Shturmovik

Shturmovik (pronounced sturm-oh-vic)

The Russia word used to mean “Ground Attack Aircraft”.

1939-1941: From the Cyrillic штурмовик (shturmovík) which in English is written sometimes as the simplified (phonetic) Stormovik or Sturmovik.  The word is a shortened form of Bronirovanni Shturmovik (Bsh) (armed stormtrooper) and was the generic term in Russia for aircraft designed for this role; in English it was a synecdoche for the Ilyushin Il-2.

A flight of Ilyushin Il-2s.

The definitive Shturmovik was the Илью́шин Ил-2 (Ilyushin Il-2), a remarkable platform which provided a template for future airframes of its type.  Over 36,000 were produced, an all-time record for combat aircraft and one more impressive still if the 7000-odd of its closely related successor (Ilyushin Il-10) are included, the family total thus close to 43,000.  Although not as ascetically unhappy as the infamously ungainly French bombers of the era, the Il-2 was not a delicate, elegant thing in the style of something like the Supermarine Spitfire or a muscular form like the North American P-51 Mustang and one popular nickname adopted by the Soviet infantry viewing from below was “hunchback” although those better acquainted with its construction and purpose preferred “Flying Tank”.

The idea of “flying tank” is a useful one to explore.  Many theorists in the early 1930s had advocated the use of low-altitude aircraft, flying at relatively slow speeds as the most effective weapon which could deliver ordinance with sufficient accuracy to neutralize tanks and other armored vehicles in battlefield conditions.  That implied the need for an airframe to both carry heavy weaponry and sufficient armor to resist attack from the ground and air, a combination judged impossible to produce because the engines at the time lack the power needed for such heavy machine.  The engines did during the 1930s became more powerful but the conceptual breakthrough was in the design of the airframe.  Previously, designers had done essentially what the nineteenth century naval architects did to make the early “ironclads”: attach additional metal plates over an existing lightweight structure.  Even at sea that limited performance but did (for a while) make the craft close to impregnable; it couldn’t however produce a military aircraft with its need for specific performance over different ranges.  The solution was to make the armor an integral part of the shell, protecting the crew, engine and fuel tank, the weight of this central unit some 700 kg (1540 lb), a number offset by not having also to support the weight of a conventional fuselage, the steel part of that having little supporting structure inside, the armor used as a structural member.  It was an approach which in the post-war years would be implemented in cars as the “safety-cell”, the central passenger compartment onto which the other components would be added.

Ilyushin Il-2 with 37 mm ShFK-37 cannons.

Early in July 1941, some two weeks into Operation Barbarossa (the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union), the Wehrmacht (the German armed forces) first became aware of the Shturmovik which initially they compared to the Luftwaffe’s (the German air force) Junkers Ju 87 (Stuka) dive-bomber which had been such an effective ground-forces support weapon in the conquest of Poland and then Western Europe, its limitations not exposed until it was deployed in the early days of the Battle of Britain (July-October 1940).  The Ju 87 could support a heavier bomb-load than the Il-2 but, equipped with automatic cannons, rockets, machine guns, and bombs, the Russian aircraft was much more lethal.  The Germans however quickly identified the weak points and that most had been rushed into service with pilots provided with neither adequate training or the tactics needed to protect each other in flight, especially during attacking runs.  Moreover, they lacked the optical sights needed accurately to aim their weapons and while the thick armor surrounded the pilot and engine, the structure behind the cockpit was plywood, highly susceptible to damage (tail-gunners suffered a death rate seven times that of the pilots because the gunner’s portion of the airframe was mostly of plywood).

