British Tanks of the Second World War

                                                  Ask Bob the only pigmented albino

The British were the first to develop the tank during the Great War. At the time they were great lumbering, slow moving beasts and their aim was to support the infantry during the attack and as such  able to cross the standard German trench. When first utilised during the battle of the Somme (1916) they took the Germans completely by surprise and enabled the infantry to make gains hitherto thought impossible. In retrospect, it has been argued that the tank, as a new 'wonder' weapon, should have been used later in the war when sufficient numbers would have been available, thus exploiting their novelty. I'm not going to consider the arguments for and against this view. For in this post I would like to discuss why the British struggled to produce a really effective Second World War tank.

The problem began prior to the war. During the 1920s and 1930s the money available to fund the military was greatly reduced. In the late 1930s, the reemergence  of Germany as a military threat was realised, and belatedly, funding for the British military increased. However, the majority of the funds were allocated to the navy and air force. This funding priority underlined the British strategy of defence. The austerity during these desperate times should not be understated. Britain was only able to prosecute the second conflict by mortgaging the nation to the Americans.

The first tank to see combat during those hectic days of June 1940 was the Matilda Mark II. This was conceived as a heavy tank in keeping with British doctrine of the time. It was thought that two classes of tank were required. A heavy, slow moving tank to support the infantry and a fast moving light tank to act as a break through tank. It was thought that the light tank would infiltrate and rapidly exploit gaps in the enemy line, therefore replacing the role of horsed cavalry. This doctrine was based on First World War concepts and the second war was envisaged as a repeat of the first. As such, it was considered that defense would reign supreme and static trench warfare would prevail after the initial offensive flurries. The British thought they could repeat the successful strategy of the Great War allowing the navy to strangle German sea commerce forcing a German defeat, but only after several years of conflict. The Germans had other ideas. To avoid a long drawn out war the Germans came up with the plan of 'Blitz Krieg' (lightning war). The battle field would be fluid with tanks out striping the infantry causing chaos and disruption behind Allied lines. In a way the main weapon would be one of psychology where the British and particularly the French would be subject to 'battle field' uncertainty. In fact Blitz Krieg, as practiced by the Germans, was deeply flawed. The concept was sound, however, the Germans lacked  effective battle tanks in large numbers. The majority of the force consisted of light tanks and the British and French tanks, of 1940, were qualitatively better than the Mark I, II and III tanks fielded by the Germans.

At the debacle of Dunkirk the British, by necessity, had to leave most of their heavy equipment behind including their tanks. Thus the British, at a stroke, were denuded of their armour. Perhaps it should have been an opportunity for the British to develop innovative and effective tank designs. In reality a series of rushed tank designs, of dubious utility, were hastily produced and all suffered from the same defects. In general they, where under armed, under powered  and under armoured and therefore obsolete before they rattled off the production line. Also they were incapable of sequential modification. Contrast this with the German Mark IV which was continually upgraded in armour and weaponry as the war progressed. This 'work horse' of the German Army was still an effective fighting machine in 1945 and judged by the Russians as a better tank than their much vaunted T34.

It has been argued that the turret ring of British tanks was restricted in size to accommodate constraints imposed by rail transportation. This limitation stifled turret ring size and in turn this limited the size of the turret and hence the size of the gun the turret could contain. For some reason this never seemed a problem faced by the Russian and German tanks.

