


















Well, it’s been a long time coming, fellow nerds and nerdettes. This week we finally get our long-awaited and almost-delayed/canned movie adaptation of one of the classic graphic novels. Alan Moore’s epic “Watchmen”. Okay, I’m really being facetious. Watchmen, as a comic, is pretty ordinary by modern standards. It was innovative in the 80s, and the story is interesting, but it’s still very comic-book-y and simplified for a mass audience. If you want the “Citizen Kane of Graphic Novels” you should be reading Maus or some other materwork that happens to be a visual novel, not a drawn-out “superhero” comic that has pretences of greatness because it gave some dark flair (read: emotional flaws) to the main characters. But I digress, before Alan Moore and his fanboy minions start gathering outside my door with pitchforks in hand.
I enjoyed the “novel”, so I was looking forward to the movie. I felt the visual style of the book could lend itself well to the big screen, and the film doesn’t disappoint. Aside from the usual “dammit I can see all the CGI effects” that plagues modern filmmaking, the movie is a visual tour-de-force. Which is damn well should be; it’s a movie based on a comic for chrissake. The pains that were taken to match the visuals of the comic are impressive; even the actors are near-perfect visual recreations of the originals. Most of the scenes are frame-for-frame recreations of the panels, complete with original dialogue. The novel was the script, for good or ill. The movie retains the punchy (read: terse and clichéd) dialogue of the novel, which makes the film seem overly simplified. Especially if you have never read the novel; to fans, it’s probably just what they wanted.
So the dialogue isn’t perfect… And neither is some of the acting. Silk Spectre I and II both come off as wooden characters, with zero chemistry in the “emotional” family scenes. Sally/Silk Spectre I is particularly cringe-inducing, taking what was already a dull portion of the novel (the mother-daughter banter) and making it painfully dreadful with a Keanu Reeves phone-in performance. John/Dr. Manhattan is appropriately distant (he is an omnipotent demi-god who lost touch with humanity, after all) but still irritating as a character – you won’t have much sympathy with the portrayal of Dr. Manhattan, even though the novel makes a good effort at showing his underlying humanity and how his human life (emotion) was destroyed by the accident that made him a super man. On the plus side, Walter/Rorschach is appropriately psychotic, Dan/Nite Owl II is a good insecure middle-aged single guy, Edward/Comedian has a detached and grizzled exterior hiding a collapsing psyche, and Adrian/Ozymandias is a pitch perfect representation of narcissistic hubris (in effect outdoing the novel, where he was more of a benign pretty-boy character until the denouement and ending, where his self-absorbed quasi-evil shows through). Bit roles are well played as well, with some big (Canadian) names showing up as Moloch and Hollis/Nite Owl I; overall the bit players really help to hold up the movie as a whole, which says a lot about the drabness of the main actors. A perfect representation of Lee Iacocca gets his brains blown out too – if that is not a perfect reason to see a movie, I don’t know what is.
Beyond the dry bits, there is plenty of top-tier action and over-the-top violence to keep the Frank Miller crowd happy. In fact, the violence is quite astounding, even compared to the original novel. Nothing is left to the imagination; Dr. Manhattan blows enemies up in a shower of gore and bone, baddies get their limb broken in compound-fracture fashion, and the “angle grinder” scene will give anyone who isn’t a horror junkie the willies. It wasn’t necessary by any means; you would think that in the post-Hitchcock world we would be accustomed to having things left to the imagination (especially in a film that isn’t a slasher flick by any means). Then again, Zack Snyder did direct 300, which had all the subtlety and grace of an axe through your temple. Speaking of subtlety, why in the name of holy fuck did Snyder insist on making us sit through minutes of watching Dr. Manhattan’s little John waving to and fro? I don’t think we will ever know the answer. Be warned, homophobes, there is plenty of blue-CGI dick waving action in several key scenes.
Music is probably the weakest part of the film. Here we go with subtlety again; the choice of music ranges from odd to self-deprecatingly awful, and the soundtrack is WAY too loud in some scenes. Period pop music abounds, and it is sometimes hilarious. Watching the Comedian crack rioter’s skulls to disco tunes (it’s the 70s! Geddit?) is either sheer comedy or stupidity beyond reproach. Take it as you will. I thought it was funny, most people think it was just awful.
Spoiler alert!
The ending has caused a lot of consternation among the fanboy crowd. Snyder axed the original “giant alien squid that isn’t really alien” blowing up New York ending in favour of Veidt/Ozymandias framing Dr. Manhattan for a series of explosions in major cities around the world. Some have suggested this new ending makes more sense; it does, if you compare it to the original ending. Show a giant squid materializing in downtown New York to someone who never read the novel, and you’ll have some major explaining to do. The novel has plenty of time to hint at what is brewing so it makes sense when it occurs; the movie does nothing to hint at what is coming, aside from Veidt and Dr. Manhattan collaborating on a power reactor design. The problem with this ending is it makes no sense from a character standpoint – why would Dr. Manhattan suddenly turn on the world? Because he was a little cranky over a bad interview? Because he wanted to teach everyone a valuable lesson about playing nice lest they face the apocalypse? Because he was just a big prick (no pun intended)? That’s my explanation, based on how little sympathy the character garners in the film. It seems out of place, but it’s probably as best as we can expect. Giant squid thing probably would have been worse, unless they added another 20 minutes of scenes to explain the development of the squid by Veidt. Oh well, we nerds can win ‘em all.
Overall the movie isn’t perfect, but it’s worth watching. The visuals and action are great, the alternate 1980s are well presented, and it’s true to the novel. On the downside, a lot of the acting blows, the music is dumb as shit bricks, subtlety is not in Zack Snyder vocabulary, and the ending is odd. I enjoyed myself, but I wasn’t expecting much. Keep your expectations low and you might enjoy it too.
PS – if you go for only one reason, aside from watching Lee Iaccoca get shot, go for the opening credits. They are sheer brilliance, and probably the best part of the whole film. Sad to say, but it’s true. I will be seeing it again next weekend, mainly for those credits. And Iaccoca’s death. Honestly, why didn’t they get the real Iacocca on board? He would have been great at getting shot in the face.
I give it three Patsies; I would have given it four if the real Iaccoca had gotten shot in the face.


So after a longish hiatus, I’m returning to my blogoranting. Settle down kids, I know you missed me. Now shut up and let me pour my dead heart out.
I’m now located in (M) New Brunswick, my hometown. Coming back, I remember I left here for a reason. Nothing much to do, nothing much to see, and 1000 kms away from any real action. My roots may be here, but my heart is somewhere in a strip club in Montreal (right next to my wallet). I’m trying to remain positive about my shift in direction, but you have to remember it wasn’t voluntary. I was stuck in Montreal with no money and no opportunities, one bill away from joining the screaming hobo who lived across from my apartment. I have a fancy-pants arts degree that is worth about three wooden nickels in the current job market. My job experience is all over the map, so I technically qualify for everything, but don’t have enough experience for anyone.
And so I transfer my hunt into another province, somewhere where candidates don’t fight each other with broken pool cues just to get a second interview. No, here my credentials mean something, and my skills might be worth a damn. So in that respect, I’m probably better off here. Plus, not being a pur laine Quebecois in Quebec is a quick way to get booted off the market. Here, I’m a local, and I know the ropes.
As you can see, I’m trying to justify this as best I can. It’s hard, I’ll admit. I left behind a life of fun and non-stop entertainment (not to mention gorgeous women) to return to a quiet province where fatalities due to moose encounters outnumber gang hits by a fair margin. But I do look forward to the scenery, the rolling backroads, the lack of police patrols… Living in the Maritimes usually means you have to make your own entertainment that doesn’t involve paying a scantily clad college girl to grind your crotch.
I thought all would go smoothly in the transition, but a lot is getting affected negatively. My relationship is strained, my friends here are already sick of seeing me, and my friends from Montreal are pissed that I left them behind. Meanwhile I’m continuing the job search, which is a bit tougher because opportunities that don’t involve manning a cashier or hammering nails into something are a bit thin on the ground here.
So here I am, bored, still unemployed, and sorry to leave my Montreal life behind. I hope I have done my part in brightening up your day.
I.A.










When it comes to Mac-compatible sound cards, M-Audio is pretty much the only game in town. Oh sure, Creative made a Mac SoundBlaster a few years back, but it was quickly forgotten and no longer has driver updates. So for current tech that is designed for Macs and has extensive support, M-Audio is the only option. And, as you will now hear, it’s a goodun.
I picked up a Revolution 7.1 to bump up the sound quality on my Power Mac G4. Oddly, when I got the Power Mac, I found it had poor sound quality compared to my iBook G4, which was a bit newer and had a better onboard soundcard. This just wouldn’t do, because I love top-quality audio, and my Harmon Kardon speakers beg for a decent sound output. I’m an amateur audiophile; I can’t make music to save my life, but I can tell the difference between a 192kps recording and one with 256 or 320kps by ear. 128-160kps sound like crap to my ears. So I’m more sensitive to sound quality than the average schmuck. And I believe that qualifies me to give a brief review of the Revolution 7.1 I stuck into my Mac. Don’t argue with me, I’m on a roll.
A bit long in the tooth now, the R 7.1 is a solid soundcard, and got very good reviews when it was released around 2004. I paid about 110$ for it, locally, but you can get them for as little as 25$ on Fleabay if you are so inclined. Either way, it is worth your money.
For your money you get full 7.1 support through individual 3.5mm jacks. Also provided is a digital output port if you happen to have that capability. For me, I don’t even have a 7.1 system. Or 5.1. Nope, I make do with a set of H/K 2.1 “Champagne” speakers. Speakers that were considered middle-of-the-road to above average by most reviewers. With the R 7.1, that changes.
With the latest drivers you get a comprehensive set of presets for various speaker systems, including my Champagnes. Setting the output for this preset, then fiddling with the surround sound and “trubass” settings revealed that my humble old speakers had amazing capabilities. Sound clarity is perfect, bass is crisp while still throwing out some serious wall rattling power, and the surround sound works brilliantly. It’s quite eerie to sit between two speakers and suddenly become enveloped in three-dimensional sound, as if you had a true surround system – except this is entirely through the software. Amazing. It gave my H/Ks a new lease on life. I was fist pumping with the pure joy that only an equally crazy audio nut will understand. The sound quality exceeded my expectations, and blew me away. I never thought I could extract such rich sound from such simple speakers.
But there is a caveat. Actually two. You see, the R 7.1, despite being a dedicated sound card, actually consumes more processing power than the onboard card. I clocked the difference at nearly 10% more (as in 10% more of the processing speed, not a 10% increase) for the R 7.1. So don’t expect this to speed up your old computer by taking sound processing off the motherboard. The other problem is audio artefacts – on a regular basis I get the odd pop, click or warble. Usually when I start a video or sound file; the worst, however, is when I pause a movie in Quicktime, then restart it only to have the sound completely garbled. To fix it requires restarting Quicktime. I recently updated to the latest drivers, but I’m still getting minor artefacts. It’s not enough to dissuade me completely, however. The sound quality is so damn good I am willing to overlook this rather apparent flaw. But the final score reflects this problem.
I give it three and half Patsies. The audio flaws are irritating and the price is high, but you don’t have much choice when it comes to Mac compatible stuff, and the sound quality is mind blowing once you get it dialled in for your speaker setup. Recommended.

This review is the first of a series of “capsule reviews” of whatever I feel like commenting on. In this, the first instalment, I will be reviewing the Time Life World At War DVD series.
My review is summarized by a rating out of five Patsies, the worst being half a Patsy, the best being five Patsies:
The internationally recognized, SAE approved Patsy scale
My rating is entirely subjective and not based on any particular criteria; it’s just whatever the hell I feel like giving.
So enjoy, turkeys.
I.A.
---

