short tons). Differences between the Ausf. F1 and the Ausf. F2 were mainly associated with the change in armament, including an altered gun mantlet, internal travel lock for the main weapon, new gun cradle, new Turmzielfernrohr 5f optic for the L/43 weapon, modified ammunition stowage, and discontinuing of the Nebelkerzenabwurfvorrichtung in favor of turret mounted Nebelwurfgerät.[35] Three months after beginning production, the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 was renamed Ausf. G.[36] During its production run from March 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade which consisted of a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) face-hardened appliqué steel plate welded (later bolted) to the glacis—in total, frontal armor was now 80 mm (3.15 in) thick.[37] This decision to increase frontal armor was favorably received according to troop reports on 8 November 1942, despite technical problems of the driving system due to added weight. At this point, it was decided that 50% of Panzer IV production would be fitted with 30 mm (1.18 in) thick additional armor plates. On 5 January 1943, Hitler decided that all Panzer IV should have 80 mm (3.15 in) frontal armor.[38] To simplify production, the vision ports on either side of the turret and the loader's forward vision port in the turret front were removed, while a rack for two spare road wheels was installed on the track guard on the left side of the hull. Complementing this, brackets for seven spare track links were added to the glacis plate. For operation in high temperatures, the engine's ventilation was improved by creating slits over the engine deck to the rear of the chassis, and cold

weather performance was boosted by adding a device to heat the engine's coolant, as well as a starter fluid injector. A new light replaced the original headlight and the signal port on the turret was removed.[39] On 19 March 1943, the first Panzer IV with Schürzen skirts on its sides and turret was exhibited.[40] The double hatch for the commander's cupola was replaced by a single round hatch from very late model Ausf. G. and the cupola was up-armored from 50 mm (1.97 in) to 95 mm (3.74 in). In April 1943, the KwK 40 L/43 was replaced by the longer 75-millimetre (2.95 in) KwK 40 L/48 gun, with a redesigned multi-baffle muzzle brake with improved recoil efficiency.[41] The longer L/48 resulted in the introduction of the Turmzielfernrohr 5f/1 optic.[42] A Panzer IV Ausf H at the Musée des Blindés in Saumur, France, with its distinctive Zimmerit anti-magnetic mine coating, turret skirts, and wire-mesh side-skirts. The next version, the Ausf. H, began production in June 1943[3] and received the designation Sd. Kfz. 161/2. The integrity of the glacis armor was improved by manufacturing it as a single 80-millimetre (3.15 in) plate. A reinforced final drive with higher gear ratios was introduced.[43] To prevent adhesion of magnetic anti-tank mines, which the Germans feared would be used in large numbers by the Allies, Zimmerit paste was added to all the vertical surfaces of the tank's armor.[44] The turret roof was reinforced from 10-millimetre (0.39 in) to 16-millimetre (0.63 in) and 25-millimetre (0.98 in) segments.[43] The vehicle's side and turret were further protected by the addition of 5-millimetre (0.20 in) hull skirts and 8-millimetre (0.31 in) turret skirts.[4][45] This resulted in the elimination of the vision ports located on the hull side,[43] as the skirts obstructed their view. During the Ausf. H's production run, its rubber-tired return rollers were replaced with cast steel, a lighter cast front sprocket and rear idler wheel gradually replaced the previous components,[43] the hull was fitted with triangular supports for the easily damaged side skirts, the Nebelwurfgeraet was discontinued, and a mount in the turret roof, designed for the Nahverteidigungswaffe, was plugged by a circular armored plate due to initial production shortages of this weapon.[46][47] These modifications meant that the tank's weight increased to 25 tonnes (27.56 short tons). In spite of a new six-speed SSG 77 transmission adopted from the Panzer III, top speed dropped to as low as 16 km/h (10 mph) on cross country terrain. An experimental version of the Ausf H was fitted with a hydrostatic transmission but was not put into production.[34] The Ausf. J was the final production model, and was greatly simplified compared to earlier variants to speed construction. This shows an exported Finnish model. Despite addressing the mobility problems introduced by the previous model, the final production version of the Panzer IV—the Ausf. J—was considered a retrograde from the Ausf. H. Born of necessity, to replace heavy losses, it was greatly simplified to speed production.[48] The electric generator that powered the tank's turret traverse was removed, so the turret had to be rotated manually. The turret traversing mechanism was modified and fitted with a second gear which made hand-operation easier when the vehicle was on sloping terrain.[49] On reasonably level ground, hand operation at 4 seconds to traverse to 12.5° and 29.5 seconds to traverse to 120° was achieved.[49] The resulting space was later used for the installation of an auxiliary 200-litre (53 US gal) fuel tank; road range was thereby increased to 320 km (200 mi),[50] The remaining pistol and vision ports on the turret side hatches were removed, and the engine's radiator housing was simplified by changing the slanted sides to straight sides.[47] Three sockets with screw threads for mounting a 2-ton jib boom crane were welded on the turret roof while the hull roof was thickened from 11-millimetre (0.43 in) to 16-millimetre (0.63 in).[51] In addition, the cylindrical muffler was

replaced by two flame-suppressing mufflers. In June 1944 Wa Prüf 6 had decided that because bomb damage at Panzerfirma Krupp in Essen had seriously jeopardized tank production, all plates which should have been face-hardened for the Panzer IV were instead made with rolled homogeneous armour plate.[51] By late 1944, Zimmerit was no longer being applied to German armored vehicles, and the Panzer IV's side-skirts had been replaced by wire mesh, while the gunner's forward vision port in the turret front was eliminated[52] and the number of return rollers was reduced from four to three to further speed-up production.[53] In a bid to augment the Panzer IV's firepower, an attempt was made to mate a Schmalturm turret — carrying the longer 75 mm (2.95 in) L/70 tank gun from the developing Panther Ausf. F tank design, and partly developed by Rheinmetall from early 1944 onwards — to a Panzer IV hull. This failed and confirmed that the chassis had reached the limit of its adaptability in both weight and available volume.[48] Production Panzer IV production by year[3] Date Number of vehicles Variant (Ausf.) 1937–1939 262 A – D 1940 290 (-24) D, E 1941 480 (+17) E, F 1942 994 F, G 1943 2,983 G, H 1944 3,125 H, J 1945 ~435 J Total ~8,569 all The Panzer IV was originally intended to be used only on a limited scale, so initially Krupp was its sole manufacturer. Prior to the Polish campaign, only 217 Panzer IVs had been produced: 35 Ausf. A; 42 Ausf. B; and 140 Ausf. C; in 1941, production was extended to Vogtländische Maschinenfabrik ("VOMAG") (located in the city of Plauen) and the Nibelungenwerk in the Austrian city of St. Valentin.[3] In 1941, an average of 39 tanks per month were built; this rose to 83 in 1942, 252 in 1943, and 300 in 1944. However, in December 1943, Krupp's factory was diverted to manufacture the Sturmgeschütz IV and, in the spring of 1944, the Vomag factory began production of the Jagdpanzer IV, leaving the Nibelungenwerk as the only plant still assembling the Panzer IV.[54] With the slow collapse of German industry under pressure from Allied air and ground offensives—in October 1944 the Nibelungenwerk factory was severely damaged during a bombing raid—by March and April 1945, production had fallen to pre-1942 levels, with only around 55 tanks per month coming off the assembly lines.[55] Panzer IV: comparison of key production features[56] Version Main gun Superstructure armour mm (inch) Hull armour mm (inch) Turret armour mm (inch) Weight tonnes (long tons; short tons) Engine Notes F S R F S R F S R Ausf. A VK622 7.5 cm KwK L/24 15 (0.59) 18.4 (18.1; 20.3) Maybach HL 108TR 250 PS (246.6 hp; 183.9 kW) SGR 75 transmission Ausf. B 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 18.8 (18.5; 20.7) SSG 75 transmission Ausf. C 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 30 (1.2) 15 (0.59) 15 (0.59) 19.0 (18.7; 20.9) Maybach HL 120 TRM 300 PS (300 hp; 220 kW) Ausf. D 30 + 30 † 20 (0.79) + 20 † 20 (0.79) 30 (1.2) 20 (0.79) 20 (0.79) 30 (1.2) 20 (0.79) 20 (0.79) 20.0 (19.7; 22.0) Ausf. E 30 + 30 † 20 + 20 † 20 30 + 30 † 20 + 20 † 20 30 20 20 21.0 (20.7; 23.1) Ausf. F1 50 (2.0) 30 (1.2) 20 (0.79) 50 (2.0) 30 (1.2) 20 (0.79) 50 (2.0) 30 (1.2) 30 (1.2) 22.3 (21.9; 24.6) track width increased from 380 to 400 mm (15 to 16 in) Ausf. F2 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 50 30 20 50 30 20 50 30 30 23.0 (22.6; 25.4) single-chamber, globe, muzzle brake Ausf. G 50 + 30 † 30 20 50 + 30 † 30 20 50 30 + 8 (0.31)‡ 30 + 8 ‡ 23.5 (23.1; 25.9) multi-baffle muzzle brake Ausf. H 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48 80 (3.1) 30 20 80 30 20 50 30 + 8 ‡ 30 + 8 ‡ 25.0 (24.6; 27.6) Zimmerit paste added to vertical surfaces SSG 77 transmission Ausf. J 80 30 20 80 30 20 50 30 + 8 ‡ 30 + 8 ‡ 25.0 (24.6; 27.6) electric motor for turret traverse removed, Rolled homogeneous armour, no Zimmerit † – appliqué armor plate, bolted or welded on ‡ – Schürzen skirts Export The Panzer IV was one of the most widely exported German tanks of the Second World War.[57] In 1942, Germany delivered 11 tanks to Romania and 32 to Hungary,