The British tanks were initially successful during the early battles of the Desert War as they were only facing Italian tanks that were of dubious quality, even when compared to British tanks. Once the Germans intervened the problem was clearly rendered in stark revue and British armour suffered greatly against German armour and anti-tank guns. The American Mark IV Sherman started to appear in 1943 and thereafter became the mainstay of American and British  armour. The Sherman was not a perfect weapon of war and its introduction in late 1942 was considered obsolete by German standards, however it had several fundamental redeeming qualities that would make the tank perhaps the best war time tank the Allies could muster, excluding the late war introduction of the British Comet and American Pershing. Firstly, it could be produced quickly and in large numbers by American industry. When production of this tank ended in 1946 the Americans had produced over 30,000 Sherman's of various types. It was a reliable tank and when first introduced it proved highly popular with British tank crews, notwithstanding its reputation of burning once hit. The Sherman could be and would be improved as the war progressed. Limitations of the Sherman became apparent during the initial Normandy fighting in June/July 1940 when confronted by German Panther and Tiger tanks. The British hastily replaced the ineffective American 75mm gun with the long 76. This was not an easy fit and the gun had to be placed at right angles making reloading a painful process. At least this Sherman variant, the 'Firefly', was able to defeat enemy armour at long range. This variant was never manufactured in large numbers and the modified tank was simply integrated, in small numbers, within the ranks of their shorter gunned brethren. The Germans soon became fearful of the longer gunned Sherman and instructed tank crews, and anti-tank gunners, to prioritise their efforts against this variant. In mitigation, the Allies began to camouflage the gun so it appeared shorter, at least at a distance.

Toward the end of the war the Allies finally constructed a 'modern battle tank' in the guise of the Pershing and Comet. These weapons where more than capable of taking on the German big cats however, they were never present in large numbers. Quixotically the British did not utilise sloped armour on the Comet even though the advantages of a sloped frontal glacis was well recognised by all sides; this remains an enigma wrapped in mystery.

This is my take the on situation as faced by the British with respect to their armoured forces during the great conflict. It is recognised that this brief critique of British armour is an over simplification of the problems faced by the British military during the Second World War and there are certainly other salient factors at play. That said, I can't but help feel that the British could have done a lot better. What do my readers think? Am I overly harsh in my assessment. Anyway let me know of your thoughts, opinions and criticism in the comment field below.

Yam Daft Soft Aypeth

 

                Our Aquatic Friend Looking Life a Fish out of Water (He's on the Left)                                                 

I'm sure my readers are aware of the 'Tik Tok' phenomenon. For those, who for some reason, are bereft of knowledge I will add a brief explanation as it is pertinent to this post.

Tik Tik is a video sharing platform owned by a consortium of Japanese snipers (filthy nips). It hosts short videos of various genres of less than 3 minute duration. Most of the vids show folk dancing and/or singing. Tis also a platform for folk to vent their spleen, etc. As you can imagine it brings out the crazies in their droves. There are more than a few unintentionally funny videos on this app and as you would expect more than a gaggle of videos from folk who are clearly unwell. So without further ado....

There are a series of Tik Tok videos showcasing a young fella who claims he can breathe under water. And no he does not have gills, unless they are discretely sequestered up his arse (arse). His avowed technique involves taking water into his mouth while 'clicking his tongue'. He claims that this action breaks the bonds of the water molecules releasing copious amount of breathable oxygen. Now that is a bold claim indeed. He also states that this technique was known to the Atlanteans (remember them?) and has subsequently been lost in the mists of time (how bloody convenient). 

Let us have a look at his claim and see if it is in accord with verified knowledge. 

Fish do indeed extract oxygen from water, but this does not involve a chemical reaction. The gill system, which consists of a large surface area of tissue, highly enriched with blood, extracts dissolved oxygen from water. There is no chemical reaction in this exclusively physical process.

As said, this chappie extracts the oxygen after breaking down water into its constitutive parts. A little basic chemistry is now required. Water contains one atom of oxygen covalently bonded to two atoms of hydrogen, hence the formula, H2O. To break these covalent bonds requires energy and the amount of energy required is not inconsequential. In the chemistry laboratory this is achieved using electrolysis. Generally a suitable electrolyte is added to pure water, to increase electrical conductivity, and a direct current applied between two electrodes placed in the solution. Once the current is turned on, oxygen is liberated at the the anode and hydrogen at the cathode. This reaction can be expressed by the following balanced equation: 2H2O ---> 2H2 + O2

I highly doubt tongue clicking will generate sufficient energy to cause water molecules to disassociate. Mayhap, he has a battery jammed in his mouth and the bi-various amalgam fillings in his teeth are acting as electrodes? 

He claims that we all have this innate, vestigial ability however, it takes special training to unlock the potential within. Have a guess who is willing to unlock this long lost art of water breathing? No structured course has been announced yet, but when it does comes to fruition, you can bet there will be an associated, hefty charge- and I'm not waxing electrical here.