If you watch any history channels, you may have come across an advertisement from Time Life for a DVD collection featuring rare footage from the Second World War. It touts how this footage is grisly, graphic and unique, and portrays the DVD set as a sort of compendium of stock footage.
This is severely underselling The World At War series, a 1970s British documentary series that followed the events of the Second World War using new footage, eyewitness accounts, and a sombre historical narrative provided by Sir Laurence Olivier. I find it odd (actually, disturbing) that Time Life sells the set as a sort of voyeuristic compendium of graphic footage for history nuts, rather than as the solid and acclaimed documentary series it is.
Clocking in at almost 30 hours, including the “bonus” materials (a few extra documentary episodes that recycle some of the testimony and expand upon in - particularly the interview with Hitler’s personal secretary, and a standalone two-part overview of the Final Solution), this series is a massive undertaking for the average viewer. Thankfully, it is very well presented. The events are distilled to their historical essence, in easy-to-digest 1 hour episodes. There is no high-falutin’ historical theory here – this is the straight, “popular” history of the Second World War, and that’s not a bad thing. It makes the series accessible to most anyone, and it provides a refreshingly simple refresher course in the war for us historians who have spent years poring over dry academic articles. Indeed, the talking-head portions are devoted to eyewitnesses, civilians, and combatants – not historians who never had a bomb fall on their house, or see their buddies get disembowelled by a machine gun. This is a strong point in my eyes; I’m quite tired of having a third party mediate history, and I quite enjoy being able to listen to the testimony of ordinary people who were involved, however flawed their views may be (more on that in a bit).
The selling point, unique footage, is certainly present. Much use is made of film from the war, completely overshadowing the odd talking head moments (thank God, because nothing kills the flow of a documentary like five minutes of staring at someone’s face). There is a plethora of colour footage here, and a lot of film you won’t see anywhere else. Sometimes it is graphic and stomach turning; colour footage of dismembered corpses lying on a battlefield, or the sight of a doctor sawing off a soldier’s leg in a field hospital, these are not sights for the faint of heart. Even seasoned film viewers like myself get a little queasy, because these are real people with real injuries, not actors with special effects.
The focus is clearly on the British and American side of the war, with the bulk of the series focussing on the European theatre. This is the main flaw of the series; the Pacific front is given a few episodes but it feels like it has been tacked on, and there are even some jarring racial stereotypes that belittle the Japanese as a people (remember this was made in the 1970s). Nothing is made of the contributions of Canadians, or the exiled armies of the conquered territories, or Australia, or… Well, you get the idea. Thankfully Germany is well represented, for good or ill, so it is not an entirely one-sided presentation.
The most disturbing moments sometimes come from the interviewees. One in particular stands out; Major Otto Ernst Remer (now infamous as the man who tried to carry out Operation Valkyrie arrests only to be stopped by Goebbels when he was put on the phone with a not-at-all-dead Hitler) is interviewed in several episodes. A curt and curmudgeonly old man, surrounded by relics of his service in the war, Remer vehemently denies the Holocaust on camera and generally upholds the stereotype of a German following orders without question and without remorse. It’s a sobering moment, and the series is full of them - like when a Berlin woman states, in emotionless fashion and without warning, that she was raped by a Russian soldier. Or when a victim of a cull recounts how she was shot and left for dead in a pile of bodies. These are the testimonies that make the series truly fascinating, in giving the all-important human element to the proceedings.
At around 40$ for the full set, including bonus features (which aren’t really that noteworthy, as they often recycle things from the main series), The World At War DVD set comes highly recommended. Flaws and all, it’s an excellent series that should be examined by everyone – whether you are a history buff or not. It’s an excellent summary of the war and does an admirable job of presenting the human elements.
I give it four Patsies, with reservations – namely the Europe-heavy focus and the recycled bonus features. Not to mention the tasteless way Time Life markets the series.



Today’s maniacal raving is on a subject I hold dear to my heart: the trials and tribulations of the auto industry. I love cars. I love trucks. I love things with engines that make a lot of noise and burn gasoline in wanton fashion. So I believe I have complete authority in making decisions on the entire industry’s behalf. After all, I’m probably better suited to the job than most of the company bosses, in light of recent economic clusterfucking.
So let’s get straight down to brass tacks:

- Payola and the plight of the auto rag: Or the decline of objective reviews in auto magazines. Actually they aren’t subjective either (that would be a marked improvement), just grey drivel that more often than not resembles ad copy and brochure babble taken straight from the manufacturer. It’s so obvious that we can now predict how a magazine will behave, to within a few degrees of leaning. Car And Driver will declare that anything this side of a Tata isn’t quite as good as a BMW 3 Series. Canadian Driver will be exceedingly polite to all but the worst automotive turkeys, much like we Canadians normally do in the presence of others. And so on. Can’t you folks be a little more original? Can you see beyond the ad revenue column? Can’t you, I don’t know, actually review the cars? And for God’s sake, stop with the irrelevant comparisons. If I wanted to know how a Hyundai stacked up to a Lexus, then I shouldn’t be reading an auto mag in the first place. I would be taking my medication more often.

