Technology of WWI essays

Technology of WWI essays World War I brought many new technological advancements to the battlefield, such as pill boxes, flamethrowers, and mustard gas. But with all this new technology there were no new tactics to use them. Soldiers fought a traditional styled war, but suffered many casualties due to the new technology. Flamethrowers were invented in 1900 by the German army, but werent used on the battlefield until World War I. Flamethrowers simply used some pressurized gas to shoot oil through a nozzle with a flame attached to it creating a jet stream of fire. The first flamethrowers were used by two-men to clear enemy trenches from a range of 25 meters. Later, flamethrowers were upgraded and had a range of up to 40 but still only had 40 seconds of fuel. On an extreme negative, the person using the flamethrower quickly became the target of gunfire and was killed. Pill boxes were small re-enforced concrete shacks with narrow slits in which machine guns would fire out of. The pill-boxes werent used for long due to labor costs, and generals feared that soldiers would become more defensive-minded. The machine-gun had been used foe years before, but new technology provided better guns, and many fell victim to machine gun fire. Another way to eradicate enemies in trenches was by tossing poison gas into their trenches and wait for them to either run out into open gunfire or die in the trench. Two types of poisonous gas were used: Chlorine Gas; and Mustard Gas. Chlorine gas left a yellow-green cloud in its path. The chemical in Chlorine Gas killed by a means of damaging the respiratory system by causing asphyxiation. The gas wasnt nearly as efficient as Mustard Gas though. Since it only took small amounts of Mustard Gas to kill it was easier to infect the enemy. Small amounts of mustard gas were put into artillery shells and fired at the opposing trench. The victims of mustard gas died an extremely slow painful death. Their eyes would clo...

Do Colleges Accept ACT Takers as Much as SAT Takers Is the ACT Disadvantaged

Do Colleges Accept ACT Takers as Much as SAT Takers Is the ACT Disadvantaged SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips The ACT is rising rapidly in popularity, but students and parents have a good question do colleges accept ACT tests as much as they accept SAT tests? Do colleges mark you down for taking the ACT? The Straight Facts: More Students Take the ACT Now Parents of many students today may remember the SAT as being the only game in town. When I first took the test as a young student in the 1990s, everyone took the SAT. But in 2012, the ACT overtook the SAT as the top test. In fact, these days the ACT has about 10% more takers than the SAT, and this number is climbing every year. With this fact out of the way, the question still remains, is the ACT as legit as the SAT? Will the same universities accept the ACT as the SAT? And more subtely, are there disadvantages to taking the ACT? The ACT is Accepted In terms of pure acceptance, the ACT is accepted by all 4-year colleges. This was true as early as 2007. So you can rest easy knowing that if you take the ACT, you do not need to take the SAT to get into college. In terms of nominal legitimacy, the ACT is equal to or even above the SAT. Universities will accept ACT takers universally. Caveat: Mandatory ACT Takers One reason that the ACT has more takers than the SAT is that the ACT has been aggressive in pressuring states to use the ACT as statewide tests. That is, certain states like Kentucky require all students to take the ACT. Some of these "forced takers" won't be applying to colleges, or won't be applying to the level of colleges you're planning to. That means that the "real numbers" for the ACT may be a bit less than the official numbers. In my opinion though, this issue is not serious, but still one to take note of. Caveat: Acceptance Doesn't Mean Equal In many spheres of life, just because something is accepted on paper, doesn't mean it's equal in practice. For example, many colleges say the writing section is "optional but recommended" you should read this as "required" unless you're really exceptional. Colleges say the ACT is accepted, but is it equal in practice? In reality, since the ACT has been popular for a shorter period of time, admissions staff may not be as informed about what the scores mean. They may understand the SAT math-verbal split, but have a hard time grasping what it means to be strong in science but weak in math on the ACT. My belief, from speaking to many admissions committees directly and indirectly, is that this was more of a concern before 2010. These days almost all colleges have substantial experience with both tests. There is no substantial bias against the ACT anymore, certainly officially, but also in practice. Verdict: The ACT is every bit as accepted and legit as the SAT Other Articles to Read: Should you take the SAT or ACT? Class of 2017: Consider Skipping the new SAT for the ACT? Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points?We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now: