Monday Music "Ah! Leah! by Donny Iris

I heard this song on the way to work this morning, the 80's channel on my Sirius/XM was playing the top 40 from February 10, 1981.  It was an interesting time for 80's music, there still was disco on the chart, a lot of what is called "Yacht Rock", Think Christopher Cross for example.    I couldn't get a whole lot of stuff on this video or the song.  That happens with older songs, before MTV became popular, a lot of groups didn't make music video's or explain what the song was about leaving people to make up their own reasons for the song....Well This is my opinion what prompted the song.

"Change my Mind..."

"Ah! Leah!" is a song by Mark Avsec and American rock musician Donnie Iris from his 1980 album Back on the Streets. The song was released as a single in late 1980 and reached number 29 on the US Billboard Hot 100, 22 on the Cash Box Top 100, and 19 on the US Billboard Top Tracks chart. The song is widely considered to be Iris' signature song and was most popular in Canada, where it became a Top 10 hit. 

 
A full complement of eight musicians appeared in the early live performances of the song, including lead singer Iris, a drummer, three guitar players, one keyboardist and at least two backing vocalists, one female and one male.
The title of the song has been referenced in the form of puns on a few of Iris's later albums—the 2009 live album Ah! Live! and the 2010 Christmas album Ah! Leluiah!.

Back on the Streets is the debut album by American rock singer/guitarist Donnie Iris, released in 1980. The single "Ah! Leah!" was a hit for Iris, reaching #29 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart and #19 on the U.S. Billboard Top Tracks chart. 

Went to the Range and UPS

I went to the range, The highspeed range near my house reopened and it is owned by AMCHAR of Georgia.  They had a lot of guns for sale, I will talk about one I noticed.

   Well anyway I go back to set up to shoot, I was going to shoot the Garand and the Mosin Nagant, I figured the Nagant would dis/relocate my shoulder far better than any chiropractor would.

    I set up the ammo for the Nagant, I was going to use the stripper clips I bought at NRAAM last year from a vender that specialized in Mosin-Nagants.

I than lay out the ammo for the Garand, the Monarch 150 grain works well and compared to the prices of other ammo is cheap.  Monarch is the Academy house brand, the ammo is made by "Privit" a Russian company and the quality is good and consistent

   Before I could shoot the RSO came back to me and told me that my 7.62X54R is too hot for the range....I couldn't argue..it is their range....but I was surprised...I thought God's own caliber of 30-06 was more powerful.  Oh well.... I boxed up the Nagant and put the ammo away.

I then set up the clips for the Garand

.I could only find 3 of them...I know that I have more....I may have to go buy some more...

I fired at 75 feet, the max distance of the Range and this is the group I shot..Not a bad grouping.  I will adjust the sights over.  Should have done it after 1 clip.

 I finished shooting the Garand, then went ahead and "Snaked it"

  The Garand was fun to shoot and everytime it went "Boom" it was the sound of freedom :) and even nicer, it cycled flawlessly.
 ..I guess I will have to find an excuse to go to the range again :)

     I than set up the little .22LR pistol that I borrowed from my dad

                                             That was the first 20 I shot
I reloaded and mentally adjusted the sights and point of aim, the .22LR S&W had fixed sights.

Next 30..

I then reloaded again...

And finished off my ammo I had brought...Man that was fun..

 

The reopened range had quite a selection of rifles, ammo and accessories for sale..

And I zeroed in on the "Old school rifles.."

Looked like there were a couple of CAR 98 series of rifles...

I couldn't recognize who made it...

Still not sure.....
I am hoping Jim or Mack will have an idea....

Edit"I found it.."Google" is a good thing..
The Zastava M98/48 (often called Mod.98/48, Model. 98/48, Yugo K98k) was a refurbished bolt-action rifle, chambered for the 7.92×57mm Mauser, a cartridge that was temporary adopted in the years after World War II by the Yugoslav People's Army. This design was a refurbished Mauser Kar98k rifle that had been left-over by Germans or captured by partisans during World War II.

ATI imported it into the country....
These rifles are actually Karabiner 98k rifles that were left over by Germany or captured by Marshal Tito's partisan army, or Liberation Army. Despite the name of the rifles (which may lead to misunderstandings), the only difference between a Nazi German K98k and a Zastava M98/48 consists of the markings and the front barrel band. They are virtually identical to each other, since they are still the same rifles at their core. 