-Hybrids, or how I learned to stop worrying and be a smug environmentalist wanker: Hybrid are a fad. They are inefficient. Expensive. Offer poor real world performance and economy. The only thing a hybrid is good for is stroking the ego of some greenheaded prick who wants to show the whole damn world how goddamn much he or she cares for the environment – without actually understanding any environmental issues or the fact that their Prius gets worse fuel economy than a basic Civic. Hybrids are symbols, a symbol that has been latched onto by the media and the green bastards of this world. Just as driving an Escalade is akin to killing a baby seal in public, a Prius suggests you are a worldly, caring hippie who just wants to love mother earth. And hasn’t heard of public transport. The only good hybrid is one that uses the electric motivation as a sort of electric supercharger – here, Lexus is ahead of the game, using the hybrid drive in conjunction with a decently sized gas motor to make a higher-performance vehicle that has the benefit of a few extra MPGs. But even those are just part of the whole ill-advised fad; the reason I like them is because they are actually fun to drive, and show a real improvement over a straight ICE. So if you really must have a hybrid, at least get one that is fun. Except for the Escalade or Suburban Hybrids. Those are just idiotic.

- Lemon-Aid: Oh Jesus H. God, I despise the Lemon-Aid guides. Nowhere else will you find a more idiotic collection of personal anecdotes, rumours, myths and biased reportage than in the pages of the best selling Lemon Aid guides. With fantastically helpful insights like “Audis attract rodents” when describing how an A4 owner had to replace a wiring harness due to mouse activity (yup, that was important enough to warrant a half page), I cannot comprehend how anyone finds the Lemon Aid a useable tool. Let’s not forget that it is the Lemon Aid guide that continues to propagate the myth of Audi “sudden acceleration” (which was dismissed as due to idiot drivers who couldn’t work the closely placed pedals), even on recent models that have absolutely no relation to the original claim of defect (which was the Audi 5000 of the late 80s). Its main source of information is owner feedback – that’s subjective anecdotes. Anyone who knows anything about research methods knows that anecdotes and subjective experiences are the worst possible way to gather information on a given subject. I’ll give you a summary of what the guide offers, to save you the trouble of reading the whole thing – BUY A TOYOTA OR A HONDA CIVIC. Everything else, according to the guide, will break down, burst into flames, kill kittens, and give your children cancer. Never mind that Toyota had a streak of engine sludging problems or that the Civic is hit-or-miss for reliability and build quality – no, facts like that are ignored in favour of catering to the common market myths, and shitting all over any company that isn’t Japanese (except for Nissan, they seem to get lumped in with parent company Renault for dodgy cars). Do yourself a favour – go browse (don’t buy) a Lemon Aid guide for some cars you have owned. Go ahead, check it out. I guarantee you will get a hearty laugh out of the experience. And remember folks, no vehicle lasts forever or will be completely free of problems. That’s what the Lemon Aid authors seem to be incapable of understanding.

-The idiocy of the market, also known as the Homer effect: I think Detroit has proven how idiotic the market is, and how catering to perceived demand is a quick way to certain death. I say this not for their failures, but for their successes in design (which ended up as failures) – namely, the Pontiac GTO and the G8. Here were great cars that have become monumental flops. Taking the best of the Aussie tradition of stuffing big V8s into sporty coupes and sedans, the GTO was a rebadged Holden Monaro (a highly acclaimed car everywhere else in the world, aka the Vauxhall Monaro/VXR) while the G8 is a rebadged Holden Commodore (ditto). Here was American carmaking at it’s finest, albeit perfected on the other side of the world. So what happens? The fickle market turns their noses up at these brutish tyre smokers and keeps buying tired old Buicks. There are many other examples – the popularity of hulking trucks and SUVs, despite their thirst and horrible dynamics with no more practicality than a decent station wagon (unless you are one of the few who actually use these vehicles to haul things or tow stuff, or have 5 kids). Or the greatest example of them all: the runaway success of the Prius, an automotive turkey and not even that efficient in real conditions, but a great seller simply on its symbolic value. Anyone who owns a Prius should be bitch slapped and handed the keys to a far more economical diesel sedan. Oh wait, that’s not possible in North America because they don’t sell those here, outside of a few overpriced BMWs and Benzes.