many of which were lost on the Eastern Front between the final months of 1942 and the beginning of 1943 during the battles around Stalingrad, at which the Hungarian and Romanian troops there were almost annihilated by the attacking Soviet forces.[58] Romania received approximately 120 Panzer IV tanks of different models throughout the entire war.[59] To arm Bulgaria, Germany supplied 46[60] or 91[61] Panzer IVs, and offered Italy 12 tanks to form the nucleus of a new Italian Army armored division. These were used to train Italian tank crews while the-then Italian leader Benito Mussolini was deposed shortly after the Allied conquest of Sicily but were then retaken by Germany during its occupation of Italy in mid-1943.[60] The Falangist Spanish government petitioned for 100 Panzer IVs in March 1943 but only 20 were ever delivered by December that same year.[62] Finland bought 30 but only received 15 in 1944 and in the same year a second batch of 62[60] or 72[61] was sent to Hungary (although 20 of these were subsequently diverted to replace German military losses).[61] The Croatian Ustashe Militia received 10 Ausf. F1 and 5 Ausf. G in the autumn of 1944.[63] In total, 297 Panzer IVs of all models were delivered to Germany's allies.[64] Combat history A Panzer IV Ausf. E with hits on the turret and the edge of the gun barrel. The Panzer IV was the only German tank to remain in both production and combat throughout World War II,[65][66] and measured over the entire war it comprised 30% of the Wehrmacht's total tank strength.[67] Although in service by early 1939, in time for the occupation of Czechoslovakia,[68] at the start of the war the majority of German armor was made up of obsolete Panzer Is and Panzer IIs.[69] The Panzer I in particular had already proved inferior to Soviet tanks, such as the T-26, during the Spanish Civil War.[70] Poland, Western Front and North Africa (1939–1942) When Germany invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, its armored corps was composed of 1,445 Panzer Is, 1,223 Panzer IIs, 98 Panzer IIIs and 211 Panzer IVs; the more modern vehicles amounted to less than 10% of Germany's armored strength.[71] The 1st Panzer Division had a roughly equal balance of types, with 17 Panzer Is, 18 Panzer IIs, 28 Panzer IIIs, and 14 Panzer IVs per battalion. The remaining panzer divisions were heavy with obsolete models, equipped as they were with 34 Panzer Is, 33 Panzer IIs, 5 Panzer IIIs, and 6 Panzer IVs per battalion.[72] Although the Polish Army possessed less than 200 tanks capable of penetrating the German light tanks, Polish anti-tank guns proved more of a threat, reinforcing German faith in the value of the close-support Panzer IV.[73] A British Crusader tank passing a burning German Panzer IV during Operation Crusader, late 1941. Despite increased production of the medium Panzer IIIs and IVs prior to the German invasion of France on 10 May 1940, the majority of German tanks were still light types. According to Heinz Guderian, the Wehrmacht invaded France with 523 Panzer Is, 955 Panzer IIs, 349 Panzer IIIs, 278 Panzer IVs, 106 Panzer 35(t)s and 228 Panzer 38(t)s.[74] Through the use of tactical radios[75] and superior tactics, the Germans were able to outmaneuver and defeat French and British armor.[76] However, Panzer IVs armed with the KwK 37 L/24 75-millimetre (2.95 in) tank gun found it difficult to engage French tanks such as the Somua S35 and Char B1.[77] The Somua S35 had a maximum armor thickness of 55 mm (2.2 in),[78] while the KwK 37 L/24 could only penetrate 43 mm (1.7 in) at a range of 700 m (2,300 ft).[17] The British Matilda II was also heavily armored, with at least 70 mm (2.76 in) of steel on the front and turret and a minimum of 65 mm on the sides,[79] but were few in number. Although the Panzer IV was deployed to North Africa with the German Afrika Korps, until the longer gun variant began production, the tank was outperformed by the Panzer III with respect to armor penetration.[80] Both the Panzer III and IV had difficulty in penetrating the British Matilda II's thick armor, while

the Matilda's 40-mm QF 2 pounder gun could knock out either German tank; the Matilda II's major disadvantage was its low speed.[81] By August 1942, Rommel had only received 27 Panzer IV Ausf. F2s, armed with the L/43 gun, which he deployed to spearhead his armored offensives.[81] The longer gun could penetrate all American and British tanks in theater at ranges of up to 1,500 m (4,900 ft), by that time the most heavily armored of which was the M3 Grant.[82] Although more of these tanks arrived in North Africa between August and October 1942, their numbers were insignificant compared to the amount of matériel shipped to British forces.[83] The Panzer IV also took part in the invasion of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Greece in early 1941.[84] Eastern Front (1941–1945) A PzKpfw IV Ausf. H of the 12th Panzer Division carrying Schürzen skirting operating on the Eastern Front in the USSR, 1944. With the launching of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, the unanticipated appearance of the KV-1 and T-34 tanks prompted an upgrade of the Panzer IV's 75 mm (2.95 in) gun to a longer, high-velocity 75 mm gun suitable for anti-tank use. This meant that it could now penetrate the T-34 at ranges of up to 1,200 m (3,900 ft) at any angle.[85] The 75 mm KwK 40 L/43 gun on the Panzer IV could penetrate a T-34 at a variety of impact angles beyond 1,000 m (3,300 ft) range and up to 1,600 m (5,200 ft).[86] Shipment of the first model to mount the new gun, the Ausf. F2, began in spring 1942, and by the summer offensive there were around 135 Panzer IVs with the L/43 tank gun available. At the time, these were the only German tanks that could defeat T-34 or KV-1 with sheer firepower.[87] They played a crucial role in the events that unfolded between June 1942 and March 1943,[88] and the Panzer IV became the mainstay of the German panzer divisions.[89] Although in service by late September 1942, the Tiger I was not yet numerous enough to make an impact and suffered from serious teething problems, while the Panther was not delivered to German units in the Soviet Union until May 1943.[90] The extent of German reliance on the Panzer IV during this period is reflected by their losses; 502 were destroyed on the Eastern Front in 1942.[91] The Panzer IV continued to play an important role during operations in 1943, including at the Battle of Kursk. Newer types, such as the Panther, were still experiencing crippling reliability problems that restricted their combat efficiency,[92] so much of the effort fell to the 841 Panzer IVs that took part in the battle.[93] Throughout 1943, the German army lost 2,352 Panzer IVs on the Eastern Front;[94] some divisions were reduced to 12–18 tanks by the end of the year.[89] In 1944, a further 2,643 Panzer IVs were destroyed, and such losses were becoming increasingly difficult to replace.[95] Nevertheless, due to a shortage of replacement Panther tanks, the Panzer IV continued to form the core of Germany's armored divisions, including elite units such as the II SS Panzer Corps, through 1944.[96] In January 1945, 287 Panzer IVs were lost on the Eastern Front. It is estimated that combat against Soviet forces accounted for 6,153 Panzer IVs, or about 75% of all Panzer IV losses during the war.[97] Western Front (1944–45) A Panzer IV Ausf. G of the 1st SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, 1942. Panzer IVs comprised around half of the available German tank strength on the Western Front prior to the Allied invasion of Normandy on 6 June 1944.[98] Most of the 11 panzer divisions that saw action in Normandy initially contained an armored regiment of one battalion of Panzer IVs and another of Panthers, for a total of around 160 tanks, although Waffen-SS panzer divisions were generally larger and better equipped than their Heer counterparts.[99][100] Regular upgrades to the Panzer IV had helped to maintain its reputation as a formidable opponent.[98] The bocage countryside in Normandy favored defense, and German tanks and anti-tank guns inflicted very heavy

casualties on Allied armor during the Normandy campaign, despite the overwhelming Allied air superiority. German counter-attacks were blunted in the face of Allied artillery, infantry-held anti-tank weapons, tank destroyers and anti-tank guns, as well as the ubiquitous fighter-bomber aircraft.[101] The side skirt armor could predetonate shaped charge anti-tank weapons such as the British PIAT, but could be pulled away by rugged terrain. German tankers in all theaters were "frustrated by the way these skirts were easily torn off when going through dense brush".[98] Pz.Kpfw-IV in Belgrade Military Museum, Serbia. The Allies had also been improving their tanks; the widely used American-designed M4 Sherman medium tank, while mechanically reliable, repairable, and available in large numbers, suffered from an inadequate gun in terms of armor-piercing.[102] Against earlier-model Panzer IVs, it could hold its own, but with its 75 mm M3 gun, struggled against the late-model Panzer IV.[103] The late-model Panzer IV's 80 mm (3.15 in) frontal hull armor could easily withstand hits from the 75 mm (2.95 in) weapon on the Sherman at normal combat ranges,[104] though the turret remained vulnerable. The British up-gunned the Sherman with their highly effective 76 mm QF 17-pounder anti-tank gun, resulting in the Firefly;[105] although this was the only Allied tank capable of dealing with all current German tanks at normal combat ranges, few (342) were available in time for the Normandy invasion.[102] One Sherman in every British troop of four was a Firefly. By the end of the Normandy campaign, a further 550 Fireflies were built.[106] which was enough to make good any losses.[107] A second British tank equipped with the 17-pdr gun, the Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger, could not participate in the initial landings having to wait for port facilities to be ready to land. It was not until July 1944 that American Shermans fitted with the 76 mm gun M1 gun achieved a parity in firepower with the Panzer IV.[108][109] By 29 August 1944, as the last surviving German troops of Fifth Panzer Army and Seventh Army began retreating towards Germany, the twin cataclysms of the Falaise Pocket and the Seine crossing cost the Wehrmacht dearly. Of the 2,300 tanks and assault guns it had committed to Normandy (including around 750 Panzer IVs[110]), over 2,200 had been lost.[111] Field Marshal Walter Model reported to Hitler that his panzer divisions had remaining, on average, five or six tanks each.[111] During the winter of 1944–45, the Panzer IV was one of the most numerous tanks in the Ardennes offensive, where further heavy losses—as often due to fuel shortages as to enemy action—impaired major German armored operations in the West thereafter.[112] The Panzer IVs that took part were survivors of the battles in France between June and September 1944,[dubious – discuss] with around 260 additional Panzer IV Ausf. Js issued as reinforcements.[110] Other users A captured German Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. G used for anti-tank weapons testing by the British Eighth Army in Italy in 1943. Finland bought 15 new Panzer IV Ausf. Js in 1944 for 5,000,000 Finnish markkas each.[113] The remainder of an order for 40 tanks and some StuG IIIs were not delivered and neither were necessary German tank instructors provided. The tanks arrived too late to see action against the Soviet Union but instead ended up being used against Nazi Germany during their withdrawal through Lapland. After the war, they served as training tanks and one portrayed a Soviet KV-1 tank in the movie The Unknown Soldier in 1955.[citation needed] The additional weight, going from the 18.4 tons (Ausf. A) to about 25 tons (Ausf. J), of these modifications strained the relatively light chassis. The overloaded and primitive leaf-spring suspension gave its crew a shaky ride, earning the Panzer IV the nickname "Ravistin" ("Shaker") in Finnish service. This not only affected general crew comfort, but also hampered the accurate aiming of the main gun. What exactly caused this vibration that gave the PzKw IV Ausf. J