Literally hundreds of Il-2s were lost to anti-aircraft fire or attacks by fighters, usually from the rear during bombing runs but, defying the expectations had infected the highest levels of the German political and military command, the Soviets were able to make good their losses of Shturmoviks and pilots, just as they were able to re-equip armored divisions with tanks, exceeding the capacity of the Germans ability to destroy formations.  As the war proceeded, the Shturmoviks increasingly came in waves and although the attrition remained high (the losses at a rate other allied forces would never have countenanced), the sheer weight of numbers meant the Soviets could overwhelm what were increasingly numerically inferior formations.  Noting the robustness of the Il-2, the Germans nicknamed them Betonflugzeug (concrete plane), acknowledging the ability to absorb punishment; others preferred Der Schwarze Tod (the Black Death).  The ability of the Soviet industrial machine to first maintain and later vastly increase production of things like aircraft and tanks was because of decisions taken by the Germans during the 1930s which afforded priority to create an air-force best suited to supporting brief, high-intensity conflicts (which came to be known as blitzkrieg (lightning war), thus the mass-production of small dive-bombers, medium-range light bombers and fighters rather than long-range strategic, heavy bombers.  As the Soviets moved their plant & equipment eastward (itself a remarkable achievement), the factories became immune from air attack as they were beyond the range of the Luftwaffe.  However, as the German advance stalled, production in Moscow resumed, increasing the available numbers and innovations appeared, one prototype even tested with a flame-thrower mounted in the nose.

Red Army Air Force Yakovlev Yak 9B dropping PTABs.

Another innovation first delivered by the Shturmovik was the Protivo-Tankovaya Avia Bomba (Anti-Tank Air-Bomb; the PTAB), one of the predecessors of modern cluster munitions and similar in concept to the contemporary German two-kilogram Sprengbombe Dickwandig (SD-2) (butterfly-bomb).  In Mid-1943, knowing the Wehrmacht’s Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel) against Soviet forces in the Kursk salient was imminent, the Russians stockpiled the PTABs, producing almost a million of the 2 Kg devices, designed specifically so a Shturmovik could carry almost 200, each with a “shaped charge” warhead able to penetrate the armor of even the best protected tanks.  The battle of Kursk (July 1943) was the biggest tank engagement ever fought and for days some 8000 tanks (3000 German, 5000 Soviet) ranged around a vast battlefield of swirling heat, dust and death and although visibility at times restricted the use of air-power, the PTAB equipped Shturmoviks damaged or immobilized a verified 419 enemy vehicles.

RAF Hawker Hurricane IID with a 40mm Vickers anti-tank cannon fitted under each wing.  The pilots noted the "tank buster" moniker but preferred "Flying Can Openers".

The Shturmovik concept was quickly adopted by other air forces and one was rapidly improvised by the UK’s Royal Air Force to counter the threat posed by tanks in the North African campaign.  By 1941 it was apparent the Hawker Hurricane was no longer suitable in its original role as an interceptor and fighter but it was a robust, reliable and easily serviced platform and it proved adaptable to the ground attack role.  By early 1942 deliveries had begun of the Mark IID Hurricane and equipped with a pair of under-wing mounted 40mm (1.6 inch) canon, it proved an effective counter to the Africa Corps’ tanks in the Western Desert as well as fulfilling a similar role in the Burma theatre against the even more vulnerable Japanese armor; in both places they were dubbed, with some accuracy: “tank busters”.  The effect of the 40 mm canons was such that when fired, they perceptibly slowed the plane in flight but pilots learned techniques to compensate.  So convincing were the results that a generation of heavy fighters either designed for or able to be adapted for the purpose, Hawker’s Typhoon & Tempest and Republic’s huge P-47 Thunderbolt all as famed as “tank busters” as for any other part they played in the war, especially noted for their role in the development of air-to-ground rockets.

Lindsay Lohan in body armor.

Despite progress, notably the use of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, often casually referred to as “drones”) Shturmoviks have remained an important component of military inventories and some years after the end of the First Gulf War (1990-1991), one of the first conspiracy theories to appear on the then novel WorldWideWeb concerned them.  It was claimed a study the Pentagon conducted (using as targets Iraqi tanks abandoned in the Kuwaiti desert) concluded blocks of concrete dropped from aircraft were just as accurate as bombs as well as being cheaper and easier to produce, while equally effective in disabling a tank.  The conspiracy theory claimed that suggestions the concept be pursued was vetoed by the “military-industrial complex” which made much money out of building anti-tank bombs.

Lunt

Lunt (pronounced luhnt or loont)

(1) A match; the flame used to light a fire.

(2) Smoke or steam, especially smoke from a tobacco pipe.

(3) To emit smoke or steam.

(4) To smoke (historically a pipe, later cigarettes).

(5) To kindle a fire.

(6) To light a pipe, torch, etc.

