Ok here is one as i watched some idiot bitch out a tank and a healer… when most of it was just the bad luck of the draw in hapenstance.

Eva Longoria is looking super stylish in the picture below with her perfect fall attire.   This is a great look for a chilly day of shopping or a lunch date with the girls.  It would even make a great Casual Friday look.  It’s an easy look to get Ladies, heres how……

1. Skinny Jeans

2. White Button Down Top

3. Scarf

4. Open Toe Heels

5. Bracelet

6. Necklace

7. Hoop Earrings

8.  Big Ring

Matching a scarf with any of your laid back easy looks always adds a little sexy to the look.  Eva matched her look with a long animal print scarf.  She also used just the right amount of Accessories.  Not too much though, you don’t want your accessories to over take the look.  This look would be perfect matched with your favorite pair of Knee High Boots or even a cute pair of Ballet Flats.  Grab Eva’s look for this fall and be the envy of all your friends.

1. We’re actually paying attention to you. Here am I, trying to keep the bitey things off your back and when I look round you’re … standing in a fire. GET OUT OF THE FIRE!
2. We’re actually paying attention to you #2: dps may be nice chaps and chapesses but as soon as the fight starts, they’re deaf, dumb, and blind to everything except their optimal rotations (assuming they are paying attention at all) or will get distracted completely by the occasional high crit. SHINY! They won’t care if the healers are turning cartwheels at the back of the room. I, on the other hand, am paying close attention to at least my own health bar and probably yours too.
3. We’re actually paying attention to you #3 (co-dependent argument): So why exactly are you not paying as much attention to me as I am to you? If I had to run up some stairs to grab a boss, I may have assumed you were not nailed to the ground and could follow? Why does nobody love me as much as I love them? IT’S NOT FAIR! Am I fated always to be losing my heart to uncaring unresponsive healers? *sob*
4. We’re not actually paying attention to anyone except you: most tanks don’t notice what the dps are doing and won’t realise you had to run off to heal them. Whereas healers probably keep an eye on everyone by default.
5. We’re not actually paying attention to you. Oh, you were dead? What sort of excuse is that? OK, moving swiftly on.
6. We probably know the instance backwards. When I’ve run an instance enough times, I pretty much know what my health bar usually does in conjunction with a healer who is paying attention. I will notice if it does something radically different for no obvious reason. (This doesn’t mean not making allowances when you know you’re with an inexperienced or undergeared healer.)
7. You just ran off and pulled a patrol by mistake? Oh, it was on purpose because you were getting bored. I see. *RAGE*
8. I know if I made a mistake. If I’ve taken a wodge of damage, I know fine well if it was my own fault. I won’t shout at anyone for that (unless it’s to hide my own incompetence). But if I know that I didn’t stand in the fire then that dismisses one set of reasons for my health to have dropped unexpectedly. You’re probably what’s left.
9. You’re married/ partners in RL. Nuff said.
10. Warriors just like to shout. Battle Shout, Commanding Shout, Shout at Healers (no cooldown on this one but it doesn’t last long either). People also pay more attention if you shout at them, it’s a proven fact. Probably.

OK, so the big reason for all the shouting at healers is because tanks and healers in particular have to work together in fights. And that means sometimes you need to coordinate your efforts and communicate. And when you have to communicate quickly in the middle of a fight with no time for discussion, that may mean shouting. It also means not much time for critical thinking.

The other big reason for shouting at healers is pure frustration. I noticed myself doing this on our attempts at heroic beasts this week, and I hope I apologised to them all afterwards because I felt pretty bad about it.

In the first part of that fight, once your cooldowns and consumables are blown, you just have to sit there and take the hits. As a tank, there’s not a darned thing you can do to reduce the damage you are taking. You can’t move out of the way, there’s no avoidable damage to avoid. You just have to go through your standard tanking threat rotation and hope like crazy that healers are on top of it.

I think it’s that sense of total powerlessness that fuels the shouting. Because when people ask afterwards why you died, the only thing you can possibly say is, ‘Not enough healing.’

as i told… heres a new Picture

im very happy with the way it turned out

one part that really worked out great was the “Crow`s Nest”

“on top of the scorcha”

a skull wearing an imperial helmet

and what would an ork do to aim betta ?