such a bad name among Finnish tank crews remains somewhat unclear, but the poor suspension seems to be the most likely suspect.[114] After 1945, Bulgaria incorporated its surviving Panzer IVs into defensive bunkers as gunpoints on its border with Turkey, along with Soviet T-34 turrets. This defensive line, known as the "Krali Marko Line", remained in use until the fall of communism in 1989.[citation needed] Twenty Panzer IV Ausf. Hs and ten StuG III Ausf. Gs were supplied to Spain in December 1943, a small fraction of what Spain had originally asked for. The Panzer IV represented the best tank in Spanish service between 1944 and 1954, and was deployed along with T-26s and Panzer Is. Spain sold 17 Panzer IVs to Syria in 1967, with the remaining three left conserved. These can be found in Madrid, Burgos and Santovenia de Pisuerga (Valladolid). Most of the tanks Romania had received were lost during combat between 1944 and 1945. These tanks, designated T4 in the army's inventory, were used by the Army's 2nd Armored Regiment. On 9 May 1945, only two Panzer IVs were left. Romania received another 50 captured Panzer IV tanks from the Red Army after the end of the war. These tanks were of many different models and were in very bad shape[59]—many of them were missing parts and the side-skirts. These German T4 tanks remained in service until 1950, when the Army decided to use only Soviet equipment. By 1954, all German tanks in Romanian military service had been scrapped. An ex-Syrian Panzer IV displayed at the AAF Tank Museum. While their numbers remain uncertain, Syria received around 60 Panzers that were refurbished in France between 1950 and 1952, followed by 50 others purchased from Czechoslovakia in 1954, per the Czechoslovakia-Syria arms deal.[115] A Soviet 12.7mm DShK machine gun on an anti-aircraft mount was retrofitted on the cupola. These ex-German tanks were used to shell Israeli settlements below the Golan Heights, together with Soviet-supplied T-34s, and were fired upon in 1965 during the Water War by Israeli Super Sherman and Centurion tanks.[112] Syria received 17 Panzer IVs from Spain, with these seeing combat during the Six-Day War in 1967.[116] Several of Syria's Panzer IVs were captured by the Israeli Army and donated to the Yad La-Shiryon museum. The AAF Tank Museum in Danville, Virginia later traded a US M5 Stuart light tank to the Latrun museum for one of the Czechoslovak-origin Panzer IVs, which is now an exhibit there.[117] In addition, Turkey was a buyer, with 35 Panzer IVs received until 4 May 1944 in exchange for some chromium ore. Delivery began with the Ausf. G and probably went on with Ausf. H versions.[118] Other sources state only 15 to 22 tanks were delivered in 1943, all of the Ausf G version.[119] Captured Panzer IVs in service The Soviet Army captured significant numbers of German armored vehicles, including Panzer IVs (its Russian designation was "T-4"). Some of them were pressed into temporary service and some others were used for driver or anti-tank training. Sometimes, captured tanks were used in different temporary units or as single tanks. While captured Tiger I/IIs and Panthers were only permitted to be used until they irrecoverably broke down, the simplicity of the Panzer IV and the large number of captured parts allowed for long-term repair and continued use. At least one captured Panzer IV Ausf. H was used by the Warsaw Tank Brigade of the Polish 2nd Corps in Italy during 1944. The 1st GMR (Groupement Mobile de Reconnaissance) of the FFI (French Forces of the Interior), later called 'Escadron Autonome de Chars Besnier', was equipped in December 1944 with at least one Panzer IV. Variants A Jagdpanzer IV tank destroyer, based on the Panzer IV chassis, mounting the 75 mm Pak L/48 anti-tank gun. A Sturmpanzer IV infantry-support gun The Wirbelwind self-propelled anti-aircraft gun. In keeping with the wartime German design expediencies of mounting an existing anti-tank gun on a convenient chassis to give mobility, several tank destroyers and infantry support guns were

built around the Panzer IV hull. Both the Jagdpanzer IV, initially armed with the 75-millimetre (2.95 in) L/48 tank gun,[120] and the Krupp-manufactured Sturmgeschütz IV, which was the casemate of the Sturmgeschütz III mounted on the body of the Panzer IV,[121] proved highly effective in defense. Cheaper and faster to construct than tanks, but with the disadvantage of a very limited gun traverse, around 1,980 Jagdpanzer IVs[122] and 1,140 Sturmgeschütz IVs[123] were produced. Another tank destroyer, the Panzer IV/70, used the same basic 75-millimeter L/70 gun that was mounted on the Panther.[124][125] Another variant of the Panzer IV was the Panzerbefehlswagen IV (Pz. Bef. Wg. IV) command tank. This conversion entailed the installation of additional radio sets with associated mounting racks, transformers, junction boxes, wiring, antennas and an auxiliary electrical generator. To make room for the new equipment, ammunition stowage was reduced from 87 to 72 rounds. The vehicle could coordinate with nearby armor, infantry or even aircraft. Seventeen Panzerbefehlswagen were built on Ausf. J chassis in August and September 1944,[3] while another 88 were based on refurbished chassis.[126] The Panzerbeobachtungswagen IV (Pz. Beob. Wg. IV) was an artillery observation vehicle built on the Panzer IV chassis. This, too, received new radio equipment and an electrical generator, installed in the left rear corner of the fighting compartment. Panzerbeobachtungswagens worked in cooperation with Wespe and Hummel self-propelled artillery batteries.[127] Also based on the Panzer IV chassis was the Sturmpanzer IV (called "Brummbär" by Allied intelligence) 150-millimetre (5.91 in) infantry-support self-propelled gun. These vehicles were primarily issued to four Sturmpanzer units (Numbers 216, 217, 218 and 219) and used during the battle of Kursk and in Italy in 1943. Two separate versions of the Sturmpanzer IV existed, one without a machine gun in the mantlet and one with a machine gun mounted on the mantlet of the casemate.[128] Furthermore, a 105-millimetre (4.13 in) artillery gun was mounted in an experimental demountable turret on a Panzer IV chassis. This variant was called the Heuschrecke ("grasshopper").[129] Another 105 mm artillery/anti-tank prototype was the 10.5 cm K (gp.Sfl.) nicknamed Dicker Max. Four different self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles were built on the Panzer IV hull. The Flakpanzer IV "Möbelwagen" ("moving van") was armed with a 37-millimetre (1.46 in) anti-aircraft cannon; 240 were built between 1944 and 1945. In late 1944 a new Flakpanzer, the Wirbelwind ("whirlwind"), was designed, with enough armor to protect the gun's crew in a rotating turret, armed with the quadruple 20 mmFlakvierling anti-aircraft cannon system; at least 100 were manufactured. Sixty-five (out of an order for 100) similar vehicles with a single 37 mm anti-aircraft cannon were built named Ostwind ("East wind"). This vehicle was designed to replace the Wirbelwind. The final model was the Flakpanzer IV Kugelblitz, of which only five pilot vehicles were built. This vehicle featured an enclosed turret armed with twin 30-millimetre (1.18 in) Rheinmetall-Borsig MK 103 aircraft cannon.[130] Although not a direct modification of the Panzer IV, some of its components, in conjunction with parts from the Panzer III, were utilized to make one of the most widely used self-propelled artillery chassis of the war—the Geschützwagen III/IV. This chassis was the basis of the Hummel, of which 666 were built, and also the 88-millimetre (3.46 in) gun-armed Nashorn tank destroyer, with 473 manufactured.[131] To resupply self-propelled howitzers in the field, 150 ammunition carriers were manufactured on the Geschützwagen III/IV chassis.[68] Another variant was the Bergepanzer IV armored recovery vehicle. Some were believed to have been converted locally,[132] 21 were converted from hulls returned for repair between October 1944 and January 1945. The conversion involved removing the turret and adding a wooden plank cover with an access hatch over the turret

ring and the addition of a 2-ton jib crane and rigid towing bars.[133] Panzer IV mit hydrostatischem antrieb Another rare variant was the Panzer IV mit hydrostatischem antrieb. In 1944, Zahnradfabrik (ZF) Augsburg plant produced a prototype with an unusual drive concept. A Panzer IV Ausf. H tank received a fluid drive instead of the normal gearbox. Two oil pumps were installed behind the engine, which in turn drove two oil engines. An axial engine drive transmitted the power to the rear drive wheels via a reduction gear. Instead of the two steering levers, the driver had a crescent-shaped steering wheel with the steering movements of which two steering cylinders were operated, which in turn regulated the volume of the oil pumps and thus regulated the adjacent force on the two drive wheels. The only prototype built was not used and was shipped to America after the war to be subjected to driving tests. These finally had to be discontinued due to a lack of spare parts. The only surviving vehicle is now in United States Army Ordnance Training and Heritage Center in Maryland.[134] Production models Production models of Panzer IV[3] Name Production details Ausf.A, 1/BW (Sd.Kfz.161) 35 produced by Krupp-Gruson, between November 1937 and June 1938. Ausf.B, 2/BW 42 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from May to October 1938. Ausf.C, 3/BW 140 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1938 to August 1939. Ausf.D, 4/BW + 5/BW 200 + 48 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1939 to October 1940. Ausf.E, 6/BW 206 produced by Krupp-Gruson, from October 1940 to April 1941. Ausf.F, 7/BW 471 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from April 1941 to March 1942. Ausf.F2, 7/BW Umbau (Sd.Kfz.161/1) Temporary designation for Ausf F chassis built with long 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 main gun, later renamed into Auf. G and 8/BW. Ausf.G, 8/BW 1,927 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from March 1942 to June 1943. Ausf.H, 9/BW (Sd.Kfz.161/2) ~2,324 produced by Krupp-Gruson, Vomag and Nibelungenwerke from June 1943 to February 1944. Ausf.J, 10/BW ~3,160 produced by Nibelungenwerke and Vomag from February 1944 to April 1945. Variants based on chassis Derivatives of Panzer IV Name Production details Tauchpanzer IV 42 converted from July 1940 as submersible medium support tanks Panzerbefehlswagen Command tank with additional radio equipment, 17 built on Ausf. J and further 88 on rebuilt chassis Panzerbeobachtungswagen IV Artillery spotter tank with special radio equipment, 133 converted from Ausf. J Sturmpanzer IV Heavy Assault gun armed with 150 mm Infantry gun Sturmgeschütz IV Assault gun, similar to StuG III, armed with 7.5 cm gun Jagdpanzer IV and Panzer IV/70 Tank destroyer armed with 7.5 cm gun Nashorn Heavy Panzerjäger armed with 8.8 cm Anti-tank gun Hummel Self-propelled artillery armed with 150 mm Howitzer Flakpanzer IV Multiple variants of Panzer IV chassis armed with various Flak guns Brückenleger IV b+c 20+4 bridge layer tanks built by Krupp and Magirus, on Ausf.C and Ausf.D chassis, from February to May 1940 Brückenleger IV s (Sturmstegpanzer) 4 assault bridge carriers converted from Ausf.C chassis in 1940 Bergepanzer IV 21 armoured recovery vehicles converted from Pz IV chassis from October to December 1944 Panzer IV mit hydrostatischem antrieb 1 Panzer IV Ausf. H with a hydraulic drive by Zahnradfabrik in 1944

Thank you for this my love

#/s #/p #Long post

4 notes · View notes

fruitfish · 6 years ago

Text

i saw this and wanted to do it for my upcoming novel*

rules: answer the questions and then tag as many writers as there are questions answered (or as many as you can) to spread the positivity! even if these questions are not explicitly brought up in the novel, they are still good to keep in mind when writing.

FIRST LOOK

1. describe your novel in 1-2 sentences (elevator pitch).

young woman grapples with the multi-pronged problem of moving on from an abusive relationship when she moves to the middle of nowhere and gets a semi-fresh start

2. How long do you plan for your novel to be? (Is it a novella, single book, book series, etc.)

~60k words as of my current projection (so a short novel). i can see writing a sequel someday tho

3. What is your novel’s aesthetic?

looming mountains. they’re beautiful but they don’t care about you and your problems. beakers clinking with stir bars. a science problem you will never understand. four boys smoking weed on a porch, lit only by half-burnt out string lights. a glacial lake so cold it shouldn’t be melted.