This fella is obviously a conman and we can laugh about the daft gullible buggers who are stupid enough to believe this nonsense and ultimately duped out of their cash. Let's be honest, there are always folk out in the big wide world willing to believe in such gobblygook especially if you add the fable of the lost continent of Atlantis- the loony, ascientific (not a real word) fringe love this sort of shit. More fool them we shout. But there is a serious, sinister and dangerous aspect, that I'm sure my diligent readers have fathomed. One of these silly sods may actually convince themselves that they can actually breathe under water and lumber their aquatic arse (arse) down to the local water way. Thereafter hilarity will ensue tinged with a little light drowning. Nuff said.

As for the meaning of the title, I suggest you ask, our Ted.

                        

PIAT

The PIAT in all its feral glory

During the early years of the Second World War, the most effective means to deal with an enemy tank was to shoot a heavy solid projectile at the little bugger, at high speed. There were a variety of known factors that influenced a projectile's lethality, which was basically the ability of the solid shot to travel through the total thickness of the armour. The physics involved is extremely simple. The amount of energy imparted to armour is directly correlated to the weight of the solid shot multiplied by the shot's velocity. Of course the final velocity of the projectile would be dependent upon the distance the shot had to travel before impact.  

When it came to an infantry portable 'one man' anti-tank weapon the only effective option at the beginning of the war, for the British Army, was the Boys anti-tank rifle. In essence, the weapon was an upscaled infantry rifle with a large calibre bullet. Although initially effective against German tanks it became less serviceable as the war progressed due to the inevitable increase in thickness of German armour. There is a limit to the size of projectile that can be used, in practice, for a portable one man anti-tank device and by 1941 anti-tank rifles were of no use against the majority of German tanks in service, although they remained useful against soft skinned vehicles.  

Enter the PIAT (Projector Infantry Anti Tank), stage left: With the inadequacy of hand held anti-tank rifles duly noted, it became an urgent priority to develop a replacement. Clearly, a new approach was required. The PIAT entered into active service in mid 1943 and made its debut during the Tunisian campaign, to great effect. In essence, the PIAT was a melding of two separate munitions, the spigot mortar and the shaped charge. The shaped charge relied on a principle first observed in the late 19^th century. I wont go into detail concerning the development of the shaped charge. It is sufficient to note that the projectile was reliant on chemical, not kinetic energy. The 'bomb' contains a metal lined conical hollow backed with explosive (see diagram for more detail). Detonation causes the metal lining to collapse to form a jet of molten metal. The jet travels at hypersonic speed and when encountering armour cuts through the metal scattering debris and molten armour into the interior of the tank causing catastrophic devastation to man, ferret and material alike. Unlike kinetic energy rounds, shaped charges do not rely on their velocity to cause havoc as all the means of destruction is contained within.

In order for the shaped charge to become a practical weapon it required an instrument of projection. And so the bomb was married to a modified spigot mortar. Again, there is an interesting, nay intriguing story, concerning the development of the 'mortar'. If you are prone to insomnia, I recommend two tinctures of laudanum combined with a midnight read of the salient material. A sterling soporific, indeed.

Thus, the PIAT was an ungainly fusion of the shaped charge and spigot mortar. The composite device worked in the manner of a recoilless rifle. The mechanism of action was extremely simple. A central spigot operated on a spring which was compressed (cocked) by placing the PIAT on the floor. The soldier would grasp the two outer handles and apply force to cock the weapon. The bomb was placed in a open chute on the front of the weapon. When the trigger was pulled the spigot was released and the firing pin on the end of the spigot would engage a small propelling charge at the base of the bomb. The combination of the applied force of the spigot plus the detonation of the charge would propel the bomb toward the target. The recoil of the weapon was sufficient to drive the spigot back and therefore after the first shot the PIAT was automatically cocked, in theory at least. Once the bomb reached the target, the fuse would activate the shaped charge and release the jet of doom which would sear its way through the armour to the detriment of the crew and the tank.  