Yupp adding a Crosshair on the skull Muahahahhaha

One thing that works well and looks very Orky too is the ammo barrel

Cheers

HHn is:
a collection of basics that are luxurious and chic…a concept based around the art
of layering…an eclectic style that allows you to be sophisticated and comfortable
at all times…

HHn is:
the perfect v-neck, tank top, legging, sweater and scarf…great items that can be
worn as separates or layered together to create a look that is always comfortable,
always chic, always sexy…

HHn is:
luxurious basics that can be styled for any situation you may find yourself in…
versatile enough for you to drop your child off at school, run errands,
have brunch with friends, wear at home, catch a trans-Atlantic flight and even
dress up for dinner by adding the right shoe, jewels and a wool blazer…

HHn is:
knits that can be worn under or over, a base for you to build your look
on or can be layered together to create a style that is casual,
sophisticated and most definitely sexy…

Mic check, 1, 2, 3… Are you ready to rock? Well then get ready for some rocktastic goodness with the Shredder tanks and dresses from the Plastik!

For many rock ‘n’ roll is an integral part of life. It inspires them to do some kickass things both in real life and virtual life. It can make us sing along when we’re happy or cheer us up when we’re down. Rock also inspires us to create, if we are in fact creators. In this case, it has inspired the Plastik to design something spectacular once again. Today I am featuring the Shredder tank tops and dresses, and as you can see they are nothing short of amazing. It always surprises me when I see these designs because with SL’s horrible avatar UVs it seems nearly impossible to create clothes that actually look like clothes (and yes, I am an accomplished texture artist/designer myself).

Many times I’ve been in clubs or “dance halls” in SL and of the many, there are very few rock/metal type clubs around. Usually when you go to these clubs you find either goth/vampires or your typical blingtard guys and gals. Both look somewhat out of place with their outlandish clothing and they never seem to capture the true feeling of the music through their fashion. Aikea Rieko seeks to change this by offering us the Shredder line of tops and minis, presented in a beautiful array of colors and intricate fabric designs. They are a unique addition to the scene and bring back some of the true flair to the music connoisseurs hovering around that good old rock and roll.

This time you are presented with two distinct choices which allow for many different ways to stun the folks around you. With the minis, and the addition of some high heels or laced stiletto boots you are exactly what the crowd is hoping to see at that big rock concert or VIP after party. Hanging with the band has never been sexier when in the company of a Shredder-clad lady. Alternatively the tanks are perfectly acceptable for smaller indie venues or drinks at a bar where a new band just happens to be playing. Either way, the choice is yours and whatever choice you make will be the right one when you pull on the Shredder…

My favorite part about the Shredder set is the front design that goes from the breast line all the way down to the thighs. The allure of the flesh between the threads is something that will make any guy freeze, think about his life and why you should be a part of it. Rest assured, while wearing the Shredder tanks or minis you are not required to settle for less. Try one on for size and see how much attention you’ll find yourself getting!

Visit us at: The Plastik (SLurl) and get yours today!

Reviewed by Iccarus Infinity, The Plastik Staff

i made this one from some old revell kit i had laying around …..

its a BW with Kannon and boomgun…. in the early stages of wipping

the Roof….

as you can see the upper part is taken from a Chimera

as you can see and as i told the Tank is still in early WIP stages

as you can see i armed it with two Rokkit Launchas….

maybe ill play it with 4 as theres about 6 rokkits depicted this will work

In 1917, the British launched an attack in Cambrai that actually managed to capture a part of the German trench line. This success was in no small measure due to the use of the primitive tanks.

This is purportedly an actual combat picture of a Mark V tank attacking German infantry in WWI.

Tanks were not the panacea for the stalemate of trench warfare, and they were not the only new weapon to make their combat debut in World War I. However, tanks would be the key component of German and Russian military strategy in subsequent years, and they would play a crucial role in World War II.

First off, what is a tank, anyway? Technically speaking, a tank is an armored vehicle whose main role is to use its main gun in front line combat: which can either be mobile offensive or defensive operations. Tanks are tracked vehicles and mount their main weapons on a rotating turret– there are exceptions, but they are exactly that, exceptions. Tanks are theoretically armored enough to withstand heavy direct fire (usually defined as gunfire from another tank) and, conversely, use their weapons in direct (as opposed to indirect) fire.

This sounds straightforward enough, but lots of armored vehicles are mis-identified as tanks. Self-propelled artillery pieces may have tracks, armor, a big gun and a turret, but they are not tanks. They are not primarily used in front line combat, their armor is not thick enough to withstand direct fire, their main gun is not used in direct fire, and their main role is bombardment.