4. What other stories inspire your novel?

there are some elements of pantheism present- specifically, a sort of pushback against materialism, a belief that there do exist things that are sublime. also one chapter is heavily inspired by a brief scene in the iliad

MAIN CHARACTER

6. Who is your protagonist?

julia, a young chemist who just graduated from college and has no clue what she wants to do with her career. she just moved to colorado, where no one knows her, and she develops an unexpected obsession with the mountains and with the boys across the way

7. Who is their closest ally?

dean, one of the boys across the way, who is nicest to julia and proves to be unbelievably good hearted and wise. he sticks up for her when the others give her trouble. but he comes to represent a problem, too

8. Who is their enemy?

her stalker ex, peter

9. What do they want more than anything?

she wants to stop living in fear and learn to trust people (men and women) again. she also wants to be outstanding, but she can’t come close until she stops living in fear

10. Why can’t they have it?

she thinks every man is peter and everyone woman is herself at her worst. she also can’t stop feeling guilty for even getting into a relationship with peter in the first place

11. What do they wrongly believe about themselves?

she thinks what happened to her was her fault

12. Draw your protagonist! (Or share a description)

i intentionally never shared any details of her appearance, all we know is that she’s medium height and thinks she’s unnattractive

PLOT POINTS

13. What is the internal conflict?

fear of people/men, inability to let her guard down, inability to feel intense emotions (like love for another person ;)) without beating herself up about it

14. What is the external conflict?

julia is desperate to date one of the boys across the way, because she thinks it will solve all her problems. but she’s also afraid to date one of the boys across the way, because she’s not really ready for that level of intimacy yet. she wants intimacy but she fears it

15. What is the worst thing that could happen to your protagonist?

peter finds her and shows up. he wouldn’t even have to do anything, just being there would be enough

16. What secret will be revealed that changes the course of the story?

essentially everything about peter comes to change the story. all is revealed, one thing at a time

17. Do you know how it ends?

hell yeah bb

18. What is the theme?

i guess one is the overwhelming beauty of the world, and one is about finding the line between trust and fear, and one is about forgiving previously unforgivable people

19. What is a recurring symbol?

mountains, weed (lol), the masculine and feminine in all of us but also how they present themselves physically (a fancy way of saying phalluses occur but in a very clinical way)

20. Where is the story set? (Share a description!)

outskirts of denver, where it is hot in the summer and mostly flat but you can still see the mountains in the distance. the bulk of the story takes place on either a) the boys across the ways’ porch, which is dark, dank, and stereotypically masculine but somehow nerdy at the same time, b) the lab, which is sterile and sectioned into cubicles and labs but also somehow full of friendly people and warmth, and c) the mountains, which are beautiful and cold and greener than you’d expect

21. Do you have any images or scenes in your mind already?

yes, half this novel is written already (35k words) and i already knew exactly how it’s gonna end (the desert is involved)

22. What excited you about this story?

i watched the netflix series “you” in large part because i HAD to know how beck was going to move on from such a horrible man. but they fucking killed her! i needed to explore the multi-leveled experience of recovering from something like that, and i wasn’t conveying it well in short stories. no matter what i wrote, i could only capture one or two aspects at a time, so i needed to make it a longer work with an actual dynamic group of characters for julia to interact with and learn from

23. Tell us about your usual writing method!

i write exclusively when i’m supposed to be working on other things. so, late and night or first thing in the morning are my most productive times. i can often write an entire chapter (i always shoot for chapters to be between 4-5k words) in one sitting, since i already know the plot and the characters so deeply. but of course a ton of editing is needed and i usually start editing as soon as i’ve written a chapter (controversial technique i know)

*no one asked me to do this

#writblr #writing #where the writers at #camp nano 2019 #camp nanowrimo

4 notes · View notes

serkonans · 6 years ago

Note

i would legit love to know ur answer to all of those dnd questions tbh

so many gfsljgf thank you antonia i love ask memesputting #13 up here for the anon who requested it and the rest below the cut!13. Introduce your current party.I currently DM a few games! School is hectic and I don’t get to play very often but all the characters are GoodI have one group campaign titled “When the River Bleeds Red” (which is probably news to you, Antonia, and everyone else who plays, idt I ever mentioned that slkfjglfskj) that has a blacksmith (half-elven cleric, @the-idiot-who-stood-still) named Brigitte Faestrum, a pumpkin farmer (halfling druid, @beesgnees) named Cathal Headrig, a former stage performer (fire genasi sorcerer, @merrigold) named Emelia Sparks, and a former mercenary (gnome fighter, @jacqmutiny) named Nyx!I also DM one-on-one campaigns for @merrigold (who plays an aasimar druid named senua tasked with undertaking journeys on behalf of the gods in “The Glacial Erratic”) and @fictitiousbees (who plays a kenku wizard named scribbles called to the service of a high dragon in “Luck of the Draw”)Everything else below the cut!

1. A favorite character you have played.

I’ve only played two characters! One was Carran Warset, who is my Son and like the bulk of the reason I know I’m trans, and one was Chim from your one-on-one campaign. I rly like both of them tbh but Carran is my child gkjlsfgjs

2. Your favorite character that someone else has played.

Excluding anything I’ve DMed, Sivarna by @pluviance!

3. Your favorite side quest.

In the group campaign we played in together, there was one session that idr if you were able to be there for but we like,,, went into a forest and bought a really ugly belt from a stoner for zero plot reasons and I count it as a side quest in my heart

4. Your current campaign.

Well, you know everything about all my current campaigns that you’re allowed to know rn, but for anyone who might be reading who isn’t in them:

The group campaign is being used as scapegoats in the brutal murder of an ambassador’s daughter and is fleeing a city through secret tunnels -- we last left off at Cathal becoming a giant badger and burrowing upward

In the solo campaign with Senua, she’s attempting to deliver a large, magical object from the goddess of earth deep inside a mountain, and she’s facing down a basilisk with three NPCs

And in the solo campaign with Scribbles, he’s just played a card game that was really more of an interrogation, where he found out a high dragon has taken interest in him, and he is, in unrelated news, taking a package to the local apothecary

5. Favorite NPC.

Of someone else’s, I love Lucy from the Chim campaign!

Of mine, I will never stop loving Mr. Kretever Tatell. Kret is a goddamn idiot but he’s my goddamn idiot

6. Favorite death (monster, player character, NPC, etc).

Carran once killed an evil poison merchant by seducing her in an enemy king’s bedroom and stabbing her when he went in for the kiss gkfsljgfsj. Then he and Sivarna wound up hiding with her corpse under a bed discussing the concept of threesomes in whispers while the king wandered around his room. Not as like, a possibility. Just because the topic came up

7. Your favorite downtime activity.

S,,,hop,,,,,,, money tiem $

8. Your favorite fight/encounter.

I liked the fight where I balanced the combat correctly lkgsflkjskljg, the one with guards in the tunnels

9. Your favorite thing about D&D.

Storytelling!

10. Your favorite enemy and the enemy you hate the most.

Homebrew enemies are coolest imo but hard to balance; the giant gemstone ant I had you fight would’ve been my favorite if it’d been able to get more than like two attacks in gskjgksj

And insect swarms are very annoying to fight

11. How often do you play and how often would you ideally like to play?

How often I play is whenever every single one of the stars align and ideally I would play like every other day fksjglskfjg

12. Your in game inside jokes/memes/catchphrases and where they came from.

God the current ones haven’t gone long enough for those yet really and I’m blanking on most from the group player campaign

I do remember Carran was 1000% convinced basil was poison at one point and his pet rat killed an evil, powerful sorcerer by chewing his ear

14. Introduce any other parties you have played in or DM-ed.

Just the group player campaign with Carran, which didn’t get to the heavy plot stuff before it ended tbh, and then the solo one you ran with Chim in what was rly a Very cool world concept of like hellish Las Vegas that I’d like to steal at some point

And then you ofc know this but for anyone reading who doesn’t, I’m going DM a maybe-oneshot, maybe-a few more than oneshot post-apocalyptic campaign for you and @fictitiousbees, set in a world that’s been destroyed by fast growing invasive fungi which is like. only The sexiest apocalypse scenario

15. Do you have snacks during game times?

Yes, religiously. Game time snack time

16. Do you play online or in person? Which do you prefer?

I’ve never played in person other than a single test game for new players! I prefer online tho; you can look things up and type if you’re shy

17. What are some house rules that your group has?

I have a rule about only two players being able to try the same sort of check, but that’s it for us so far that I can think of

18. Does your party keep any pets?

Not yet! Cathal has a way with animals though

19. Do you or your party have any dice superstitions?

I Do

20. How did you get into D&D? How long have you been playing?

I got into it bc Critical Role made it look super super fun, and I’ve been playing off and on for two years now

21. Have you ever regretted something your character has done?

I’ve regretted everything any character I’ve controlled has done I think that’s just dnd

Realistically tho, big yes for a lot of what Carran did, most notably snooping on another player character who had cast Alarm on her room

22. What color was your first dragon?

Haven’t had one yet!

23. Do you use premade modules or original campaigns?

100% original babey

24. How much planning/preparation do you do for a game?

3% planning 97% “oh fuck I need to have an idea Now” babey

For DMs

25. What have your players done that you never could have planned for?

Everything, it’s why I never know what I’m doing

I never expected Cathal to become a large badger and dig out of the underground, how do you prepare for someone to, in all seriousness, tell you they’re going to become a badger and scrabble to the surface

26. What was your favorite scene to write and show your characters.

I really tend to enjoy the one-on-one scenes; I think my favorite was having you roll that insane wild magic surge and detailing What Happened At The Theatre

27. Do you allow homebrew content?

Yes if it can go in DND Beyond

28. How often do you use NPCs in a party?

In group campaigns, not often, although we have two with us right now. In solo campaigns, if you want combat you’re getting an NPC party, at least for a bit

29. Do you prefer RP heavy sessions or combat sessions?

Personally I love RP heavy sessions; combat is fun but I crave Story

30. Are your players diplomatic or murder hobos?

I think mostly diplomatic with a dash of murder hobo

For Players

31. What is your favorite class? Favorite race?

I’m so so so boring but I love humans gksfjgsk

Humans, elves, and half-elves are my favorite

And then I Would Die For Every Rogue, it’s hands down my favorite class

32. What role do you like to play the most? (Tank/healer/etc?)

Rogue role

Lemme stealth and steal and stab

33. How do you write your backstory, or do you even write a backstory?

For Carran it was,, A Whole Process

I came up with a basic idea, then journaled as him several times and wrote and rewrote until I had what felt Right, and then I kept toying with it and adding more details throughout the campaign -- I love playing and would really like to again but the obsession with expanding upon his story made me realize I need the freedom of worldbuilding that goes along with DMing; I don’t think I could be a player without DMing a separate campaign bc I just try to take over

34. Do you tend pick weapons/spells for being useful or for flavor?

Both!

35. How much roleplay do you like to do?

So much, I usually use old acting techniques and get fully into character

thank you again antonia!!! these were fun

#fox speaks #long post #in case the cut doesn't work bc tumblr bad #merrigold

3 notes · View notes

rigelmejo · 3 years ago

Text

Little updates:

Focusing on my reading again

This also includes more often taking advantage of Pleco’s dictation feature: you can highlight a word/phrase OR a whole sentence or paragraph or the entire chapter and have it dictate it out loud. The sentence one specifically though is a good way for me to do some “focused repetitive listening” of new words without so much work put in (compared to A-B repeater apps where you have to find the audio and import it and also find the right line and can’t see the transcript matched up at the same time unless you open another app - tho the benefit is a real voice instead of Pleco’s machine voice). And a reminder to self repeated listening/repeated word exposure specifically suggests 12 repetitions to remember a word. That probably means over a longer period of time, but if I see a rarer word I want to remember it might be worth repeating the audio a few times.

I am already seeing a benefit from the last couple months of study in my reading ability - I’ll mention in a moment.

Also yesterday in an effort to improve reading skills I read 6 chapters of a Goosebumps novel translated into Chinese. I figured being a kids novel would mean easier reading level and More repetition so I’d learn the words faster. Mostly that assumption was correct: chapters took less time to read, and vocab was often repeated and restated so I have been picking up pretty much all the new words in the novel. However I did run it through the vocab-difficulty tool I use and for 2000 words (the amount I test for novels) it scored 1.9 (a lower score is harder). For context that is harder than 小王子 (around 2) and about as easy as 盗墓笔记1 (which as also about 1.9). The main difference is I think dmbj was always written for teens+ so there’s a lot of vocab that does not repeat often, meaning it takes me more time to learn all the words. So a kids book is def the better choice for repetition, even tho it looks like Goosebumps might be vocab wise just as varied lol (which I’m surprised by a lil).