Although the PIAT was simple in conception and operation, and appeared ad hoc and crude it had several advantages over the contemporary American bazooka. The bomb carried a hefty punch (1.1kg/2.2lbs) of explosive and was capable of penetrating four inches of armour. This was enough to turn any German tank into a pile of rubble and leave the crew mangled beyond repair. The PIAT  was considerably more powerful than the bazooka and unlike the bazooka there was no back blast. Therefore, the PIAT could be fired in enclosed spaces without cooking the operator and anyone standing the vicinity. Also, the back blast of the bazooka gave away the weapon's position encouaraging quick retaliation. Because of the size of the charge the PIAT was also useful in clearing rooms and breaching blockhouses. The PIAT was credited with prodigious range and supposedly was effective as an anti-tank weapon at 150 yards and as an indirect fire weapon, 300 yards. In practice, and according to wartime trials, a skilled operator could hit a tank 60% of the time at 100 yards. In addition, the PIAT was easy to manufacture and relatively simple to use, however, the initial manual cocking was a cumbersome and a risky exercise during combat.

The PIAT was not without faults. It was a heavy weapon, at 39 pounds, and unwieldly rendering it  unpopular with those tasked to carry the weapon. Although simple to use it had a heavy kick back and the unwary soldier could be left with a badly bruised shoulder, or even worse. When first introduced the weapon suffered from ammunition reliability problems although this issue was solved as the war progressed. In addition, due to the bomb's heavy charge, there was a risk of serious injury to the operator due to metal fragments from the exploding bomb; fire from cover was recommended (no shit, Flaxen). As the war travelled to an inevitable climax (how was the war for you?) the German's, very unsporting of them, began to fit armoured side 'skirts' to their tanks. As a rule of thumb, the molten jet produced could penetrate armour three times the diameter of the cone. As the skirts on the tank detonated the bomb a distance away from the main armour, the piercing potential of the molten jet was drastically reduced rendering the weapon ineffective. However, the skirts only protected the tank's flanks, leaving the front and rear as vulnerable as before.

In conclusion: It could be remarked that the PIAT was a typical British wartime expedient. There is something rather amateurish and eccentric about this weapon. This was not the only weapon to be considered as such, though perhaps the PIAT was arguably the most successful. Its success belied its crude appearance and it remained in active service well into the 1950s. How it would have faired against Soviet tanks, if the behemoth state had decided to roll West in the 1950s is difficult to say. By this time however, NATO had better hand held anti-tank weapons in its arsenal such as the M20 super bazooka. 

Philosophy in a Nut Shell/Bag

Whilst imbibing Ale, according to strict recommended guidelines, (not a drop less, not a drop more) in my local Tavern, 'The Frolicking Mustelid', Tipton (where else?), I was accosted by the local inebriate and impresario, Pissed Pete, he of rubicund and florid countenance/demeanour. Pickled Pete spake thusly: “Flaxen, you are renowned hereabouts, in these environs and locally, as a savant without peer. Mayhap you are able to address a question of major import, a query that has engaged the best minds for over 2 millennium. Flaxen, are you up to the task"?  I replaced the foaming mug of Ale, 'Ole Scrote Blaster', upon the care worn table of a million drunken spills and squinted wistfully, as if in a reverie or lost in a dream of enchantment and regarded my interrogator, with a wistful eye (just the left one). Pete belched, and the wind of a thousand furies assailed my olfactory system with disdain. The 'Plastered One', regarded me with sanguineous, rheumy eyes and continued. “Flaxen, what is the best definition of 'Philosophy', and if you will, how does it differ from Science' and Theology”? I pursed my lips as if in deep contemplation and responded as follows:

'Philosophy', in ancient Greek can be interpreted as 'Love of Knowledge'. Mayhap this is not a definition that would satisfy the modern mind, as it lacks intellectual rigour, but it sufficed for those pesky Hellenes of yore. The ancients did not distinguish between 'philosophy' and 'science' as we do today. All knowledge, regardless of how it was obtained, was considered under the hefty mantel of philosophy. The Ancient Greeks were not great fans, with some exceptions, of the scientific method as we understand it today. Deep thought, on its own, was the premier method for unlocking nature's secrets. They paid scant attention to what we call Empirical Data and its acquisition.   