The original German markings were scrubbed and replaced by the Yugoslav ones. The most noticeable markings are the Yugoslav Crest and the "Preduzece 44"(It refers to the site where it was refurbished; for example "Preduzece 44" stands for "Institute 44"-Kragujevac, Serbia-the current location of Zastava Arms) present on the receiver's ring. Another noticeable marking is the one present on the left side of the receiver, the "Mod. 98/48". The "/48" is absent on all the rifles that have been refurbished before 1950.

   I also saw an Century Arms looked like a HK-91 clone in 308...for about 6 and a half...but it is Century arms...

I then went to the UPS store to mail off my Henry rifle back to the factory, they are warrantied the issue so I went to mail the rifle off....Well the UPS store wouldn't take my rifle...Company policy..

     I then contact UPS via phone and got the run around, had to set up for "residential" pickup...and that was $14 more...The lady on the phone told me that "You could have used the UPS Store", I replied..."I tried....Your company policy forbid them accepting my rifle.to ship."

Rifle ready for pickup

Needless to say I am not enamored with UPS..

Anti-tank dogs?

 I remembered hearing of this stuff a few years back, when I was researching the "Romping Stomping Red-Army"  People now can't imagine stuff like this going on, I heard of experiments of the Navy, dolphins and Mines.  I try to keep in context, that the there were several factors with the Soviets, they were trying to survive, the first couple of years the war on the Eastern Front was in doubt.  Also to the Soviets, everything belonged to the people, meaning "The State".  And the state decided how much worth you had as an individual and as a person.  Traditionally with communist governments, you ain't worth much at all and dogs even less.  To a person raised in a western based society such things are almost unfathomable.  But in other places in the world, life is really cheap.

The idea of using anti-tank dogs was nothing new for the Soviet Union. They had looked at the possibility back in the early 1930s and gave the weapon the name “dog mines” or “Hundminen.”
It is easy to dismiss this idea as some kind of impractical novelty. It seems ridiculous to think that bomb-carrying dogs could ever be viable weapons, especially against tanks. But there is a long history of animals being put to imaginative uses in warfare.

Soviet military dog training school, 1931

From the war elephants used by Persians in the 3^rd Century BC to carrier pigeons being used during World War One for long-range communication, both were highly successful.
So, by 1935, the Soviet Army was setting up dedicated anti-tank dog units. Training the dogs was simple: they took a Pavlov’s theory type approach.

• Pavlov’s Theory: where you condition someone to associate a reward with an action. The example Pavlov used was ringing a bell whenever a dog was fed. The dog would then drool when it heard the bell as it associated the bell with food. This is called a conditioned response.

They would half-starve the dogs and then put food under a stationary tank. Over time, the dog would be conditioned to instinctively search under tanks for food.
The original idea was that the dog would be equipped with a bomb that could be detonated using a timer or remote control. The dog was trained to run under a tank where it would release its bomb by using its teeth to removing the strap holding the bomb. Then it would run back to its handler.

Military parade on Red Square, Moscow, 1 May 1938

In tests, it was a complete failure. If the dogs were confronted with anything but the most simplest of scenarios, they became confused and were unable to complete their mission.
They often returned to their handlers with the dummy bomb still attached. If that happened with a real bomb on a timer, the consequences could have been fatal to the handler and any Soviet troops nearby.

Soldier with a dog

But then came the surprise German invasion of June 1941 and the onslaught it brought. The Soviets began to deploy their Hundminen units. They were desperate and needed to stem the flow of ever increasing numbers of Germans as Operation Barbarossa gained momentum. 

• Operation Barbarossa: the Axis surprise invasion of the Soviet Union led by the German Armed Forces. It began on June 22nd, 1941, and involved an invading force of nearly 3 million soldiers, 9,000 aircraft, and around 11,000 tanks.

Operation Barbarossa – broken tank

By now, the equipment and tactics used were starting to become standardized. Various breeds of dogs were used, but the most commonly used was the Alsatian (German Shepherd) which, ironically, was a German breed of dog.

• Alsatian (German Shepherd) Dog: Originated from Germany during the 19th Century. It is popular among the public as well as with both the military and law enforcement agencies. It is well-known for its agility, stamina, intelligence, and trainability.