Anyway after 6 chapters I got bored a bit since I already like specific Chinese novels so. I went to find one of my fave pingxie fanfic writers and try to read one of their stories again! They wrote 寒舍 (which is a touch easier than priest just in the sense of no real obscure references or descriptions but vocab level around the same level of difficulty as 镇魂). But hanshe is like 150 chapters and I’m only 1/3 through so I started a different fic of theirs that’s only around 30 chapters (much shorter): 夜半衣寒 by 夏灬安兰. To my surprise this story is MUCH easier to read this time around, compared to the last time I tried to read it (around February). This time grammar is easy, specifics are fine, I know most words and there’s usually just 1-2 new words every few sentences (which I probably could guess but I’m looking up and repeating a few times for memory’s sake). The chapters are 23 pages in Pleco and taking me about 30 min to read with all the lookup I’m doing (which makes sense since this author when I was rush-reading a few months ago with just lookups then move on I could read 20-Pleco pages in 20-25 min). Anyway just. I can notice reading has gotten a bit easier. Last time I checked out this story it was too much of a new-vocab struggle to deal with (first chapter had been taking an hour versus this times 30 minutes). Whereas this time it was fairly obvious most of the new words were on computer terms (so simple words I just don’t know them by heart yet but I’ve seen some of them in guardian recently) or radio or rental words. Other than that I’m familiar with a lot of the words.

In a way I’m sort of just doing my usual reading strategy: bouncing between “significantly above my level” (guardian) then “now it’s easier and around my level or just above” then once I get sick of easier stuff I’ll bounce back to “significantly harder” again. I do this sort of so my lower-base of what’s “easier reading” for me gradually keeps getting higher level, while the harder challenging stuff I read is to drag my reading level up a bit faster when I’m impatient and practice goal-reading-level stuff. Easier-level was graded readers, then Xiao Wangzi, now it’s goosebumps, I’m trying to drag it up to 夏灬安兰 (or dmbj, or some simpler written danmei tbh like maybe sci mystery? which I tried to read the other day and was fine just a Lot of new police terms I wasn’t ready to bulk learn yet).

A second goal obviously the last few months has been to drag up my listening skills with more listening practice. I’ve been doing that with listening reading and just more listening included with what I do. Like now some repeated listening of some sentences. Well guardian certainly helped, but also other audiobooks still show me the skill is still significantly weaker than my reading skills.

I found a really nice sherlock set of audiobooks lately in chinese. And listened and it frustrated me I could follow some parts perfectly but a majority (since it’s descriptions) I just heard isolated words and struggled to guess what might be happening. I found the books in chinese recently and I’ve been contemplating reading those too, just so I can practice improving listening skills with the audiobook more. Especially because as SOON as I glanced at the novel I noticed I DID know all the words in the first paragraph! So when I listened to the audiobook and only heard some isolated words in the start? That is frustrating because I Should know those words! I know how to read them! I should get to a listening level where I can also hear them and recognize them fine lol! I know it just means my reading ability I’m better at improving lol. But still, it would be nice to practice learning how to listen and recognize all the words I already know how to read, so that those skills align better lol. Also the related issue to that is - because I Can read many words I can’t hear and recognize, I wonder if listening to an audiobook like that (with words I visually know but don’t know the pronunciation of) can even help me improve if I don’t have prior context of the plot. Or if listening-only will only cause improvement if I’ve already read those chapters before and know the plot of what I’m listening to. In which cause guardian or silent reading audiobooks I could learn from, svsss I could learn from etc. But sherlock audiobook I couldn’t, since i haven’t actually read the stories yet so I don’t know what the vast majority of the plot for specific stories is...

Read 17 Chinese chapters this month! Pretty good for doing most of that yesterday lol! ToT

#July #july progress

1 note · View note

maychorian · 7 years ago

Text

Get to Know the Author

Tagged by @eastofthemoon. Thank you!

1. How did you come up with your username and what does it mean?

“Maychoria” was the name of the main country in the fantasy novel I wrote when I was thirteen and fourteen. It means “happy land,” based on two words I found in a Greek dictionary we had in the house. So “Maychorian” basically means “inhabitant of the happy land.”

2. Which fanfic of yours has the most feedback? (bookmarks/subscriptions/hits/kudos).

On AO3, A Split-Second of Violence still has the most views and kudos and bookmarks, over 46k hits and almost 2500 kudos and 762 bookmarks. The first and second Boom Crash stories combined beat it, though, and Sell Me Your Nightmares beats it for comment threads. Over all platforms, I’m pretty sure my most famous fic ever is still Entertaining Angels, a deaged Castiel fic I wrote at the cusp of Supernatural fandom, just as Castiel was starting to get popular. I happened to write that story at the exact right time, in the mid-season break when everyone was hungry for more of the intriguing character we’d just been introduced to, and cute deaged angel boy trying to help Sam and Dean with their respective traumas was bound to be a hit no matter who wrote it. Plus I gave him pneumonia. It’s a thing I do.

3. What is your AO3 profile icon, and why did you choose it?

Same as my current tumblr icon. Cuz Lance has the best expressions and he’s the cutest and the best.

4. Do you have any regular/favourite commenters?

I do, and I love them and appreciate them so, so much. If you comment on a lot of my fics and/or chapters, you’d better believe I notice, and I love you, even if I don’t respond.

5. Is there a fanfic that you keep going back to read again and again?

Basically anything in this tag: https://maychorianrecs.tumblr.com/tagged/personal-favorite.

6. How many stories are you subscribed to? How many do you have bookmarked?

Oh, golly. My work subscriptions at AO3 is currently at fifteen pages. A lot of those are completed or abandoned, though. No idea how many fics and authors I’m still subscribed to on ff.n, mostly in dead fandoms. I have 80 bookmarks on AO3 at the moment, but that is not an accurate representation of the fics I like and recommend others read. That would be @maychorianrecs, which currently has 681 posts and isn’t even complete even for the Voltron fandom, let alone the other fandoms I read now or have read in the past.

7. Which AU do you find yourself writing the most?

The Dream Seam ‘verse is definitely the one that owns the largest part of my brain right now, but I’m also looking forward to getting back to my DnD AU once I finish my current big projects. I tend to write more canon-divergence AUs than alternate realities, in most cases. I like exploring how things can differ across time if one small (or large) change is made in the setting we know and love. Like what if Castiel went back in time and ended up as Sam and Dean’s older brother? Love that one.

8. How many people are subscribed and bookmarked to you in total? (you can view this on the stats page)

User Subscriptions: 617 Kudos: 27064 Comment Threads: 5019 Bookmarks: 5631 Subscriptions: 2713 Word Count: 1169905 Hits: 325489

That’s insane, and it’s only in the last three or four years, since I didn’t really start using AO3 until mid-2014. I have a lot more before that on ff.n and other sites.

9. Is there something you’d like to write about but are afraid of people judging you for it? (Feeling brave? If so, share it!)

If there’s something I want to write and share, I will find a way.

10. Is there anything you would like to be better at? Writing certain scenes or genres, replying to comments, updating better, etc.

I wish I was better at action. It always takes me a lot time to sort of choreograph it in my head and then describe it in a way that makes sense. I also need to work on writing believable romance, since I want to eventually write more mainstream fiction, and it’s pretty normal for characters to have romances. I can’t just write everyone as being aro/ace or siblings, though I kind of want to. I wish I wasn’t such a procrastinator and had more energy to spare on responding to comments, because I really do love them and appreciate them.

11. Do you write rarepairs or popular ships more often?

Only if you count gen as a rarepair, which it kind of is. Otherwise, no ships for me, ever. I tried it. Didn’t much like it.

12. How many stories have you posted on AO3 to this day (finished and unfinished)?

70. Some of them are reposts. Eventually I need to get all of my fics over to AO3. It’s definitely the superior platform nowadays.

13. How many stories do you have saved in/with your writing program?

Unposted? Mm, more than five, less than a dozen. I tend to post things as soon as I’m halfway satisfied, because I crave that sweet, sweet feedback.

14. Do you write down story ideas, or just keep them in your head?

They’re mostly up in my head. If it changes by the time I start to write it, that’s fine. And if I forget an idea, a new one will come along sooner or later. I write in the now.

15. Have you ever co-authored a story?

Yes, a few times, most recently with ardett for Sewing Patches. It was a great experience.

16. How did you discover AO3?

Back when it was just getting started, I got an invite to the beta from an LJ friend. It wasn’t until years later that I got into sports anime fandom and decided I wanted to start using it, so I searched my email to find that years-old invite and used it.

17. Do you consider yourself to be a popular or famous author in your fandom(s) on AO3?

I’m well-known in the gen corner of my fandom, which is not the same thing as being a BNF in the fandom as a whole. I have no doubt that 99% of Klance fans have no idea who I am, and Klance basically IS the Voltron fandom, much to my annoyance. But I’m fine with the way things are. I interact with cool people all the time and get to show them awesome stuff and get nice feedback when I post fics, and that’s what I want.

18. Do you have a nickname or fandom name for your readers?

Nah. That seems kind of pretentious and arrogant.

19. Was there an author who inspired or encouraged you to write?

I’ve wanted to write since before I knew how to read, as far back as I can remember. As soon as I understand that those scribbles on a page meant something and told stories, I wanted to tell my own. Certainly in my teenage years I was very inspired by the fantasy and science fiction authors I adored, like Tolkien, Lewis, MacDonald, Orson Scott Card, Stephen King, Tamora Pierce, etc. I have been encouraged along the way by many, many fellow writers, as well. But as far as an instigating person at the very beginning, I can’t think of one. I just always knew that this was what I wanted to do with my life.

20. What writing advice would you give to a beginning author?

Just do it. Post it if you’re brave, keep it to yourself if you’re not. Make yourself happy first. Find one person who will read and enjoy your stuff, otherwise it will get stale writing only for yourself. But first and foremost, stoke the fire in your own belly until you have no choice but to use it, to let it fly from your fingers in words and paragraphs. Once you start, keep going, even when the fire burns low. Discipline is more important than inspiration in the long term, but inspiration is how you start.

21. Do you plot out your stories, or do you just figure it out as you go?

Mostly the latter. I’ve written from outlines in the past, and I sometimes do extensive freewriting before I start something to give myself some semblance of structure, but working from a strict outline isn’t really fun for me. I’d much rather discover the story as I go. I subscribe to the Stephen King school of writing, the idea that a story is a boulder you dig up with a lot of hard work and exploring. Granted, that doesn’t always work perfectly, and it can lead to stories that are overlong and oddly structured or dissatisfying, but that’s a risk I’m willing to take in order to enjoy the process as much as possible.

22. Have you ever gotten a bad comment on a story? If so, what did you do?

Occasionally, mostly not on AO3. My feedback there is by and large very kind and enthusiastic. Every once in a while I’ll get a weird comment on ff.n complaining about some choice I made or chastising me for not doing what they wanted or expected with the story. Mostly I just laugh and let them go, though they used to bother me a lot. Once in a while they’ll make a solid point, and I’ll think about it, and maybe change the story a bit to satisfy the issue that’s bothering me, not for their satisfaction but for my own. That’s exceedingly rare, though. I think I’ve done it twice.