The M-109 Paladin is NOT a tank. This does not detract from the fact that artillery still accounts for the majority of casualties in most land campaigns, however.

Infantry Fighting Vehicles or armored personnel carriers are not tanks either. Their armor isn’t usually thick enough to stop attacks from tanks, their main guns tend to be smaller than the standard calibre for tanks, and their main role is to transport infantry and support them. They may be used as tanks (sort of) but they’re not tanks.

This is the BMP-3 IFV, which is also NOT a tank. It does, however, mount an unusually large main gun for an IFV. The BMP is one of the latest in a line of vehicles that pioneered the whole concept of "infantry fighting vehicle."

Finally tank-destroyers or assault guns weren’t tanks either, but they occupy something of a fuzzy area. Tank destroyers or assault guns can have very tank-like features. The may have a similar (or even greater) level of armored protection. In World War II, tank destroyers or assault guns also mounted some of the largest and most powerful guns to be used in a direct-fire role. What doesn’t make them tanks is usually a combination of factors. First, most were not turreted. German and Russian tank destroyers or assault guns had their main guns fixed forward, requiring the driver to point the vehicle towards its target. The gun had just enough movement so the gunner could then fine tune his aim once the entire vehicle had been pointed at the enemy. Some of these turretless tank destroyers were very heavily armored but many were not. Some also mounted huge guns, like the Jagdtiger’s 128mm gun or the ISU-152’s 152mm gun-howitzer. American tank destroyers were very different, mainly because they mounted turrets. But they had very light armor (all had open-topped turrets). Generally speaking, therefore, tank destroyers or assault guns were not tanks because they lacked one or two key features of tanks (turrets, heavy armor) or were not specifically designed to be tanks. They are tank-like vehicles, however, and often substituted for tanks when the need arose.

An ISU-152 assault gun, generally used in an infantry support role but capable of destroying tanks. It earned the nickname Zveroboy or "Beast Hunter" for its ability to destroy German armored vehicles (which had animal names like Tiger or Panther).

Tanks had their debut in World War I, but their heyday was in the war that came after, the Second World War. The story of the tank in World War II begins after the first War, as theorists saw the promise of the tank in breaking the stalemate of the trenches. This was because of certain innate characteristics of tanks:

Tanks– like all tracked vehicles– essentially lay their own road, which means that they can bridge trenches and gaps in the ground. If suitably powered, they can also surmount most obstacles, keeping up a higher average pace of movement for much longer than infantry. Their treads can also crush barbed wire– wire that stopped or channeled many infantry attacks. They also theoretically have a lower footprint pressure per square inch than wheeled vehicles or infantry, but this can be negated by their sheer weight, bad terrain, or lack of engine power. Tanks therefore have great mobility in a tactical sense and it would be realized that with the right support, they had great mobility in a strategic sense.

A French FT-17 light tank climbing up a trench in World War I.

Tanks also have the armor to withstand the two main threats of the World War I battlefield: small arms fire from rifles and machine guns, and shrapnel from artillery bursts. World War I tanks did not have the ability to withstand direct fire from artillery, and everyone later developed bullets that could pierce tank armor, but all this did not negate the fact that tanks were mostly proof against the greatest dangers on the battlefield. Artillery and machine guns stopped most infantry attacks cold– especially since infantry tactics tended to rely still on “human wave” style runs towards the enemy trench line. Tanks gave the promise of returning the advantage to the offensive.

This Mauser rifle was one the first dedicated anti-tank weapons to be deployed. Tank armor got thicker in response, and so anti-tank weapons became more powerful. Tank designers therefore responded by increasing tank protection once again. This created a cycle that continues to this day.

Finally, tanks carried more firepower than even a squad of infantry. The early tanks were given machineguns and tanks would eventually mount light artillery pieces. The British “Mark” series of World War I tanks had machinegun armed variants which were called “Female” tanks and cannon armed tanks that were called “Male” tanks. The idea of mounting cannons on tanks was not widespread, however. Since the main target of tanks was infantry, machine guns were not just more adequate, they were often even the more preferable weapon, and many tanks used machine guns as their main armament until the early years of WWII.

The M-1 "Combat Car" was the primary US tank in the 1930's-- its main armament was a .50 caliber machine gun. This gun would have been more than capable of piercing the armor of many of the M-1s contemporaries.