The bomb now used was of a contact type, rather than the complex and flawed timer or remote control version. The dogs now carried a bomb with about 25lbs (11kg) of explosive, contained in a set of pouches, one on either side of the animal.
Once the bomb was activated by removing the safety pin, an 8-inch wooden spring lever that was sticking out of the top connected to the two pouches. If the lever came into contact with anything and was pushed back sufficiently far, the bomb would detonate.

As the dogs were trained to run under a tank, it was anticipated that the bottom of the tank would set off the bomb. As the armor was normally very weak here, it was hoped that the ensuing explosion would at least disable the tank, if not destroy it completely.
The units were used between 1941 to 1942. But many problems were encountered that reduced their effectiveness greatly:

• The dogs had been trained in sterile battle conditions and were not used to moving targets or the loud noises associated with the battlefield like machine gun fire.
• Often in confusion, the dogs would return to their handlers or friendly troops, and the bomb would often go off, killing everyone.
• The Soviets had used diesel tanks to train the dogs whereas, on the battlefield, the Germans mainly used petrol-driven tanks. This meant the dog’s highly sensitive nose tended to lead them to Russian tanks, not German ones — with disastrous results.
• The Germans quickly got into the habit of shooting any dogs on the battlefield carrying anything remotely suspicious.
• As the dogs were in effect carrying out a suicide mission, some handlers got too attached to their dogs to let them do this.
• The dogs took a lot of time to train, so they were not very cost effective if they could only be used on suicide missions.

The Germans mocked the use of dog units. They claimed the Soviet soldiers were too afraid to fight and instead had to send their dogs into battle. The Germans considered these anti-tank dogs to be a highly desperate and inefficient form of weaponry.

On the other hand, it seems the Soviets boasted of great successes. They claimed that at Stalingrad (1942-43), the dogs destroyed 13 tanks. Then at Kursk (1943), a further 16 were destroyed. It was alleged that the Hundminen destroyed a total of around 300 enemy tanks, although records show the more likely number was nearer 50 tanks.

The truth is we will never know what their true effectiveness was. However, considering the obvious drawbacks and the fact they were only deployed for a short time, it would seem reasonable to say that anti-tank dogs were a novel idea with limited value, deployed only out of necessity.

Musing and goings on at Casa De Garabaldi......again...lol

I have been really busy at work, Usually I try to relax on my off day(today).  But I had to run some errands.  A friend of mine at work is a hard core Henry fan and he liked the fact that I purchased a Henry Rifle.  He suggested that I contact them about the problem and see if they can do anything for me.

If I was the first owner of the rifle, then the normal warranty process will work, but since I am the second owner, I am not sure, but I did email the company with an explanation of the problem and that I am the second owner.  I will see what they say.
     I am planning a range trip tomorrow for the Garand and the Henry.

 Saw this driving on the way to scouts...or having my son drive and I was the passenger.  I had never seen that tag before.   I got to scouts and "googled it", and found out that this is one of those "sovereign citizens".  I don't think that the tag is legal and I wonder how the PoPo handle one of those.  I also wonder how the courts handle these people if they are involved in an accident the legalities.

     My blog buddy and friend on Real life has another book out...I got my copy in the mail, here is a Link for the Book.  
    Buy a copy...you know you want to.....

    I watched the Superbowl on Sunday....All I can say was "Meh", the commercials used to be good, it used to be  about beer and babes....now the ones this year were "Preachy", I didn't like being lectured by people that think that they are "My Betters".  Left me kinda cranky.

  And Finally I saw the SOTU address last night..I was impressed, it was very patriotic themed, from the start recognizing the 2 anniversaries coming up this year, from the D-day landing to the Apollo Moon Landings.   The comment that he made with the immigration debate can be described in class, the political class likes the open border and illegal immigration because they have their walls.  The middle class gets hung with the overloaded schools, the failing social net and crime.  There was a lot of stuff that did appeal to his base, he also added some stuff that the democrat would like, but watching Pelosi and Schumer the gargoyle do their thing was annoying.

  I understand there would be a certain partisan rancor but this was a bit much.  The problem is that President Trump will not back down, they both have personally insulted him, granted you have to have a thick skin for politics, but Trump isn't a politician, and he will shut down the government in less than 2 weeks.