23. Is there a certain type of scene that you have a hard time writing? (action, smut, etc..)

Action is hard, yes. Dialogue and emotional scenes come easily, so naturally that’s the bulk of my stuff.

24. What story(s) are you working on now?

My ongoing series and stories are all currently in posting. I have some ideas on the backburner that I haven’t started working on yet, but I’m not the kind of writer who finishes a project before posting, so there’s nothing going on that my readers don’t already know about.

25. Do you plan your next project(s) before you finish your current ongoing story(s)?

Often as I’m finishing up a long project my mind will already be working on what’s next, yes. Not really planning so much as just daydreaming and working out scenarios in my head, but I do like that I never run out of things to do.

26. Do you have a daily writing goal set for yourself?

I try to write at least 750 words every day. Not always fiction, though, sometimes it’s freewriting or a diary entry. This post will probably be my writing for today.

27. Do you think you’ve improved as a writer since you first started?

Indubitably, since for the very first story I wrote I asked my mom how to spell the word “fan.” I was five.

28. What is your favorite story that you’ve written?

Oof, that’s hard. In Voltron, probably Bury the Sun. I keep going back and re-reading that one. It just…hits my buttons. On purpose. I did that. In all of my fandoms ever, probably Coming Down on a Sunny Day. It came together in an extremely satisfying way, and I’m very proud of it, even though the last part never got very much feedback since the fandom had moved on by the time I wrote and posted it.

29. What is your least favorite story that you’ve written?

I started writing an original fantasy fiction called Cat by Night with the idea of posting it on Amazon and making money with it. But I started it out in very YA fashion with an incipient romance, and it just bored me to tears. I hated it. I couldn’t do it. Romance is not for me.

30. Where do you see yourself (as a writer) in 5 years?

I would love to develop my original fiction and discipline myself enough to actually start publishing stuff on Amazon and eventually make enough money to live on, maybe with the help of Patreon. RIght now, though, fanfiction takes up all my creative energy, and I don’t know how I would justify making a living off that.

31. What is the easiest thing about writing?

Making characters cuddle.

32. What is the hardest thing about writing?

Getting characters to the point where the cuddling makes sense and feels in character.

33. Why do you write?

For the sake of the cuddles, mostly. Also because I can’t imagine not writing.

No tagging today because I’m exhausted, but feel free if you want to do this.

#writing #life #me #tag meme

22 notes · View notes

likeaflowingriver1019 · 4 years ago

Text

Disability aesthetics

“she lived with two husbands instead of one, never knowing whom she should address her lamentations for fear of mistaking the object of her hatred for the object of her love” (100).

Tobin Siebers: “aesthetics tracks the emotions that some bodies feel in the presence of other bodies. But all bodies are not created equal when it comes to aesthetic response. Taste and disgust are volatile reactions that reveal the ease or disease with which one body might incorporate another. Disability aesthetics seeks to emphasize the presence of different bodies and minds in the tradition of aesthetic representation […] it refuses to recognize the representation of the healthy body and this body’s definition of harmony, integrity and beauty as the sole determination of the aesthetic (542-543)

Madeleine de Scudéry

Madeleine de Scudéry, (born 1607, Le Havre, Fr.—died June 2, 1701, Paris), French novelist and social figure whose romans à clef were immensely popular in the 17th century.

De Scudéry was the younger sister of the dramatist Georges de Scudéry. Madeleine de Scudéry moved to Paris to join her brother after the death of her uncle, who had cared for her after she and her brother had been orphaned. Clever and bright, she soon made her mark on the literary circle of the Hôtel de Rambouillet; by the late 1640s, she had replaced Madame de Rambouillet as the leading literary hostess in Paris and had established her own salon, known as the Société du Samedi (the Saturday Club).

Her first novel, Ibrahim ou l’illustre bassa (1642; Ibrahim or the Illustrious Bassa), was published in four volumes. Her later works were even longer; both Artamène ou le grand Cyrus (1649–53; Artamenes or the Grand Cyrus) and Clélie, histoire romaine (1654–60; Clelia) were published in 10 volumes. Contemporary readers, accustomed to such long novels, appreciated De Scudéry’s works both for their bulk and for the glimpses they provided into the lives of important society figures of the day. These individuals were thinly disguised as Persian, Greek, and Roman warriors and maidens; De Scudéry herself appears in Artamène as Sappho, a name by which she was known to her friends.

Other of her works include Almahide, ou l’es- clave reine (1660–63; “Almahide, or the Slave Queen”), Mathilde d’Aguilar, histoire espagnole (1667; “Mathilda of Aguilar, a Spanish Tale”), and La Promenade de Versailles, ou l’histoire de Célanire (1669; “The Versailles Promenade, or the Tale of Celanire”). Most of the novels were published anonymously or under the name of her brother Georges. They included long passages devoted to conversations on such topics as the education of women; these were excerpted and published separately.

Although her novels were exceptionally popular and were lauded by such notables as Madame de Sévigné, they also met with some criticism. The poet and critic Nicolas Boileau, for instance, satirized them harshly.

Michel de Montaigne

Michel de Montaigne, in full Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, (born February 28, 1533, Château de Montaigne, near Bordeaux, France—died September 23, 1592, Château de Montaigne), French writer whose Essais (Essays) established a new literary form. In his Essays he wrote one of the most captivating and intimate self-portraits ever given, on a par with Augustine’s and Rousseau’s.

Living, as he did, in the second half of the 16th century, Montaigne bore witness to the decline of the intellectual optimism that had marked the Renaissance. The sense of immense human possibilities, stemming from the discoveries of the New World travelers, from the rediscovery of classical antiquity, and from the opening of scholarly horizons through the works of the humanists, was shattered in France when the advent of the Calvinistic Reformation was followed closely by religious persecution and by the Wars of Religion (1562–98). These conflicts, which tore the country asunder, were in fact political and civil as well as religious wars, marked by great excesses of fanaticism and cruelty. At once deeply critical of his time and deeply involved in its preoccupations and its struggles, Montaigne chose to write about himself—“I am myself the matter of my book,” he says in his opening address to the reader—in order to arrive at certain possible truths concerning man and the human condition, in a period of ideological strife and division when all possibility of truth seemed illusory and treacherous.

Charles Perrault

Charles Perrault, (born January 12, 1628, Paris, France—died May 15/16, 1703, Paris), French poet, prose writer, and storyteller, a leading member of the Académie Française, who played a prominent part in a literary controversy known as the quarrel of the Ancients and Moderns. He is best remembered for his collection of fairy stories for children, Contes de ma mère l’oye (1697; Tales of Mother Goose). He was the brother of the physician and amateur architect Claude Perrault.

A lawyer by training, Charles Perrault first worked as an official in charge of royal buildings. He began to win a literary reputation in about 1660 with some light verse and love poetry and spent the rest of his life in promoting the study of literature and the arts. In 1671 he was elected to the Académie Française, which soon was sharply divided by the dispute between the Ancients and the Moderns. Perrault supported the Moderns, who believed that, as civilization progresses, literature evolves with it and that therefore ancient literature is inevitably more coarse and barbarous than modern literature. His poem Le Siècle de Louis le Grand (1687; “The Age of Louis the Great”) set such modern writers as Molière and François de Malherbe above the Classical authors of Greece and Rome. His chief opponent in this controversy was Nicolas Boileau. Perrault’s stand was a landmark in the eventually successful revolt against the confines of the prevailing tradition.

Perrault’s fairy stories in Mother Goose were written to amuse his children. They include “Little Red Riding Hood,” “The Sleeping Beauty,” “Puss in Boots,” and “Bluebeard,” modern versions of half-forgotten folk tales, which Perrault retold in a style that is simple and free from affectation.

Bluestocking

Bluestocking, any of a group of ladies who in mid-18th-century England held “conversations” to which they invited men of letters and members of the aristocracy with literary interests. The word has come to be applied derisively to a woman who affects literary or learned interests. The Bluestockings attempted to replace social evenings spent playing cards with something more intellectual. The term probably originated when one of the ladies, Mrs. Vesey, invited the learned Benjamin Stillingfleet to one of her parties; he declined because he lacked appropriate dress, whereupon she told him to come “in his blue stockings”—the ordinary worsted stockings he was wearing at the time. He did so, and Bluestocking (or Bas Bleu) society became a nickname for the group. This anecdote was later recounted by Madame d’Arblay (the diarist and novelist better known as Fanny Burney), who was closely associated with (but also satirized) the Bluestockings.

The group was never a society in any formal sense. Mrs. Vesey seems to have given the first party, in Bath. After she moved to London, a rivalry developed with Mrs. Elizabeth Montagu, who became the leader of the literary ladies. Others included Mrs. Hester Chapone, Mrs. Elizabeth Carter, Miss Mary Monckton, and Miss Hannah More, whose poem “The Bas Bleu, or Conversation,” supplies valuable inside information about them. Guests included Dr. Johnson, David Garrick, the Earl of Bath, Lord Lyttleton, and Horace Walpole (who called them “petticoteries”).

1 note · View note

nolimitsongrace · 4 years ago

Video

youtube

October 4: The Devil Can’t Curse What God Has Blessed

The Devil Can’t Curse What God Has Blessed!October 4, 2020

How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, whom the Lord hath not defied? — Numbers 23:8

I want to share with you about an interesting character in the Bible who actually tried to curse God’s people. He attempted unsuccessfully to do it multiple times — which proves that the devil cannot curse what God has blessed ! The example of Balaam shows that witchcraft, divination, and curses simply have no impact on people who are walking with the Lord.

Let’s learn more about this man named Balaam. There are numerous sources that describe his origin, but the Bible is our most solid source, and it identifies Balaam in Numbers 22. Balak, king of the Moabites, heard that Israel was approaching his territory. Balak feared that his kingdom would be defeated by Israel’s army. Verse 5 states that Balak “…sent messengers therefore unto Balaam….”

*[If you started reading this from your email, begin reading here.]

Balaam’s lineage is difficult to determine because the Bible doesn’t tell us where his family came from. The greatest bulk of what is known about Balaam comes from ancient Jewish commentaries. These ancient sources affirm that he was well known in his time and that he played an influential role as a diviner and soothsayer. One Alexandrian commentator described Balaam as a “master” diviner and foreteller of great renown.8

The city of Alexandria was a long-time center of Egyptian witchcraft, sorcery, wizardry, enchantments, incantations, magic, and spells — and the educated Jewish scholars from this city were very familiar with these practices. They had seen occult practices during their sojourning in Egypt, and they knew the difference between a mere apprentice and a master of sorcery. Thus, for an Alexandrian Jew to write that Balaam was renowned for his dark skills indicates Balaam possessed a profound level of expertise as a master sorcerer.

The most famous Jewish scholar was Josephus, whose writings are still considered the most accurate extra-biblical historical account of Jewish history ever written. He wrote, in effect, that Balaam was among the greatest of the prophets at that time.9 That is a remarkable statement, since Balaam lived during the same time as the prophet Moses. But whereas Moses was an instrument for the power of God in the earth, Balaam was an instrument through which the kingdom of darkness found access in the earthly realm.