The tank’s ability to support an infantry attack strongly suggested to many militaries that this would be its most important use. This was also tied into the belief that any war in Europe would strongly resemble the trenches of World War I. This was not an unreasonable belief: the singular nature of the Great War, its massive and profound effect on the European mind, and the persistent memory of the trenches all meant that many commanders and military theorists (veterans of the war) were unable to escape the mental paradigm that it had created.

What this meant for tanks was that many future tanks were developed with the trench-crossing, no-man’s land traversing, enemy-fortification assaulting role in mind. In this role, armor above all else would be the main requirement, followed next by anti-infantry firepower and with mobility coming in last. The result were tanks that had the large tracks to either side of the vehicle characteristic of World War I tanks, along with thick armor and weapons optimized to engage enemy infantry and fortifications– this usually meant multiple machine guns and a cannon firing high explosive rounds. These kinds of tanks were known in English service as “infantry tanks” and they were designed to go no faster than the walking pace of an infantryman. Doctrine-wise, therefore, tanks were thought to be supporting weapons, rather like a mortar or a machine gun, with infantry still being the main component in the battlefield.

A typical "infantry" or assault tank, the French Char B1 (bis). It had all the hallmarks of the type: heavy armor, treads designed to cross trenches, anti-infantry firepower, and a low top speed.

However, what the layman now remembers of World War II tank employment is the so-called Blitzkrieg or a mobile kind of warfare that uses tanks. The exact nature of the so-called Blitzkrieg has been the subject of a lot of scholarly debate, with the modern consensus now being that a doctrine of Blitzkrieg never really existed. The Germans never really had a systematized, doctrinaire and established principle of “Blitzkrieg” but had more of an operational commitment and a series of loosely related tactical or operational “practices” that were geared towards finding a key point (perhaps a weak point) in the enemy line, assaulting this in force, and then exploiting the breach in the enemy defenses– using mobility to surround the enemy, prevent or destroy reinforcements before they are deployed, and destroy or disrupt his rear (his command system, his logistics, and his artillery).

Neither were the Germans the first or only people to come up with this kind of “maneuver warfare” theory. The Russians came up with their own theory the so-called “Deep Operations” method of warmaking, which resembled what we now think of as Blitzkrieg. The British and the French also had some theorists who advocated mobile warfare: J.F.C. Fuller and the much-maligned but rather self-serving Basil Lidell Hart for the British and (yes) Charles de Gaulle for the French. There were some hints of this already in World War I: the British and the French developed so-called “light” or “cavalry” tanks whose main role was to use their superior mobility to exploit holes in the enemy line.

Because tanks offered a combination of firepower, protection and mobility, they were seen as the keys to mobile warfare. German commanders like Heinz Guderian (whose influence was profound– but rather overstated) advocated freeing tanks from the doctrinaire constraints of infantry– and this perhaps was the problem of the whole concept of an “infantry tank.” An “infantry tank” is tied to the pace of the infantryman, and while it might be capable of breaking open the enemy line, it cannot do more afterward. What World War I showed was that railroads and modern communications enabled the defender to more quickly rush reinforcements to a threatened point than an attacker bound by the pace of infantry. This was what lead to failure in Cambrai: the British were unable to exploit the hole they had made. What men like Guderian proposed was that tanks be the primary weapon, they were to be made faster than infantry (even at the expense of some armor) so these tanks could immediately race to the enemy rear and disrupt the enemy’s ability to reinforce a threatened point and also disrupt its cohesion by attacking those things I mentioned earlier: command and communications nets, supply depots, etc… Tanks were eminently suited to do this precisely because they could use their mobility to race around the enemy rear, bring superior firepower to bear on rear line troops or unprepared troops and were immune to the fire of these rear echelon personnel.

Another important component of this kind of mobile warfare is that tanks need to be massed so they can operate more or less together. The other problem with “infantry tank” tactics was tanks were generally spread out among infantry divisions.

The British Cromwell "cruiser" tank doing what it was meant to do: exploiting a breakthrough, perhaps to encircle an enemy. Here it's driving past a knocked out Pak 43 88mm anti-tank gun.