This post, is exclusively and unashamedly devoted to Western Philosophy. Eastern Philosophy, throughout the ages, although of academic interest, has/had a tendency toward the esoteric and mystical, often adding a hefty dose of mythical elements masquerading as true, enlightened wisdom. This not to say that the Western variety is exclusively rational. For instance, check out the writings of Plato and Kant to name but two. Rational Western philosophers, are not always rational and irrational philosophers are not always irrational; tis extremely difficult to be consistent, all the time. And indeed, Western savants have oft been happy to sprinkle, or sometimes drench their work with theology. Alfred North Whitehead and Schopenhauer acknowledged their debt to Hinduism. While, Aquinas' philosophical system is only comprehensible within a Christian context. Even the great founder of modern Western philosophical thought, Descartes, added theology to his works. That said, too much of a generalisation tends to oversimplification and the risk of lapsing into unintelligibility and lack of clarity. Arse.

Western philosophy, at its best, makes a distinction between knowledge that can be accessed by the Scientific Method and knowledge that can be obtained by thought alone. I won't delve into the distinction between these distinct modes of knowledge acquisition as I have covered this ground in previous posts- if you are a true seeker of wisdom, then all will be revealed. 

Philosophic discourse, is eminently suited to such conundrums as: what is courage (Laches?); how can we live a moral existence?; what is the mind, can it be separated from matter?; does life have a purpose or are we adrift in an insouciant Universe? This is just a meagre selection of topics amenable to the Philosophic method, whatever that might be..... The answer to these questions cannot be resolved in the lab. Even the most powerful electron microscope will shed no light, or electrons, on the topics under scrutiny. Most of these enquiries are open ended, and therefore there is no precise, definite answer. In contrast, logical analysis and the quest for knowledge (Epistemology) can provide definitive solutions that defy dispute and remain forever true. And it here that we discern an overlap with the domain we identify as Science.  

Imagine a Venn diagram consisting of the spheres of Philosophy and Science. This would reveal a degree of correspondence between these two domains. The overlap would not be great, but the relationship is clearly significant. There are those who would argue that there should be an additional sphere; the sphere of Theology. I find it difficult to imagine any degree of interaction with our neatly arrayed spheres of  Philosophy and Science. Theology, consists of  a series of dogmatic beliefs and doctrine. The answers to life's mysteries are already known with a certainty that revolts the modern mind and remains in stark contrast to the temper of rational thought. Faith provides solace to those who believe, but faith does not reveal true knowledge. On the basis of faith, all is possible. Religious certainty provides comforting fairy tales for those seeking assurance in a chaotic world. Theology, as a topic, remains outside the acquisition of knowledge and is best confined to the realm of psychology and sociology. 

A simple definition defies analysis and belittles the enormity of the task. I favour a series of phrases that interact to build a coherent framework. Each phrase should interlock into this framework and each phrase should be internally consistent as well as exhibiting consistency with each other. This is deceptively difficult to achieve in theory and practice as we run the risk of becoming bogged down in a morass of detail. Conversely, the definition may appear too simplistic, rendering it devoid of real meaning and content.

And therefore, finally.     

Definition:  Philosophy is universally defined as the study of the wisdom or knowledge about the general problems, facts, and situations connected with human existence, values, reasons, and general reality.

My Personal Definition:  Speculations on humanity, the 'self', existence, matter and the universe. An understanding, recognition of what constitutes knowledge and how true knowledge is to be distinguished from irrational beliefs. And finally, an understanding of the limitations of knowledge acquisition.

NB: With reference to knowledge, I have taken care not to include, definite knowledge, as determined by empiricism, as this strictly remains with the domain of science, not philosophy. 

As an exercise, I challenge my readers to propose a definition of philosophy, that makes sense to them. Perhaps, if get enough people to participate it could form the basis of a mass-debate. 

 

     

 

 

Side Effect of Scant Consequence?

 I have to confess, to date, I've been free of significant side effects of my medication regimen. Even the classic problem of constipation, following opiate medication, troubles me, not at all.