The use of the word “prophet” in the writings of Josephus should not be misunderstood. In this context, “prophet” does not refer to a spokesman of God, such as Moses or Elijah, for Balaam’s practices were diametrically opposed to the way God manifested Himself through His prophets. In fact, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 and Leviticus 19:26 enumerates God’s prohibitions regarding occult practices, such as those practiced by Balaam. Josephus simply used the word “prophet” in a general sense to denote one who was able to foresee the future. Pagans often used this word “prophet” to denote anyone who was a vocal instrument of the spirit realm. In this sense of the word, Josephus’ description of Balaam was very much in line with what the Bible tells us about this controversial “prophet.”

8Philo, De Vita Moysis, I.48. 9Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews, IV.VI.2.

According to Scripture, Balaam was a diviner who operated with powers of divination (see Numbers 22:7; 23:23). Other common names for “diviners” include foretellers, seers, soothsayers, consulters of familiar spirits, enchanters, necromancers, wizards, witches, voices through which the spirit realm speaks, mediums, and clairvoyants.

The ancient world was full of diviners, but it seems none was more notable than Balaam during his time. Balak’s own kingdom of Moab almost certainly had a plethora of diviners. But because none was capable of cursing Israel, he sent emissaries nearly 400 miles to plead with Balaam to come and curse the people of Israel on his behalf.

If diviners enjoyed a past record of success, they could demand high prices for their divination, and Balak knew that hiring a sorcerer as notable as Balaam would be very expensive. However, the Moabite king was prepared to pay whatever sum was required to coax Balaam to come and curse Israel. Therefore, he sent his emissaries to Balaam, offering to “promote” him with “great honor” (see Numbers 22:17). Verse 18 implies that Balak was willing to pay Balaam a great fortune — perhaps even “a house full of silver and gold” — to perform this service of cursing a nation of people.

We know Balaam was revered as a great diviner and soothsayer, known far and wide for his abilities to bless or curse, because in Numbers 22:6 (NKJV), Balak told Balaam, “…For I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.” Balak was certain that Balaam would be able to curse Israel — but Balaam could not do it.

Balaam tried three times to speak a curse upon Israel, yet he did not have the power to do it. Balaam finally was forced to tell Balak, “How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? Or how shall I defy, whom the Lord hath not defied?” (Numbers 23:8). Scripture tells us that every time Balaam opened his mouth to speak a curse, a blessing came out instead (see Numbers 23:10-12). Finally, after failing repeatedly to place a curse on Israel, Balaam conceded that divination was no match for the power of God. It was at this point that he told Balak, “For there is no sorcery against Jacob, neither is there any divination against Israel…” (Numbers 23:23).

It was simply impossible for a curse to be pronounced where God had pronounced a blessing! It was true then, and the same is true today.

Balaam serves as a reminder of God’s divine protection. Balaam — one of history’s most famous sorcerers — was unable to penetrate God’s protective shield that held fast and secure around His people. Even today, there are some who allege that people involved in the occult have the power to curse believers. However, Scripture clearly teaches that no one has the power to curse what God has blessed. The story of Balaam serves as a perpetual reminder that what God has blessed is blessed, and that fact cannot be reversed.

If you are in Christ and walking in obedience to God’s Word, you are safe, secure, and sealed in the protective blood of Jesus — and the power of that divine protection can never be breached by someone operating under, or in cooperation with, the powers of Satan. You need never be fearful of any curse assailed against you or your loved one, no matter how dark or “powerful” the vessel through which the curse tries to come. The occult has never been, and will never be, a match for the power of God that is inside a believer. This is precisely why the apostle John wrote, “…Greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4)!

I encourage you today to cast off fear of the devil or fear of anything that anyone has told you about the possibility of being cursed. If you are in Christ, you are the blessed of the Lord — and what God has blessed, no one can curse!

MY PRAYER FOR TODAY

Father, I rejoice that because I am in Christ, I am the blessed of the Lord and protected by the blood of Jesus Christ. The devil does not have the power to curse what God has blessed. Holy Spirit, I receive Your help to walk in obedience to the Word of God and to shun anything that would violate the supernatural shield of protection that surrounds my life.

I pray this in Jesus’ name!

MY CONFESSION FOR TODAY

I confess that I am safe and shielded by the blood of Jesus Christ. When God placed me in Christ, He surrounded me with divine protection that cannot be breached. No demon, no devil, no evil worker has the power to speak any kind of curse on my life. I am curse-free because Jesus Christ bore the curse for me in every form, that I might become the blessed of God forevermore. I do not live in fear of the devil, and I rejoice that greater is He who is in me than he that is in the world!

I declare this by faith in Jesus’ name!

QUESTIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER

Had you ever considered the impossibility of Balaam’s attempt to curse God’s people? How does it affect you to know that there is no divination strong enough to work against the people of God?

What did you learn about Balaam that you never knew before?

Before today, did you think that Balaam was just a backslidden prophet of God or did you understand that he was a sorcerer? How does the truth of his identity affect your understanding of what took place?

0 notes

oddree13 · 7 years ago

Text

Dec. 14 - Wrapping Gifts or Inability To Wrap Gifts - @omgcpwinterextravaganza (Read on AO3)

Day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

The first holiday season Jack spent with Bitty was eye opening to say the least. He’s never seen so many baked goods in on location, or some many different containers.

Bitty had picked out differently themed tins depending on who was getting cookies, fudge, or toffee.

He had fours kinds of wrapping paper, one for the Bittle family, another for the Zimmermans, a third for their teammates and friends, and a fourth just in case. Each present was wrapped with a ribbon and a handwritten tag.

Of course Jack offered to help, but all he was ever allowed to do was write the gift tags after Bitty saw him put a gift in a bag.

And Jack had to admit that all the effort Eric put into his gifts was not only appreciated by their friends and family, but it made their home look quite loved during the holidays.

***

Ransom and Holster were both bag guys when it came to the holidays, after trying a failing for years to use wrapping paper. But they had a system. And a spreadsheet.

Over the years both men had collected data on their friends and family, entering it all into a spreadsheet that was used to send cards, track gifting trends, and denote important information like favorite color and Hogwarts house.

So come the holidays Ransom and Holster would go to the store and buy in bulk different color paper bags and tissue, in variety of sizes of course, and when time came for a party or gathering, either man would just have to see what color that party had been designated and grab all the bags loading them into the car.

The only change came when the twins came into their life. Ransom found custom burlap sacks that look like they came from the North Pole. They were bag people after all.

***

Shitty and Lardo didn’t exactly have a system so much as whims depending on who the gift was going to.

More often than not, gifts given to the Knight side of the family were handed to them in the original box or bag, price tag left on, with a stick-on bow atop. Shitty would admit at parties that his favorite part of the holidays was watching the different ways he could make his family twitch at parties.

For their friends it was usually handed to them, out of whatever packaging it came in, but presented with an explanation as to why they were getting said gift. More often than not it was artwork Lardo had made specific for the person, or a small items they found on their travels that reminded them of their friend.

Shitty would swear it was because he didn’t think their gifts should be packaged and bound in more trapping of classists capitalism. Lardo would admit that they just hated wrapping.

***

Nursey was not prepared for William Poindexter, gift wrapping expert. Each year, come December, a roll of industrial sized craft paper would be shipped to their home. After that, Dex would break out the twine to tie down the gift.

Then came the gear. It began with a ruler and shears, but over the years Nursey had bought his partner a variety of gadgets including a tape dispenser that rested on the back of Dex’s hand with an elastic band, laser guided scissors, and mount of the roll of craft paper that hung over his work bench.

In addition to the craft paper and twine came the recycled accessories. Tissue, bows, boxes, and bags, all saved and reused from year to year. Dex had even gone so far as to label the boxes with the initials of their kids so he’d never switch their gifts accidentally.

Nursey contributed in the only way he was allowed, cards. Each year he wrote out a family card, a poem naturally, encapsulating their year, and the card was affixed to every gift they handed out. Dex, may or may not have an album of each family poem tucked away somewhere.

***

Cait and Chowder somehow managed to find the most unique containers and gift wrap every year.

For example, on year, they got scraps of cloth and tie-dyed them using holiday colors and gave everyone colorful bundles that could be reused.

Another time Chowder spent a whole year collecting every peanuts strip he found in the newspaper and saved them for wrapping paper. It didn’t matter that in the last month he and Cait were swiping papers from people’s recycling bins to fill the gaps, because the challenge for them was part of the fun.

One memorable year Cait spent time creating a custom made crossword puzzle for their friends that was then printed on wrapping paper. Chowder had arranged that year for a group photo to be taken and their wedding, and come the holidays gave each of his friends the photo mounted on a wooden block, wrapped in a game about their friendship.

Each year their wrapping took a lot of work but it was worth the way their friends lit up getting their gifts.

***

Whiskey, Tango, and Ford were not good at gift giving or gift wrapping. So each year it was simple as each only had one task to complete.

Whiskey would go to the store and pick out a bottle of alcohol for everyone on their list. Ford would acquire a bunch of bottle bags and sacks for the bottles Whiskey bought. And Tango? Well Tango would spend a few hours at a variety of card stores picking out the best holiday puns for their friends and family.

#omgcpwinterextravaganza #zimbits #charmer #dexnursey #holsom #shitty/lardo #whiskey/tango/foxtrot #omgcp #my finds #advent calendar

8 notes · View notes

rethinkingthefaith · 5 years ago

Text

The Multiple Pastor Model

Everywhere, the belief persists that the local church is to be presided over by one leader who has been "called to the ministry." He is to be the principle teacher and preacher. The care of the church is primarily his concern. He counsels, presides over board meetings, visits the sick, marries the young, buries the dead.

His name is often in the bulletin and on the sign in front of the church building, as if it is somehow his church. When the spiritual vitality of a church wanes, he is often blamed and summarily fired.

Unlike the deacons or elders, the pastor is almost always imported from outside the church. Churches, in fact, "shop" for a pastor when they are without one. These clergymen are usually formally educated in theology. Often they are "licensed" or "ordained" by a denomination.

Many modern authors on church growth tout the need for a strong one-man pastorate. Such sentiments as those expressed by C. Peter Wagner are fairly common within churches today:

"The local church is like a company with one company commander, the pastor, who gets his orders from the Commander-in-Chief [Jesus]. The company commander has lieutenants and sergeants under him for consultation and implementation, but the final responsibility of his decisions is that of the company commander, and he must answer to the Commander-in-Chief....the pastor has the power in a growing church."1

But where is any of this reflected in the New Testament? If "the pastor has the power in a growing church," why don't Paul or John or Peter ever say so? Does this common perception of the pastor exist on the pages of Scripture?

Leaders in the Church

Amazing as it may sound, the New Testament does not authorize a single leader to be responsible for oversight of the church. On the contrary, the notion is flatly contradicted several times by the New Testament authors.

From earliest times, the church was governed by a body of men, not a single leader. Paul made this clear when he wrote to the Philippians: "To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons" (Phil. 1:1, NIV).

Note that there was a plurality of bishops in the Philippian church, not one man. In his writing to that congregation, Paul never once addresses "the pastor," nor does he in any of his epistles.

Elders, Bishops, Pastors

The bishops are entrusted with the spiritual oversight of the flock. The Greek word episkopos literally means "overseer," and is translated that way in some versions of Scripture.

These leaders, whose qualifications are spelled out in the pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), are to be mature. For this reason, they are also called "elders." The words "bishop" and "elder" are interchangeable in the New Testament. This is obvious in Paul's letter to Titus: "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might...appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless...for a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless (Tit. 1:5-7, KVJ).