(7) A match, torch, or port-fire once used for discharging cannon.

(8) The lock and appurtenances of a match-lock gun such as a musket.

(9) In Polish military slang, a cigarette.

1540–1550: From the Dutch lont (match, wick fuse) and related to the Danish & Middle Low German lunte (match, wick), the Old Norse lunta (to emit smoke) and the Swedish lunta (match, fuse).  In dialectical Scots English, lunting was the action of walking while smoking a pipe.  Middle English picked up the meaning of lunta from the Old Norse: "a whiff or puff of smoke" and in Middle English, it evolved into "lunt", again referring to a small quantity or puff of smoke.  In the way English does things, the meaning of "lunt" expanded, coming to be associated with a glowing match or a piece of burning material used to ignite a fire and it came to be used especially of firearms.  In the slang or dialects of several languages, "lunt" evolved to describe the glowing end of a cigar or a pipe and form this to refer to smoking in general although most forms are now archaic.  Lunt is a noun & verb and lunted & lunting are verbs; the noun plural is lunts. 

The place, the name, the road sign

Lunting Lindsay Lohan.

Unrelated to fuses and smoke, there is also the proper noun Lunt which serves both as surname and place-name.  A suggested alternative etymology linking Lunt to grassland never attracted much support.  As a surname, it’s English, but of pre-seventh century Norse-Viking origins; Recorded variously as Lunt, Lund, Lound, Lount and Lynt, it’s locationally associated with one of the various places called Louth, Lund or Lunt in different parts of the north and East Anglia.  These were areas of England under Viking control or influence for several centuries until the Norman Conquest of 1066.

Lunt's street signs are often defaced but a campaign in 2008 to change the name received little support.

The English village of Lunt lies in the parish of Sefton, close to to Liverpool.  Like the surname, the locality name was from the Old Old Norse Lundr or the Old Swedish lunder (grove or copse").  It's thought this was a reference to the remnants of a large ancient forest which substantially still stood when the settlement was founded.  The first known reference to the village dates from the parish records in the Chartulary of Cockersand Abbey, an entry from 1251 mentioning it was known as "de Lund".  The combination of a liveable climate, reliable sources of water and areas of arable land meant the location has long been associated with human habitation, archaeological digs revealing structures from the mesolithic (5800 BC), the indications being the inhabitants were hunter-gatherers.  For a certain sub-set of the population, the signage in Lunt's public spaces to just too tempting and defacement is common.  Those who deface are presumably from the population which which contributes to Urban Dictionary's definitions for the word, many of which, predictably, are used to degrade women, a category which must make up a remarkable percentage of the site's entries.

Cannon

Cannon (pronounced kan-uhn)

(1) In ordnance, heavy artillery: a mounted gun for firing heavy projectiles; a gun, howitzer, or mortar,

(2) In machinery, a heavy tube or drum, especially one that can rotate freely on the shaft by which it is supported (also known as a quill).

(3) In armor, a cylindrical or semi-cylindrical piece of plate armor for the upper arm or forearm; a vambrace or rerebrace (the avant-bras in French and sometimes known as lower cannons in the Middle Ages).

(4) In saddlery, as cannon bit or canon bit, the part of a bit in the horse's mouth.

(5) In the design of bells, the metal loop at the top of a bell, from which it is hung.

(6) In zoology, as the cannon bone or the part of the leg in which the cannon bone is located.

(7) In billiards, a British term for a carom (a shot in which the cue ball is caused to contact one object ball after another); the points scored by this; a rebound or bouncing back, as of a ball off a wall.

(8) In underworld slang, a pickpocket (archaic).

1375–1425: From the late Middle English canon, from the earlier Anglo-Latin and Anglo-French canon, from the Italian cannone (large-tube barrel), the construct being cann(a) (tube) + -one (the augmentative suffix).  The Ancient Greek κάννα (kánna) (reed) was from the Akkadian qanû (reed), from the Sumerian gi.na; a doublet of canyon.  The original meaning was an "artillery piece, mounted gun for throwing projectiles by force of gunpowder" the spelling canon in a variety of languages all from the Italian cannone, augmentative of the Latin canna but the use of the double -n- spelling didn’t emerge until circa 1800.  Cannon is a noun and the plural is cannons but, in military use, when speaking of cannons collectively (especially when assembled in a battery), cannon is often used.