Recently I was prescribed a new medication to add to the list: Amitriptyline. Amitriptyline belongs to a class of drug termed, tricyclic antidepressants and is prescribed for a variety of ailments. For instance, in low dosage it helps with sleep disturbance and promotes nocturnal rest. It is also used as a prophylactic in the prevention of severe migraines. At higher dosage it is prescribed as an antidepressant generally where other antidepressants have proved ineffective. In addition, it is used for the curtailment of nerve pain and has been shown to be effective as a treatment for children after significant head trauma, and as an adjunct in ADHD therapy. Thus, it seems Amitriptyline is a panacea for all that ails us; a drug for all seasons.

Like all medications, Amitriptyline has a number of known side effects. The majority of these  associated problems are relatively minor, such as: dry mouth, drowsiness, dizziness, constipation, and weight gain. On rare occasions more serious issues have been reported, specifically blurred vision, tremor, heart palpitations (tachycardia), dizziness, etc.......

This brings me to my sad story, to relate: I had been taking the medication for about a week (75mg/day). Twas a gorgeous Spring day and I was pottering about in my 'Man Shed/Emporium' engaged in a little light woodwork. At about 2pm in the afternoon I espied a dog wandering about on the property. The dog seemed friendly so I approached and checked the collar for an identification tag. There was none so I attached a piece of string to the collar in preparation to hawk said pooch to my immediate neighbours in hope of finding the owner. As I was leading the dog off the property my daughter approached and asked what I was up to. I explained the situation and afterward she looked as if I had gone stark raving mad. It transpires that I had placed a leash on my daughter's dog, Rocco. For context: my daughter, and the hound, had been living with us for the past two years! Of course, my daughter found the whole situation absolutely hilarious. I found the situation mildly disturbing. In all other respects I felt completely normal. And no, I hadn't been drinking or partaking of non-prescription medication. Curiouser and curiouser (not a real word -go tell it to the Caroll).  

I have never experienced this type of 'dissociation/dislocation from reality' before and I'm on my guard for similar episodes. Naturally I have ascribed this 'strange phenomenon' to the Amitriptyline. Of course, I could be wrong. I did consider stop taking the drug, but I do feel I'm getting some benefit from the medication. I've decided to continue, unabated, but not without increased vigilance. I'll keep note of any similar episodes and my family will also monitor my behaviour for anything odd or outside the normal, for me at least. I'm scheduled for a consult with my G.P. in just over two weeks and I'll certainly raise the matter with the good Dr Mugumbo.

My question/quest: Do any of my readership take said drug, and if so, have they experienced any side effects similar to mine? I would be grateful for any input that might shine a little light on my, rather disturbing experience.        

Flaxen Talking Bollocks

I'm sure that in the middle of the night you have contemplated the thorny problem of why the body's most sensitive organ, the testicles, are outside the protective carapace of the male chassis? Anyone who has received a football to the bollocks will testify to evolution's folly for not contemplating internal stowage. Only a mature male can experience the nagging, dragging, agonising pain that will inevitably transpire following contact with a hard unyielding object; transsexuals, take note. Upon impact there is the inevitable two second delay as the neural signal travels from the organ of contact/impact to the brain. The finale is a paroxysmal wave of agony experienced by the soma, (O deep joy). You might conclude that males would be better served by sequestering these sensitive glands deep inside the body cavity. The fact that this profoundly delicate male organ swings unfettered and free, awaiting the exquisite vicissitudes of life's slings and arrows, seems but a cruel joke of biology. Indeed, tis the most cogent argument for an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent deity being of the female persuasion. 

The testicles are enclosed in their own 'protective', yielding bag of skin. The rugeform and elastic scrotum encapsulates this valuable organic package and keeps it sequestered from the somatic mass of the main organism. It is has not gone without notice that the scrotal sac waxes and wains according to the ambient temperature. Its inherent properties of malleability, pliability, extensibility and thermal compliance are responsible for the propensity for extreme contraction and augmentation. 