What most people don’t appreciate is that Guderian, de Gaulle, Fuller and all the rest advocated a total mobilization of the striking force. For tanks to be able to wreak their havoc, they needed support. At the very least, they’ll need to be resupplied somehow, and horse or rail-borne supplies simply will not do. They’ll also need infantry and artillery support– as I shall explain later, there are obstacles tanks still can’t tackle on their own. What these new theorists advocated was an entirely mechanized army. Trucks to bring up resupply and reinforcements, infantry mounted in carriers that can keep pace with tanks, artillery that can move quickly without having to be emplaced, etc… Aircraft played a role here too, and the Germans showed their “tactical” bias here: they subordinated their air power to the needs of the ground campaign, using fighters to maintain local air superiority and bombers to support the ground troops (through direct close air support or through interdiction)– but they did not particularly favor strategic bombing of targets beyond the immediate battlefield.

The Russians and their "Deep Operations" fought in a similarly mobile fashion as the Germans and they too stressed combined-arms cooperation of tanks and infantry. However, they never developed dedicated troop carriers in World War II, relying instead on the very simple expedient of welding handrails onto their tanks for infantry to hold on to.

The prestige and the good press of mobile warfare has often meant that people do not realize that the enemy still has to be attacked for these mobile operations to take place. In a real sense, there still was a role for infantry tanks or similar types. Conversely, it was still possible to create a static defensive line that was (at the very least) resilient against enemy tank attack. The Russians, for instance, were able to create a tough and powerful defensive system in the Kursk salient that managed to absorb and slow the German attacks. The defenses were not invincible– tanks had a role to play in defensive operations (usually, intercepting penetrations or attacking their flanks)– but breaching these defenses were tough missions for tanks. This problem only became more acute as people responded to these new tank tactics: anti-tank weapons proliferated, as did new anti-tank tactics.

Breaching these defenses still required tanks to operate in combined arms cooperation with infantry, artillery, and airpower.

Artillery and airpower provided fire support, they could be used to suppress or destroy enemy defenses. Air power could also be used for reconnaissance. Both could be used to disrupt enemy reinforcements. And at the very least, both artillery and air power could be used to destroy their enemy counterparts. This was why radios proved to be so crucial to tanks: they could be used to call for either.

The JU-87 Stuka dive bomber is probably the most famous example of a "Blitzkrieg" aircraft. The Germans used these to support their attacks, a kind of flying artillery.

However, despite the disdain traditionally heaped upon infantry warfare, tanks still needed infantry. This is because infantry had better spotting capacity than tanks and infantry could do what tanks could not: infiltrate enemy defenses. Infiltration tactics dated back from World War I: first used by the Germans, but later used by everybody else. This involved using small groups of heavily-armed but mobile infantry to find weak points in the enemy line, exploit these gaps, and then surround the enemy to hit them from the flank and rear. We’re talking about the very tactical level here, not strategic. Tanks could support the infantry by pinning down the enemy with their firepower while the infantry team worked around them, or perhaps they could even accompany the infantry team of terrain permitted.

All the major warring powers of World War I saw the need for a tank or some kind of armored vehicle to cooperate with infantry in assaulting the fortified line. While most tanks can perform this role, the best suited for it were vehicles that had many of the qualities of World War I infantry tanks  (heavy armor, slow speed, anti-infantry firepower, etc…): the Germans had their big Tigers, although production problems meant they more commonly used their Stugs (Sturmegeschutz or “assault guns”), the Russians had the JS-2 and 3 Stalin tanks or the ISU or SU series of assault guns, and the British had the Churchills. The Americans were lacking in this respect but they had enough production capacity to manufacture enough M-4 Shermans to fill in this role (for which it proved adequate– just read Zaloga’s book Armored Thunderbolt).

The difference with this kind of armor-infantry team with the old style of “infantry tank” tactics is that the centerpiece of an operation (on the greater strategic level) is still the tank. The goal of the penetration of the line is to give tanks units the chance to do their thing, rather than relying on a slow and broad advance with infantry. Armored divisions in World War II (and today) are therefore designed to operate independently– they cooperate with infantry to breach a line but then race off on their own. They will bypass positions too strong to be taken quickly, like cities or forts, leaving it to follow-on infantry formations. The goal is to keep up the momentum of the attack, thereby throwing the enemy off-balance. In modern US Army parlance, the goal is to break the enemy command’s decision-making cycle, leaving them unable to do more than react to your initiatives. Once again, this works best if large numbers of tank formations are massed behind the penetration, so they can immediately exploit it and hit the enemy rear with one terrific blow.

SS troops from the Totenkopf division. Here they're cooperating with Tiger tanks during the Battle of Kursk.