The artillery piece revolutionised warfare, the famous walls which for centuries had protected Constantinople were breached soon after cannon were first deployed and the city fell.  The weapon also influenced language.  Cannon fodder, first noted in 1847, describes the infantry or cavalry deployed against cannon-fire and exists in German as kanonenfutter, echoing William Shakespeare's (1564–1616) “food for gun powder” speech in Henry IV, Part 1 (circa 1596), Act 4 Scene 2) where Falstaff dismisses concern for his soldiers by saying they’re “good enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder. They’ll fill a pit as well as better”.  Cannon-shot (distance a cannon will throw a ball) is from the 1570s and was an important measure in admiralty and (embryonic) international law, the old three-mile (and the later twelve-mile) maritime limits of national borders reflect the range of shore-based cannons at various times.  It was used also from the 1590s to describe the iron-ball fired from a weapon but this by the 1660s came to be replaced by cannon-ball.  A cannonade (a continued discharge of artillery) is from the 1650s as a noun and as a verb (attack with artillery), a decade later.  The contemporary French was cannonade and the Italian cannonata, the related forms being cannonaded and cannonading.  Cannonade was exclusively a army term which was later replace by barrage; the Admiralty always preferred broadside.

The figurative “loose cannon” seems to have be popularised from its appearance in Victor Hugo's (1802–1885) late Ninety Three (1874) to describe someone “wildly irresponsible, unpredictable or freed from usual restraint", based on the literal sense of dread sailors on old warships felt when a cannon already primed to fire became detached from its mounts and began rolling about the deck.  When a loose cannon discharges, bloody carnage can ensue. 

Naval Cannons

USS Iowa firing nine-gun broadside in an August 1984 test-firing during the sea-trials conducted after being recommissioned as part of the military build-up ordered during Ronald Reagan's (1911-2004, US president 1981-1989) first term.

The US Navy’s four Iowa-class battleships, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin & New Jersey (the commissioned Illinois and Kentucky were never launched because of the changing nature of naval warfare) were the last battleships used in US fleets, all other dreadnoughts & super-dreadnoughts decommissioned by 1947 and when finally retired, they had for three decades been the last battleships afloat.  Noted for their longevity, their service variously lasting (including periods in reserve) from 1943 until 1992, they’re among the best-remembered battleships but they were neither the biggest (and certainly not the widest, the beam at around 108 feet (33 m) dictated by the need to pass through the Panama Canal) nor the most heavily gunned.  The Iowas were built with nine 16 inch (406 mm) naval cannons in three 3-gun turrets and could fire both high explosive and armour-piercing shells around 23 nautical miles (27.6 miles; 44.5 km).  A novel later innovation was an adaptation of the W19 nuclear artillery shell was adapted to suit the 16-inch bore.  With a yield of 15 to 20 kilotons of TNT (roughly the same as the A-bomb used against Nagasaki), they remain the world's largest nuclear artillery although, because of the Pentagon’s policy of refusing to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weaponry aboard its ships, it’s unknown if any of the shells were ever carried while the ships were in active service.  Like the US Marine Corps (USMC), the navy was never much enthused at the prospect of nuclear weapons being carried by the surface fleet, regarding the weapons as ideally suited to submarines.  The entire US nuclear artillery inventory was later decommissioned and (officially) dismantled.

Yamato, 1944.

The Imperial Japanese Navy’s Yamato-class battleships, Yamato and Musashi, in service between 1942-1945, were bigger and heavier than the Iowas and also used bigger cannons, each having nine 18.1 inch (460 mm) guns in three triple turrets with a shell-range of 26 miles (42 km).  The big guns had been considered for the Iowas during the design process but were sacrificed as part of the speed/range/armour/firepower compromise which naval architects have to apply to every warship.  Interestingly, for a variety of reasons, even the Iowa's never-built successors (the Montana-class), maintained the 16-inch armament, designed around twelve cannons arrayed in four 3-gun turrets.

German conceptual H-45 battleship.