-Automatics: Speaking of the idiocy of the market, what the hell happened to the manual transmission? CVT, DSG, or plain ol’ slushbox, the auto dominates the market in North America, where most people think a clutch is a group of birds. Ever try to get a manual car made in the last ten years? Good luck. Nowadays it’s an option that will cost you extra, not that any lazy North American could be bothered to row their own even if it was still cheaper to get a manny tranny. Us enthusiasts get left out in the cold while everyone tries to make a better mousetrap, er automatic. We end up with horrid things like the bane of spirited drivers, the slushomatic-fantastic CVT, or worse the auto that thinks it’s a manual, the semi-auto (with no charge herky-jerky function). I suppose it’s not surprising we’ve become auto-crazy - it’s hard to handle a cell phone and a hot coffee while shifting.

-Ethanol: The US of A’s saviour was supposed to be corn juice. Make some alcohol with our crops, mix in a little gas, throw it into your flexy-fuel vehicle, and voila! No more foreign oil dependency. Great idea. In theory. In reality even E10 has a significant impact on fuel economy – it kills it. E85 is considerably less efficient than good-old-Saudi petrol. Add to that accelerated wear on fuel systems and catalytic converters* (governments were never great at long term planning, were they?), not to mention crop shortages because you are using your food supply to make fuel, and you have a recipe for corn-flavoured disaster. I wouldn’t completely throw out the idea, however – why not try some methanol blends? You can make methanol out of anything this side of wood. Ethanol can also be made quite effectively from sugar cane, rather than corn. Just let us have regular gasoline alongside the blended stuff – some of us like to keep our cars for more than a few years, and don’t like the idea of losing 10%+ of our fuel economy simply because of a government’s hair brained scheme.
*But what about flex fuel cars, I hear you say. Those cars are indeed fine – but running E10 in a normal fuel system will cause problems in the long run as well as a drop in fuel economy. And nowadays E10 is the minimum, with normal gasoline pumps becoming scarce in the US. There are even pushes for minimum E15 or E20, which would be spell disaster for non-flex fuel vehicles.




Believe it or don’t, dear readers, but yours truly’s fancy degree says he is trained as a historian. Not that I consider myself much of a historian, at best I remember the most uselessly trivial details of history. I don’t remember who led the Stalingrad offensive, but I do know that German soldiers sawed the feet off frozen Soviet bodies to get their boots. Such is the extent of my historical prowess – which I will now share with you in this first of a series of “Things You Probably Didn’t Know”, my compendium of trivia and interesting historical oddities that stand out in my mind, but are generally overlooked by everyone else.
Today, budding historians, we will be talking about dubya dubya two. With the renewed interest in WWII spurred on by the recent release of Valkyrie (a good historically accurate film, if not the most thrilling action movie), I figure this is as good a time as any to share my useless knowledge with you lot.
I.A.
---

1. Hitler was a teetotaling vegetarian:
Some have heard of this tidbit of info about the personality of the most evil dictator in history. Indeed, it is true – no urban legends or wartime propaganda here. Hitler was completely opposed to drinking, smoking, and didn’t eat meat, one of the great ironies of history – the most evil individual the world has known had a strict code of purity in his habits. He went so far as to completely oppose drinking and smoking in his presence, and he had his meals specially prepared by a personal chef. Some argue that Hitler was not a true vegetarian, instead cutting meat from his diet due to digestive problems, but the fact remains he did not eat meat – whether you love animals or not, if you don’t eat meat you are by definition a vegetarian. I guess vegites are a little sensitive about comparisons to the architect of the holocaust.
Despite this, there is considerable evidence that Hitler was a drug addict – witnesses report that he received daily injections from a private physician, and historians have surmised he may have been getting some sort of morphine cocktail to keep him going despite failing health and fatigue. There was even a secret programme that funded production of a mysterious drug that was buried in the Nazi archives. Most of this is speculation, but it has a strong basis in fact. It would not be a stretch to imagine that Hitler was a hypocrite, after all.