What perhaps should be apparent is that tanks are weapons of industrialization and mechanization. You can’t just have a handful of tanks and hope for success. For tanks to succeed you first need quite a lot of them: you need enough to equip some maneuver formations to exploit a breach, but you also need enough to equip the infantry units that will create this breach for you (and this portion of the battle is the most wasteful in tanks). Secondly, you also need to mechanize the infantry, the artillery, the engineers, the supply corps– almost everybody.

It is possible to do this on the cheap: for all that people speak of the Germans as being masters of mobile warfare in World War II, it was actually a fact that only a small percentage of their forces were in any way mechanized. The panzer divisions were the armored tip of the spear, but the great mass of the German divisions were infantry divisions not much better equipped than their World War I forebears: they still relied on horses for their logistics and their artillery was still horse-drawn. Later in the war, a German infantry division could count itself luck if it had a handful of Stug assault guns attached to it.

These kinds of carts performed the bulk of German logistical support in World War II.

Yet the Germans would pay for this lack of mechanization and industrialization heavily later in the war. Once the shock of the German tactics wore off, her enemies found ways of coping, thereby negating many of the German advantages. Mobile warfare had never been invincible: terrain could stop or slow a successful mobile tank operation. Rough terrain could hamper tanks (the Germans never managed to use tanks much in the Pripet Marshes) but even flat terrain could be a bar… if there was too much of it. The Germans never quite caught the Russian army as it retreated across the steppe, and since the bulk of the German army was still foot-bound, the tank spearheads inevitably had to stop their advance as the rest of the army caught up. Even the highly mechanized Allies were hamstrung by distance during their dash across France– Patton outran his supplies and was famously forced to stop his advance towards Germany.

But a lack of mechanization and industrialization was what truly proved crippling for the Germans. As their enemies adapted, the Germans faced more and more tanks, tank destroyers, anti-tank guns and the like. The German panzers had to do more, and were spread out thinly. Those units without armored support had a difficult time holding their line, and it must have been frustrating for the Germans to face enemy tanks everywhere–while theirs were nowhere in sight. As has been noted repeatedly, German commanders recounting the War afterwards speak with some bitterness of the “unfairness” of their enemies, swamping the gallant Germans with materiel. They try to comfort themselves with the idea that at least they fought bravely and intelligently while their enemies used the crude, (implicitly) cowardly and unchivalric expedient of throwing machines at the poor German Landser.

Be that as it may, the mechanization and industrialization of warfare in World War II pointed the way to the future, and it was Germany’s enemies that proved they could fight in the mobile manner best. The Americans were fantastically well-equipped in an absolute sense: every American unit had a plethora of trucks and vehicles. The Americans produced enough vehicles to equip their allies, and Russian mobility owed a great deal to the output of Detroit. The Americans and the Russians may not have had tanks as powerful as the German ones, but since mobile warfare is a combined-arms endeavor, this technological advantage was nullified. The Allies learnt the ways of modern warfare at great cost, but the point is that they did learn. And they had the industrial capacity and culture to make full use of the lessons they learned. By the end of the war, the Russians and the Americans simply had better systems of operation to support their tanks.

The Arsenal of Democracy. Row upon row of Sherman tanks.

Kristin Cavallari is looking super cute and chic in the picture below.  She matches all black with a little bit of a sparkle.  I love her look.  It’s very laid back but still sexy.  Her look is pretty simple too……heres how to get it ladies……

1. Black Skinny Jeans

2. sparkled Top

3.  Black Leather Jacket

4. Black Heels

5. bangles

6. Black Clutch

I love her top for this outfit.  I am a fan of matching all one color and adding something bright or shiny to the look to bring the look all together.  I love how she tossed out the big tote for the night and added an over sized clutch to this look.  Simple, yet classic!!   Grab her sleek style for your fall wardrobe now.

We have heard enough about her sister, now we see Stephanie Pratt looking super adorable at a movie premier.   Her look is simple but still classic and adorable. Here is how to get it……

1. Skinny Jeans

2. Stripped Top

3. Cardigan

4. Black Knee High Boots

5. Black Tote

6. bangles

7. Big Ring

I am a fan of matching a cardigan with skinny jeans during the fall weather.  It’s the perfect style for the chilly weather without having to bust out your heavy jacket.  The knee-high boots are perfect for matching with your skinny jeans as well.    Stephanie adds just the right amount of accessories for this look.  The bangles and the ring have just enough shine for Stephanie’s look.  A small necklace wouldn’t hurt with this outfit though.