Before reality bit hard, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) left physics to the engineers and wasn't too bothered by economics.  After being disappointed the proposals the successors to the Bismarck-class ships would have their main armament increased only from eight 15-inch (380 mm) to eight 16 inch cannons, he ordered OKM (Oberkommando der Marine; the Naval High Command) to design bigger ships.  That directive emerged as the ambitious Plan Z which would have demanded so much steel, essentially nothing else in the Reich could have been built.  Although not one vessel in Plan Z ever left the slipway (the facilities even to lay down the keels non-existent), such a fleet would have been impressive, the largest (the H-44) fitted with eight 20-inch (508 mm) cannons.  Even more to the Führer’s liking was the concept of the H-45, equipped with eight 31.5 inch (800 mm) Gustav siege guns.  However, although he never lost faith in the key to success on the battlefield being bigger and bigger tanks, the experience of surface warfare at sea convinced Hitler the days of the big ships were over and he would even try to persuade the navy to retire all their capital ships and devote more resources to the submarines which, as late as 1945, he hoped might still prolong the war.  Had he imposed such priorities in 1937-1938 so the German Navy could have entered World War II (1939-1945) with the ability permanently to have 100 submarines engaged in high-seas raiding rather than barely a dozen, the early course of the war might radically have been different.

Carpet

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sponge

Sponge (pronounced spuhnj)

(1) Any aquatic, chiefly marine animal of the phylum Porifera (also called poriferan), having a porous structure and usually a horny, siliceous or calcareous internal skeleton or framework, occurring in large, sessile (permanently attached to a substrate and not able independently to move) colonies.

(2) The light, yielding, porous, fibrous skeleton or framework of certain animals or colonies of this group, especially of the genera Spongia and Hippospongia, from which the living matter has been removed, characterized by readily absorbing water and becoming soft when wet while retaining toughness: used in bathing, in wiping or cleaning surfaces, etc.

(3) Any of various other similar substances (made typically from porous rubber or cellulose and similar in absorbency to this skeleton), used for washing or cleaning and suited especially to wiping flat, non-porous surfaces; bat sponge, car-wash sponge etc).

(4) Used loosely, any soft substance with a sponge-like appearance or structure.

(5) Use loosely, any object which rapidly absorbs something.

(6) As “sponge theory” (1) a term used in climate science which tracks the processes by which tropical forests "flip" from absorbing to emitting carbon dioxide and (2) one of the competing ideas in the configuration of the US nuclear arsenal which supports the retention of the triad (intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLMB) and those delivered by strategic bombers).

(7) A person who absorbs something efficiently (usually in the context of information, education or facts).

(8) A person who persistently borrows from or lives at the expense of others; a parasite (usually described as “a sponger” or one who “sponges off” and synonymous with a “leech”.

(9) In disparaging slang, a habitual drinker of alcohol who is frequently intoxicated (one who is more mildly affected said to be “spongy” (a synonym of “tipsy”).

(10) In metallurgy, a porous mass of metallic particles, as of platinum, obtained by the reduction of an oxide or purified compound at a temperature below the melting point; iron from the puddling furnace, in a pasty condition; iron ore, in masses, reduced but not melted or worked.

(11) In clinical medicine, a sterile surgical dressing of absorbent material, usually cotton gauze, for wiping or absorbing pus, blood, or other fluids during a surgical operation.

(12) In hospitals and other care institutions, as sponge bath, a method of hygiene whereby a patient is cleaned with a sponge (usually with soap & water) while in a chair or bed.

(13)In cooking (baking), dough raised with yeast before it is kneaded and formed into loaves and after it is converted into a light, spongy mass by the agency of the yeast or leaven.

(14) In cooking, a light, sweet pudding of a porous texture, made with gelatin, eggs, fruit juice or other flavoring ingredients; popular as a cake, often multi-layered with whipped cream (or similar) between.

(15) In birth control, a contraceptive made with a disposable piece of polyurethane foam permeated with a spermicide for insertion into the vagina.

(16) As “makeup sponge” or “beauty sponge”, a device for applying certain substances to the skin (most often blusher and similar products to the face).

(17) In ballistics, a mop for cleaning the bore of a cannon after a discharge, consisting of a cylinder of wood, covered with sheepskin with the wool on, or cloth with a heavy looped nap, and having a handle, or staff.