The relationship between temperature and scrotal volume has been exhaustively researched, by myself, during a time when I eschewed medication. This involved placing said sac in water of varying thermal content. Fortuitously, the water itself also serves as a measure of volume due to the ancient principle of Archimedean water displacement. Overflow was conveniently collected in a strategically placed scientific grade measuring cylinder. The result confuted and confounded expectations, and belied simple analysis. And thus, it transpired that the correlation was not an equal, direct, correspondent, comparable, proportionate relationship. To my chagrin and vexation, my data revealed a binomial, sigmoidal relationship. This is counter to intuitive expectations. However, on reflection and further research, the result was found to be in perfect accord with the general properties of elastic materials as illustrated by Charles Law.  

Science Stuff

After the above preamble tis pertinent to address the fundamental question/quest as stated, cogently and with veritable aplomb, in the first paragraph of this esteemed post.   

Testicles have two main roles in the physiology of mammals. Firstly, they are responsible for the male hormone, testosterone, that defines masculinity, in all its manifold aspects. Formation and excretion of testosterone is not exclusive to the male gender and lesser amounts are secreted by the female of the species (don't ask). Secondly, the testes are the seat of sperm production. The development of male spermatozoa is a complex and interesting topic in itself. The average healthy male 'manufactures' 50-200 million spermatozoa per day and the average ejaculate contains, on average, 7 billion of the little, wriggling buggers.

In my professional capacity as a geneticist I have had the privilege to research and develop a diagnostic laboratory technique for sperm analysis. Specifically, the methodology was aimed at detecting genetically abnormal spermatozoa in the ejaculate of men carrying a known genetic anomaly. I posted a whimsical side swipe of the experience, here:  The Flaxen Saxon Chronicles: Search results for consummate professional

My interest in matters 'Scrotal' is not confined to my professional proclivities. Indeed, I'm an esteemed inventor of note and have used my talents, as an innovator, to combine my prodigious practical proficiency with my passion for the science of Bollockology, to engineer a mechanical device for the measurement of scrotal movement following a thermal insult. The Scrotometer (pat pending) and its practical deployment can be accessed using the following link:  The Flaxen Saxon Chronicles: Search results for scrotometer

For some reason, if you click on the links provided, the relevant posts will appear when you scroll down the page.  

Some say that I'm in line to receive the Nobel Prize for being a Smart Arse (Arse).

     

  

Latest Status Update

I retired three years ago and moved to rural New Zealand. About two years ago my old boss offered two days work a week on a series of six month contracts. To be honest, the commute has been gruelling, entailing three hours of travel by public transport- O deep joy. My current contract runs out in November and I had already decided that this was going to be the end of my employment. For the past two weeks I have been off work due to the latest COVID lockdown infesting NZ.  

On Monday evening, whilst contemplating my fate, I had an epiphany. I seriously asked myself the following question: do I need to work at this stage of my life? Of course not. I'm getting too old for 16 hour Mondays and sitting on cramped trains for hours next to an accountant from Carterton. 

As if on cue my boss phoned to discuss my status. I explained that I don't want to continue regardless of contractual obligations. I'm done. Work no more. My boss is an old friend from way back when we both worked together in England. He is sympathetic and understands my current medical status. And so after discussing the situation with the family and explaining my intention to the section leader, I irrevocably decided to resign and hand in my resignation without notice. 

As for the future. As my regulars know, I set up an archery business with my son (Saxon Archery). I envisaged the enterprise as an extension of my passion without any pretence of turning a profit. Obviously I didn't take into account my son's drive and business acumen. Although he has a demanding full time job he has managed to market the brand with deft ability. His effort and hard work have paid dividends  and orders have started to flood in. We have reached the break even stage and with further determination, and effort, we are on course to earn a modest profit. 

My break from the daily grind will allow me to devote quality time for the business. At the moment I deal with selection, packaging and despatch. With more time on the my hands I hope to takeover some of the technical and marketing aspects of the business. The aim is shift some of the burden from my overworked but highly talented son.

I'm going to leave it there. There are several posts in the pipeline and September will prove to be a time of bounty. My intuitive creativity is bursting through the dura pouring forth unto an unsuspecting blank tableau. Arse.