So this project is about 3 years old but as i didnt post it on the internet… well at least not here id like to show how this model endet

first heres some wip pictures taken about 3 years ago ^^

thats a PIP taken back then.,….. i will update this post with actual pictures later…. or ill post a new one

Anyone who travels or pulls a payload knows that factory-equipped fuel tanks in diesel pickups limit range. So why not end the headaches that last for miles! Save time,  improve range, cut fuel costs, and fill up when you want with Titan Diesel Fuel Tanks!!

Titan extra heavy-duty cross-linked polyethylene fuel tank. Titan Diesel Fuel Tanks come complete with powder-coated cross-member bracket and steel strap set, rubber mounting bushing, vent hoses, rollover safety vent valves, seals and required clamps.

Titan Diesel Fuel Tanks utilize common sense design features, which simplify installation. They re-use most of the stock components, including the existing sending unit. The tank itself is nearly indestructible, but light enough to be handled by one or two people. You may think a vehicle hoist and transmission jack are ideal, but hand tools will get the job done!

Titan, the Best you can buy:

• Made of High-Density Cross-Linked Polyethylene
• Corrosion Proof, Durable, Lightweight (approx. 45 lbs.)
• Easy to Install (2-4 hours)
• Works with Existing Fuel Gauges
• No Vehicle Modifications Necessary! (Mounts easily underneath.)

How much will a Titan Diesel Fuel Tank save me in a year?
On a cost-basis alone, a Titan Diesel Fuel Tank will pay for itself within 1-3 years,* depending how you use your truck.

*The range above only looks at the expected savings for those who use their trucks for business and pleasure. It does not take into account the convenience, safety, or efficiency that a Titan Diesel Fuel Tank offers.

Visit www.OCDiesel.com for all your diesel needs!

We all love Lindsay Lohan’s styles, but this one is a must have.  Its a sexy, but kind of rocker look.  Perfect for a night out or for running errands or hanging out with the girls!  Its a very laid back look and could be worn for just about any day of the week for any occasion.  Not only is it a cute look, its also easy to get……

1. Black Leggings

2. Black Rocker Tee

3. Black Leather Jacket

4. Knee High Brown Boots

5.  Black Tote

6. Necklace

You could definitely match this look with a pair of high heels or even with a pair of booties instead of the knee high boots.  Either way, you will still look amazing in this outfit.  You can match any rocker tee with leggings or skinny jeans on any day for the perfect fall look.  Snag Lindsay’s Look now just in time for the chilly weather.

Here is a painting of one of my fascinations – water towers. I’ve painted tons of these things in the last few years, but usually of the city variety. This is really my first time painting the good ol’ rural variety (aside from my drawing of the Sudbury water tower) so I decided to go all out and paint 12 of them in one piece.

I love the water towers in the city because of their old, wooden plank siding, and for their appearance in comic books. I love this type of tank because they come in so many different shapes and colors- and sometimes they look like spaceships.

Prints of this piece are available in my Etsy shop.

Kliment Voroshilov

That name won’t make much sense to most people unless you are ridiculously interested in Russian warfare.

I am.  It’s so sad, but it’s also so cool that I don’t care.

The name itself is actually the name of a defence Commissar and politician from Soviet Russian, and it was his name that was given to the Soviet’s Heavy tanks.  In particular today, I’m going to be going on about the black sheep of the KV series, the KV-2.

It is a very recognizable tank, because the turret on this thing was unreal.

This unreal monster was not produced in the numbers usually associated with pissed-off Russia, with only 339 of them being produced in total, along with a couple of variants.

The KV-2 had problems; it was slow, heavy, unwieldy and huge.  It’s turret was so heavy and it’s engine so underpowered that it could not actually turn it’s turrets unless it was on level ground, and even then, it turned very slowly.

This tank was thought up as a sort of mobile bunker, a heavy assault weapon that would roll up to enemy fortifications and pound them into the ground… and it was armed for it.  The massive turret was required because the gun is a 152-mm Howitzer, a short-barreled artillery gun that was shoehorned into the smallest space it could get into.  To understand just how insane this concept was in the 1940s, the biggest guns on ANY tank when the Germans invaded was the 76mm cannon on the Russian T-34.  The biggest anti-tank gun on any German tank at the time was a 50mm gun.  The 152mm was HUGE, made to lod high-explosive shells and specially made concrete-busting rounds at the enemy.  The KV-2 was made to raze cities to the ground.