(18) In farriery, the extremity (or point) of a horseshoe, corresponding to the heel.

(19) In the slang of the nuclear industry, a worker routinely exposed to radiation.

(20) To wipe or rub with or (as with a wet sponge), to moisten or clean.

(21) To remove with a Usually moistened) sponge (usually followed by off, away, etc.).

(22) To wipe out or efface with or as with a sponge (often followed by out).

(23) To take up or absorb with or as with a sponge (often followed by up).

(24) Habitually to borrow, use, or obtain by imposing on another's good nature.

(25) In ceramics, to decorate (a ceramic object) by dabbing at it with a sponge soaked with color or any use of a sponge to render a certain texture on the sirface.

(26) To take in or soak up liquid by absorption.

(27) To gather sponges (from the beach or ocean).

(28) In marine biology (in behavioral zoology, of dolphins), the description of the use of a piece of wild sponge as a tool when foraging for food.

Pre 1000: From the Middle English noun sponge, spunge & spounge, from the Old English noun sponge & spunge (absorbent and porous part of certain aquatic organisms), from the Latin spongia & spongea (a sponge (also (the “sea animal from which a sponge comes”), from the Ancient Greek σπογγιά (spongiá), related to σπόγγος (spóngos) (sponge).  At least one etymologist called it “an old Wandewort” while another speculated it was probably a loanword from a non-Indo-European language, borrowed independently into Greek, Latin and Armenian in a form close to “sphong-”.  From the Latin came the Old Saxon spunsia, the Middle Dutch spongie, the Old French esponge, the Spanish esponja and the Italian spugna.  In English, the word has been used of the sea animals since the 1530s and of just about any sponge-like substance since the turn of the seventeenth century and the figurative use in reference to one adept at absorbing facts or learning emerged about the same time.  The sense of “one who persistently and parasitically lives on others" has been in use since at least 1838.  The sponge-cake (light, fluffy & sweet) has been documented since 1808 but similar creations had long been known.  Sponge is a noun & verb, sponged & sponging are verbs, Spongeless, spongy, sponginess, spongable, spongiform & spongelike are adjectives and spongingly is an adverb; the noun plural is sponges.

The verb emerged late in the fourteenth century as spongen (to soak up with a sponge) or (as a transitive verb) “to cleanse or wipe with a sponge”, both uses derived from the noun and presumably influenced by the Latin spongiare.  The intransitive sense “dive for sponges, gather sponges where they grow” was first documented in 1881 by observers watching harvesting in the Aegean.  The slang use meaning “deprive someone of (something) by sponging” was in use by at least the 1630s, the later intransitive sense of “live in a parasitic manner, live at the expense of others” documented in the 1670, the more poetic phrase “live upon the sponge” (live parasitically, relying on the efforts of others) dating from the 1690s; such folk described as “spongers” since the 1670s.  However, in the 1620s, the original idea was that the victim was “the sponge” because they were “being squeezed”.  The noun sponge in the general sense of “an object from which something of value may be extracted” was in use by circa 1600; the later reference to “the sponger” reversed this older sense.  In what was presumably an example of military humor, the noun sponger also had a use in the army and navy, referring to the member of a cannon’s crew who wielded the pole (with a sponge attached to one end) to clean the barrel of the weapon after discharge.  It’s not clear when it came into use but it’s documented since 1828.

The adjective spongiform (resembling a sponge, sponge-like; porous, full of holes) dates from 1774 and seems now restricted to medical science, the incurable and invariably fatal neurodegenerative disease of cattle "bovine spongiform encephalopathy" (BSE) the best known use although the public understandably prefer the more evocative "mad cow disease".  The adjective spongy (soft, elastic) came into use in the 1530s in medicine & pathology, in reference to morbid tissue (not necessarily soft and applied after the 1590s to hard material (especially bone)) seen as open or porous.  In late fourteenth century Middle English, there was spongious (sponge-like in nature), again, directly from the Latin.  In idiomatic use and dating from the 1860s, to “throw in the sponge” was to concede defeat; yield or give up the context.  The form is drawn from prize-fighting where the sponge (sitting usually in a bucket of water and used to wipe blood from the boxer’s face) is thrown into the ring by the trainer or second, indicating to the referee the fight must immediately be stopped.  The phrase later “throw in the towel” means the same thing and is of the same origin although some older style guides insist the correct use is “throw up the sponge” and “throw in the towel”.  To the beaten and bloodied boxer, it probably was an unnoticed technical distinction.