An elder, then, is a bishop and a bishop is an elder. There is no distinction between the two. The words give only different emphases. "Elder" (presbuteros) denotes maturity and "bishop," oversight. However, they refer to the same leaders, which are plural in number (see Acts 14:23; 20:17; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14).

What about the pastor? Where is he in all of this? After all, didn't God give "some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11, KVJ)? Yes, He did. But this refers to the same body of leaders elsewhere called "bishops" and "elders," not a single leader.

The word "pastor" (singular) is absent from most translations of the New Testament. The plural form "pastors" occurs only once, in Ephesians 4:11. It is a translation of the Greek word poimen. Poimen is translated "shepherd" or "shepherds" 16 times in the King James Version. The verb form poimaino also occurs in the New Testament. It means to "shepherd" or "pastor" a flock.

But poimen (pastor), presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (bishop/overseer) all refer to the same function. It is unbiblical to speak of the pastor, on one hand, and the elders, on the other, as if they were somehow different. The Scripture makes no distinction whatsoever between the two.

This is fairly easy to demonstrate in the New Testament. In 1 Peter 5, for example, all three words - in either noun or verb form - are applied to the same group of leaders. The apostle writes to the church leadership: "The elders (presbuterous) which are among you I exhort...feed (poimanate, "shepherd," "pastor") the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (episkopountes)" (1 Pet. 5:1,2).

Peter expected the body of elders to pastor the flock and oversee it. Can there be any doubt, then, that the modern idea of distinguishing between elders, bishops, and pastors is wrong? Paul conveyed the same idea while giving his farewell address to the elders (plural) of the Ephesian church in Acts 20: Paul "sent to Ephesus and called to the elders (presbuterous) of the church. And when they were come to him, he said...take heed...unto yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (episkopous), to feed (poimainein, "shepherd," "pastor") the church of God" (Acts 20:17,28).

Again, Paul makes no distinction between elders, bishops, and pastors. These are different terms for the same function. And so, the idea of each church having one man who is "the pastor" who is separate from the body of elders is a tradition without Scriptural support.

Having said this, there is actually one example of a single leader ruling the church as "company commander." His name was Diotrephes. John wrote of this man in 3 John 9,10. Here is a leader with far too much power in the church. He personally put people out of the congregation and refused to welcome the brethren. He did so without God's authority.

So the lone example of a "one-man pastor" in the Scripture is held up as a bad example. He is exposed as one "who likes to put himself first" (v. 9). That is not to say that all pastors are like Diotrephes. Far from it. Many are humble, virtuous men. T he point is that the New Testament never mentions one man as the church's overseer, except for one negative instance. Despite this, it has become the dominant pattern of leadership in churches - even those which ostensibly profess themsleves "Bible-believing."

The Lone Leader

There is a great deal of harm in the doctrine of the "one-man pastor." To begin with, it gives too much power to one person. Authority in the church was meant to be shared among several leaders. This provides a kind of check and balance against a powerful leader "lording over God's heritage" (1 Pet. 5:3, KJV). Most Christians have heard horror stories about one minister ruling a church with an iron rod. Even if the members oppose what he's doing, they are impotent because of their subordinate "layman" status.

When authority in the church is shared, there is less of a chance of a dictatorial rule. The other elders can step in and prevent one leader from overstepping his authority.

On the other hand, the "one-man pastorate" gives a single leader too much responsibility. God has granted a diversity of spiritual gifts to the church, but no individual has all of them. It is unreasonable to expect one man to excel in preaching, teaching, counseling, exhortation, helps, mercy, administration, wisdom, and knowledge. That is what the "one-man pastorate" calls for - an unrealistic, superhuman Christian.

True, many pastors have done good work in the churches. But the mutual ministry of "one another" mentioned often in the New Testament fails to flourish when traditional pastoral leadership is at the helm. Ministry is suddenly "his responsibility." That's why he's paid. It's his vocation. The "layman," accordingly, is not given much responsibility for ministry in most churches. Few "laymen" preach from the pulpit or officiate at funerals or visit the members - that is the particular province of the professional clergyman in many churches.

I believe that many churches, if they took seriously the ministry of the elders and the "one another" responsibility of the saints, could function very well without a paid minister. Many smaller churches might be relieved of an oppressive financial burden if they followed a New Testament pattern of leadership. People would also discover and use their gifts of ministry.

The tendency of the one-man pastor, however, is to stifle such activity, even when the pastor himself encourages it. It is nearly impossible to get the saints to assume responsibility for the church when one man is "the minister" and everyone else, "lay persons." The system creates a hard-and-fast distinction, sometimes unspoken, between "the minister" and "the ministered unto." Most church members, I believe, would place themselves in the latter group - truly a spiritual tragedy.

The Bible presents church leaders as those who equip the saints for ministry (Eph. 4:12), not as those who do it all themselves. An author from the 19th century notes:

"The apostle plainly tells us, that 'if they were all one member there would be no body,' and who is there that does not see in these words a condemnation of the clerical system, which presents the body in the form of one member only - the minister, the ordained, official, and salaried minister, who, whether he be appointed to his office by a prelate or a popular election, supersedes all spiritual gifts in the church? In such a system as that, the saints are reduced to silence, the body is dead, all the members are inanimate, the 'honorable' or 'feeble are alike useless, and one individual is eye, mouth, ear, hand and foot." 2

The tendency of one pastor undertaking the bulk of church ministry cannot help but contribute to, or even cause, the "burnout" so common among the clergy. God never intended one person to shoulder so large a burden. When a pastor attempts it, the result is often exhaustion, depression, emotional distress, divorce - sometimes even a lapse into immorality.

The idea of importing pastors from outside the church is also without biblical precedent. The qualifications of an elder (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-9) suggests that candidates have been observed for some time by a local church. How can a church know if a potential bishop is above reproach or has obedient children (Tit. 1:6) unless he has been in the church for awhile? This seems to suggest that overseers were "home-grown" leaders.

May the church of Jesus Christ put leadership back where it belongs, in the hands of those mature Christians (plural) who are "temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach" (1 Tim. 3:2, NIV). It is time for us to move forward, with our elders out in front.

Notes

1 C. Peter Wagner, Your Church Can Grow (Ventura, CA: Royal), 1984, p. 65.

2 Campaginator, Priesthood and Clergy Unknown to Christianity; or, the Church a Community of Co-Equal Brethren (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.), 1857, p. 47.

#pastors #elders #bishops #clergy

0 notes

bowsetter · 5 years ago

Text

Bitcoin Emits Less Carbon Than Previously Claimed, New Study Finds

Bitcoin has been regularly attacked for its energy-intensive mining process, powered by serious amounts of electricity. It’s been claimed that it leaves a carbon foot print comparable to that of a large city or even a small country, an allegation that often finds its way to the headlines of mainstream media outlets. But a new study proves the devil is in the details. Bitcoin’s CO2 emissions, according to the authors, are much more modest than suggested by previous reports.

Also read: Canadian Company Commissions 3 Bitcoin Mining Units to Restart Oil Well

Getting the Numbers Right

Various studies have painted a pretty negative picture of Bitcoin’s energy consumption so far. “Participation in the Bitcoin blockchain validation process requires specialized hardware and vast amounts of electricity, which translates into a significant carbon footprint,” wrote a team of researchers from the Technical University of Munich and MIT. According to their article published earlier this year, the annual electricity consumption of Bitcoin, as of November 2018, was 45.8 TWh, and the carbon emissions reached almost 23 megatons of CO2, a figure comparable to what Jordan or Kansas City emit each year.

Other researchers have made even bolder, eyebrow-raising claims. A University of Hawaii at Mānoa study released last year suggested that Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C a little over a decade from now, jeopardizing the planet’s climate change reduction goals. “Bitcoin usage emitted 69 MtCO2e” in 2017, the authors concluded based on compiled data on the electricity consumption of the computing systems used for Bitcoin verification at the time and the emissions from electricity production in the countries where mining companies are predominantly based.

However, Susanne Köhler and Massimo Pizzol from Denmark’s Aalborg University believe something’s not entirely right with such estimates. In their publication entitled “Life Cycle Assessment of Bitcoin Mining,” they point out that other studies rely on general assumptions about the CO2 emissions from electricity generation and presumptions that these are uniform across a given country, say China. In contrast, their approach to analyzing the matter takes into account the geographical distribution of mining facilities within the People’s Republic, which hosts a little more than half of all bitcoin miners today, to produce a much lower figure. “It was found that, in 2018, the Bitcoin network consumed 31.29 TWh with a carbon footprint of 17.29 MtCO2-eq,” the abstract of the study notes.

Köhler and Pizzol have emphasized that the Chinese region of Inner Mongolia, which relies heavily on fossil fuels like coal to generate its electricity, is home to only around 12% of the bitcoin miners, while Sichuan, a province where renewable sources such as hydropower generating capacities are widely spread, hosts over 30% of the mining facilities operating in the country. Therefore, Sichuan’s contribution to bitcoin mining’s CO2 emissions is considerably smaller. That has to be taken into account when gauging Bitcoin’s overall carbon footprint in China, given that Sichuan is the largest mining region in the People’s Republic.

Bitcoin’s Impact Expected to Shrink

The authors of the Danish paper have also concluded that the bulk of the environmental impact of Bitcoin was a direct result of the use of electricity and of mining equipment in the minting process. The hardware’s production and recycling had a very limited impact, accounting for only around 1% of the carbon emissions during the studied period. “In contrast to previous studies, it was found that the service life, production, and end-of-life of such equipment had only a minor contribution to the total impact, and that while the overall hashrate is expected to increase, the energy consumption and environmental footprint per TH mined is expected to decrease,” the article stresses.

The two researchers do admit that “The lack of a robust methodological framework and of accurate data on key factors determining Bitcoin’s impact have so far been the main obstacles in such an assessment.” Quoted by New Scientist, Susanne Köhler also remarks that the findings in the study don’t mean people shouldn’t worry about Bitcoin’s carbon footprint, given the growing amount of electricity used for the minting of each new coin. Nevertheless, she insists that things have to be put it in perspective:

On the one hand, we have these alarmist voices saying we won’t hit the Paris agreement because of bitcoin only. But on the other, there are a lot of voices from the bitcoin community saying that most of the mining is done with green energy and that it’s not a high impact.

Besides purely environmental concerns, socio-economic effects have to be taken into account as well. As a sort of a regulatory recognition, the Chinese government recently removed bitcoin mining from a list of unwanted industries. As a result, the minting of digital coins has become less illegal than it used to be, as a Chinese bitcoin miner speaking to news.Bitcoin.com recently put it. The sector has attracted a lot of investment and created many jobs in China. And this year’s crypto market rebound has brought mining back to profitability. The really good news is that you don’t even need to acquire mining equipment in order to participate and profit from the creation of new permissionless money.

What’s your opinion about the carbon footprint of bitcoin mining? Share your thoughts on the subject in the comments section below.

Images courtesy of Shutterstock.

Did you know you can earn BTC and BCH through Bitcoin Mining? If you already own hardware, connect it to our powerful Bitcoin mining pool. If not, you can easily get started through one of our flexible Bitcoin cloud mining contracts.

The post Bitcoin Emits Less Carbon Than Previously Claimed, New Study Finds appeared first on Bitcoin News.