It was unfortunate then, that the Eastern Front was a ground war, and a fast-moving one.  the KV-2 would have annihilated any enemy that had thought to use trenches, but against the fast-moving mobile army of the German Blitzkrieg, it was outclassed.

That did not stop it from earning the name ‘Dreadnought’ from the Russians and scare the Germans shitless.  There are documented cases of the KV-2 raising unholy hell with the Germans, and one case in particular where a single KV-2, alone on a road held up the entire German 6th Army for a full day.

One tank.  Against an army.  The 5-man crew fight off an assault by 30 German tanks, claiming more than a dozen of them.  They took dozens of direct hits from enemy fire, but the KV-2 was a monster, even the German 50mm high-velocity guns were just bouncing off the thick hull and turret.  German attempts to pick it off with anti-tank guns had no effect, and the Russian crew had grown so cheeky that they would patiently wait for the German crews to deploy their weapon before sinking a howitzer shot into their midst.

In the end, it took a combined assault of 30 German light tanks, a dozen anti-tank guns and groups of Assault Engineers to distract the KV-2 crew long enough for one of th famed Flak 88mm antiaircraft cannons to be setup.  From one of my books, it seems that it took three direct hits from the 88 before being disabled, and the destruction being completely by an Engineer crew and many satchel explosives.

The KV-2 was prone to breaking down, it was very slow and because it weighed 52 tons it became easily mired in Russia’s famous swamps.  It also had the thickest hide of any tank on the battlefield at the time, and the 152mm shells it fired, while not made for being shot at tanks, could easily blast the turret of a Tiger tank, because the high explosive shells were designed to go through reinforced concrete bunkers.  The force of the explosion and the weight of the shell could tear the Tiger’s turret right off it’s ring and fling it a dozen feet into the air.

But, with the way warfare came to be in that war, the KV-2 was outclassed and production was ceased early in the war.  The knowledge that came from using the KV-2 on the battlefield was used though, the knowledge of just what such a massive gun could do, especially it it was put into something else, something that didn’t have the flaws of the Behemoth.

And the ISU series is something to be written about another day.

- – - – - – -

I think I’m going to do these little blurbs every tuesday, instead of whenever I feel like it.  Gives me a week to refine everything, which is something I could use.  So, Topic of Interest Tuesdays.

Kaya Ewell is looking super gorgeous in the picture below.  This is one of her shots from an issue of OK magazine and shes looking very Chic and trendy.  Her look is pretty simple to put together…..

1. Tie Dye Motorcycle Skinny Jeans

2. White Top

3. Black Leather Jacket

4. Heels

5. Bracelets

6. Necklace

This is the perfect look for a girls night out or shopping with the girls after work.  It’s a very sexy, yet cool look that anyone can pull off.  I love the layered necklace shes wearing.  It’s the perfect accessory for this look.  You could also match this look with a pair of sexy high-heeled knee-high boots for a more sexy look.  The leather jacket is a must have for this fall.  Every girl should own at least one, if not more leather jackets for this chilly weather.  You can’t go wrong by matching a leather Jacket with any of your outfits.

Shakira is looking sexy and stylish in the picture below.  Her look is very casual but professional as well.  The sequins look is coming back full force and everyone should have something with sequins’ in their closet for this fall.  Shakira is rocking her sequins blazer and look amazing.  It’s a pretty simple look…..

1. Skinny Jeans

2. White Tank or Tee

3. Black Sequined Jacket/Blazer

4. Small Clutch

5. Black Heels

6. bangles

This is the perfect look for a date night, or a work holiday party.  Its got just the right amount of Sexy and the right amount of Sophisticated.  The bangles are just the right amount of accessories for this look.  With the sequins jacket, you dont need to add much shine to this look.  Grab Shakira’s look now for this beautiful fall weather.

I love to copy the laid back comfortable Styles of the hottest celebs.  Like, Miley Cyrus in the picture below.  Her look is super Chic but still very comfortable and very stylish.  Her look is perfect for hanging out with the girls or just to run errands.  It’s an easy look to get, heres how you get it…..

1. Skinny Distressed Jeans

2. Baseball Tee

3. Black Boots

4. Black Belt

5. Black Tote

6. Hoop Earrings

Miley’s look can be an any day look or a going out look.  No matter the occasion, you will look great wearing this look.  I love her top.  The baseball Tops are a great addition to any wardrobe.  I love that she limited her accessories to the hoop earrings.  This look doesn’t need much in the accessories department, it looks great just by itself.