Sea sponges.

In zoology, sponges are any of the many aquatic (mostly sea-based) invertebrate animals of the phylum Porifera, characteristically having a porous skeleton, usually containing an intricate system of canals composed of fibrous material or siliceous or calcareous spicules.  Water passing through the pores is the delivery system the creatures use to gain nutrition.  Sponges are known to live at most depths of the sea, are sessile (permanently attached to a substrate; all but a handful not able independently to move (fully-grown sponges do not have moving parts, but the larvae are free-swimming)) and often form irregularly shaped colonies.  Sponges are considered now the most primitive members of the animal kingdom extant as they lack a nervous system and differentiated body tissues or organs although they have great regenerative capacities, some species able to regenerate a complete adult organism from fragments as small as a single cell.  Sponges first appeared during the early Cambrian Period over half a billion years ago and may have evolved from protozoa.

Of sponges and brushes

Dior Backstage Blender (Professional Finish Fluid Foundation Sponge).

Both makeup brushes and makeup sponges can be used to apply blush or foundation and unless there’s some strong personal preference, most women probably use both, depending on the material to be applied and the look desired.  Brushes are almost always long-bristled and soft sometimes to the point of fluffiness with a rounded shape which affords both precision and the essential ability to blend at the edges.  Brushes are popular because they offer great control over placement & blending (users debating whether a long or short handle is most beneficial in this and it may be that both work equally well if one’s technique is honed).  Brushes can be used with most varieties of formulation including powders and creams.

Lindsay Lohan in court, October 2011.

This not entirely flattering application of grey-brown shade of blusher attracted comment, the consensus being it was an attempt to create the effect of hollowed cheekbones, a look wildly popular during the 1980s-1990s and one which to which her facial structure was well-suited.  However, the apparently “heavy handed” approach instead suggesting bruising.  The “contoured blush look” is achieved with delicacy and Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881, UK prime-minister 1868 & 1874-1880) might have called this: “laying it on with a trowel”.  It’s not known if Ms Lohan used a brush or a sponge but her technique may have been closer to that of the bricklayer handling his trowel.  Makeup sponges (often called “beauty blenders” are preferred by many to brushes and are recommended by the cosmetic houses especially for when applying cream or liquid products.  They’re claimed to be easier to use than a brush and for this reason are often the choice of less experienced or occasional users and they create a natural, dewy finish, blending the product seamlessly into the skin and avoiding the more defined lines which brushes can produce.  When used with a powder blush, sponges produce an airbrushed, diffused effect and are much easier to use for those applying their own make-up in front of a mirror, a situation in which the “edging” effect inherent in brush use can be hard to detect.  For professional makeup artists, both sponges and brushes will be used when working on others, the choice dictated by the product in use and the effect desired.

Sponge theory

The awful beauty of our weapons: Test launch of Boeing LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM.

Ever since the US military (sometimes in competition with politicians) first formulated a set of coherent policies which set out the circumstances in which nuclear weapons would be used, there have been constant revisions to the plans.  At its peak, the nuclear arsenal contained some 30,000 weapons and the target list extended to a remarkable 10,000 sites, almost all in the Soviet Union (USSR), the People’s Republic of China (PRC) the Baltic States and countries in Eastern Europe.  Even the generals admitted there was some degree of overkill in all this but rationalized the system on the basis it was the only way to guarantee a success rate close to 100%.  That certainly fitted in with the US military’s long established tradition of “overwhelming” rather than merely “solving” problems.

US nuclear weapons target map 1956 (de-classified in 2015).