2. The Soviets used anti-tank dog-bombs:
One of the oddest weapons to see use in WWII was the infamous Soviet dog bomb. Long before the advent of PETA Russian dogs were trained to dive under tanks, and once they had mastered this suicidal tendency a large bomb backpack was strapped to them with an antenna sticking straight up to serve as a contact detonator. The idea might have worked, except for one problem – the Soviets trained the dogs using their own tanks. They didn’t count on the dogs being clever enough to recognize a Soviet tank and dive under it, instead of the German tanks they were supposed to blow up. Whoops. Thus the program was discontinued after limited battlefield use.
3. Dora, the biggest gun of all time:
The biggest artillery piece of all time was built by the Germans around 1941. In fact, they built two of them – Schwerer Gustav and Dora. Using conventional artillery technology of a shell fired by a powder charge, just scaled to big-ass proportions, the two guns had 800mm calibres and fired a seven tonne shell to a maximum range of around 37 kilometres. The gun was so big, weighing in at 1350 tonnes, that it had to be mounted on four rail platforms on two parallel tracks. Total crew for setup and firing was 2000 men. Amazingly this ridiculous piece of German phallic power was employed on the battlefield – around 48 shells were fired in combat from Gustav, not including over 200 test shots during development. Despite the impressive size of power of the weapon, it was essentially useless – the range was less than a decent naval gun, it used enormous amounts of raw materials (not just for the guns but also for the gigantic shells), and by the time is was employed it was no longer needed – Dora was developed as a bunker buster during the 1930s, anticipating attacks on dug in fortress emplacements, but by 1941 and later the age of bunker defences was long over, particularly after the Germans bypassed and captured the forts on the French Maginot Line.

4. The top German air ace, Erich Hartmann, shot down 352 planes, while the top scoring Allied ace shot down 62:
You read that correctly – the top Luftwaffe ace shot down 352 planes, while the top Allied ace (Soviet ace Ivan Kozhedub) shot down 62. In fact there were quite a few Luftwaffe aces with well over 100 or 200 kills. Much has been made about the accuracy of such amazing claims, but the fact remains that the Luftwaffe had some of the strictest confirmation of kill procedures of any air force. Hartmann’s record was examined over and over and has been confirmed as accurate. That’s not to say that the Allies didn’t have good pilots – the deciding factor was numerical differences in the air forces. The Luftwaffe was a small force up against huge numbers of enemy planes, and high kill tallies were common against overwhelming enemy air superiority, especially on the Eastern front (as in Hartmann’s case). Allied tallies were comparatively low because there were many more allied pilots going after a limited number of Luftwaffe planes, particularly in the later years of the war when the Luftwaffe was often grounded due to losses and lack of fuel. Hartmann was a such a respected pilot that enemy planes would often turn around and flee when they identified his black-tulip nose art; to counter this, Hartmann remove the distinctive artwork.

5. Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, was forced to commit suicide:
If you’ve seen Valkyrie, you know that after the failed assassination attempt against Hitler in 1944 there was a huge purge of suspected conspirators and their families – thousands were killed in the wake of the incident. Included among these victims was Erwin Rommel, one of Germany’s best field marshals. Rommel died in October 1944; the Nazis claimed he had succumbed to injuries sustained after a British aircraft strafed his car. In fact, this was a cover. Rommel was accused of involvement in the assassination plot and given an ultimatum – either take his own life and die a hero, or face court martial and execution as a traitor. Choosing to die rather than face the Nazi courts, he took a cyanide capsule on the spot, in the backseat of the car of his accusers. Some claim he was actually shot by Gestapo agents, but the essence of the event is the same – Rommel chose immediate death and protection for his family rather than trial and persecution by the Nazis.

6. The Hiroshima bomb was 1% efficient:
That’s right. The explosion that destroyed Hiroshima used only 1% of the potential energy of the uranium in Little Boy. Early atomic bomb technology was crude by modern standards and highly inefficient; regardless, it was still enough to create the largest man made explosion up to that point, equivalent to 13 000 – 18 000 tons of dynamite. Little Boy used the crudest form of atomic bomb technology – an internal “gun” that fired a plug of uranium into another block of uranium, causing a supercritical reaction that created the atomic explosion. It was still enough to kill over 100 000 people and level Hiroshima.