Over the decades, different strategies were from time-to-time adopted as tensions rose and fell or responded to changes in circumstances such as arms control treaties and, most obviously, the end of the Cold War when the USSR was dissolved.  The processes which produced these changes were always the same: (1) inter-service squabbles between the army, navy & air force, (2) the struggle between the politicians and the top brass (many of who proved politically quite adept), (3) the influence of others inside and beyond the “nuclear establishment” including the industrial concerns which designed and manufactured the things, those in think tanks & academic institutions and (4) the (usually anti-nuclear) lobby and activist community.  Many of the discussions were quite abstract, something the generals & admirals seemed to prefer, probably because one of their quoted metrics in the early 1950s was that if in a nuclear exchange there were 50 million dead Russians and only 20 million dead Americans then the US could be said to have “won the war”.  When critics pursued this to its logical conclusion and asked if that was the result even if only one Russian and two Americans were left alive, the military tended to restrict themselves to targets, megatons and abstractions, any descent to specifics like body-counts just tiresome detail.  This meant the strategies came to be summed-up in short, punchy, indicative terms like “deterrence”, “avoidance of escalation” & “retaliation” although the depth was sufficient for even the “short” version prepared for the president’s use in the event of war to be an inch (25 mm) thick.  What was describe varied from a threat of use, a limited strike, various forms of containment (the so-called "limited nuclear war") and sometimes the doomsday option: global thermo-nuclear war.  However, during the administration of Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) there emerged a genuine linguistic novelty: “sponge theory”.

US Air Force Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (1952-, left) and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit (1989-, right).

The term “sponge theory” had been used in climate science to describe a mechanism which tracks the processes by which tropical forests "flip" from absorbing to emitting carbon dioxide (a la a sponge which absorbs water which can be expelled when squeezed) but in the matter of nuclear weapons it was something different.  At the time, the debates in the White House, the Congress and even some factions within the military were about whether what had become the traditional “triad” of nuclear weapons ((1) intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), (2) submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLMB) and (3) those delivered by strategic bombers) should be maintained.  By “maintained” that of course meant periodically refurbished & replaced.  The suggestion was that the ICBMs should be retired, the argument being they were a Cold War relic, the mere presence of which threatened peace because they encouraged a "first strike" (actually be either side).  However, the counter argument was that in a sense, the US was already running a de-facto dyad because, dating from the administration of George HW Bush (George XLI, 1924-2018; US president 1989-1993), none of the big strategic bombers had been on “runway alert” (ie able to be scrambled for a sortie within minutes) and only a tiny few were stored in hangers with their bombs loaded.  Removing the ICBMs from service, went the argument, would leave the nation dangerously reliant on the SLMBs which, in the way of such things, might at any time be rendered obsolete by advances in sensor technology and artificial intelligence (AI).  The British of course had never used ICMBs and had removed the nuclear strike capability from their bombers, thus relying on a squadron of four submarines (one of which is on patrol somewhere 24/7/365) with SLMBs but the British system was a pure "independent nuclear deterrent", what the military calls a "boutique bomb".  

Test launch of US Navy Trident-II-D5LE SLBM.

There was also the concern that land or air to submarine communications were not wholly reliable and this, added to the other arguments, won the case for the triad but just in case, the Pentagon had formulated “sponge theory”, about their catchiest phrase since “collateral damage”.  The idea of sponge theory was that were the ICBMs retired, Moscow or Beijing would have only five strategic targets in the continental US: the three bomber bases (in the flyover states of Louisiana, Missouri & North Dakota) and the two submarine ports, in Georgia on the south Atlantic coast and in Washington state in the Pacific north-west.  A successful attack on those targets could be mounted with less than a dozen (in theory half that number because of the multiple warheads) missiles which would mean the retaliatory capacity of the US would be limited to the SLMBs carried by the six submarines on patrol.  Given that, a president might be reluctant to use them because of the knowledge Moscow (and increasingly Beijing) could mount a second, much more destructive attack.  However, if the 400 ICBMs remained in service, an attack on the US with any prospect of success would demand the use of close to 1000 missiles, something to which any president would be compelled to respond and the US ICBMs would be in flight to their targets long before the incoming Soviet or Chinese missiles hit.  The function of the US ICBM sites, acting as a sponge (soaking up the targeting, squeezing the retaliation) would deter an attack.  As it was, the 400-odd Boeing LGM-30 Minuteman ICBMs remained in service in silos also in flyover states: Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming.  After over fifty years in service, the Minuteman is due for replacement in 2030 and there’s little appetite in Washington DC or in the Pentagon to discuss any change to the triad.