   This happened right after President Trump talked bipartisanship and working together, he turned to acknowledge her and this is what he saw.  THE SMERK.


    I will post tomorrow or Friday and tell how my range trip went.  I also hate finding misspellings after I posted a blogpost...
   

       


     
      

Monday Music "Black Velvet" by Alana Miles

This song came out in late 1989 and it was really haunting.  I knew that it was an homage for Elvis Presley because the image of Elvis was very popular on velvet.  In certain areas of the south especially in the Mississippi delta, you will still see them. 

Redneck Chic

The song was different than what was presently being played on AFN in Europe, I was still stationed in Germany at Stuttgart Army Airfield.  It to me was the precursor to the music that would become popular in the 1990's. 

"Black Velvet" is a song written by Canadian songwriters Christopher Ward and David Tyson, recorded by Canadian singer songwriter Alannah Myles. It was released in December 1989 as one of four singles from Myles' 1989 eponymous album from Atlantic Records. It became a number-one hit for two weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 charts in 1990 and reached number one on the Album Rock Tracks chart, as well as number ten in her native Canada and number two on the UK Singles Chart. The song also reached number one in Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland and was a major success in several other countries. It contains blues verses with a rock chorus.
Myles won the 1991 Grammy for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance for the song and the 1990 Juno Award for Single of the Year. Since its release, the power ballad has received substantial airplay, receiving a "Millionaire Award" from ASCAP in 2005 for more than four million radio plays.

The song is a paean to Elvis Presley. Co-writer Christopher Ward, who was Myles' then-boyfriend, was inspired on a bus full of Elvis fans riding to Memphis attending the 10th anniversary vigil at Graceland, in 1987. Upon his return to Canada, he brought his idea to Alannah and producer David Tyson, who wrote the chords for the bridge. The song was one of three in a demo Myles presented to Atlantic Records which eventually got her signed to the label.
Atlantic Records, much to the disappointment of Myles, for whom the song had been written, gave the song for country artist Robin Lee to record. In the United States, Myles' version was released in December 1989, while Lee's version was released two months later, in February 1990. This led to Myles being promoted by Atlantic on the pop and rock radio stations, and Lee on the country radio stations. Lee even filmed a videoclip to the song very similar to Myles' video.
Myles released a new version of the song on a digitally released Elvis tribute EP to commemorate the 30 years since his death in August 2007. It was later included on her 2008 Black Velvet CD.

The music video, directed by Doug Freel, was partially shot in Myles' family ranch in Buckhorn, Ontario. Myles is seen singing at a cabin porch with her guitarist, intercut with scenes from Myles in concert with her band. 

German Army unready for combat...

I have blogged in the past about the unreadiness of the German Army and Military in general.  I remember right after the end of the cold war, the German Army was well trained and well equiped, their tank was on par or slightly better than our M1 and their other vehicles were also first rate.  But the 25 years since then the German military has changed and it reflects the new progressive values that are popular in Europe.  I can't say too much, I see our military doing some of the same stuff.  The stupidity has lessened under Trump but when Obama was president, I saw many attempts to convert the military or subvert the military with the values of the progressive movement basically being feminist heavy, or LGBTEIEIO interest not what I call "War fighter interest".  I am sure that the Russian and Chinese don't have this problem.

 

 

Posted by Vijeta Uniyal    Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 11:00am

“Less than 50 percent of the Bundeswehr’s tanks, ships and aircraft were available at any one time.”

While German Chancellor Angela Merkel has clamored for an EU army, the country’s military continues to deteriorate as a fighting force. The German armed forces, or the Bundeswehr, are underequipped, demoralized and running out of recruits,” an official report reveals.The military was relying on civilian helicopters for tactical troop transport and the soldiers on the battlefield lacked even the basic equipment such as body armor and overalls, the annual report published by the German parliament’s military commissioner, Hans-Peter Bartels, said. The report found that “often less than 50 percent of the Bundeswehr’s tanks, ships and aircraft were available at any one time, either for training or operational purposes.”
Things look just a grim on the recruitment front. “The government has promised 198,500 active personnel by 2025, up from the current 181,000, but the number of new recruits dropped from 23,000 in 2017 to 20,000 last year,” the report disclosed.
German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported the details of the annual parliamentary inspection:

The biggest problem that Bundeswehr soldiers complained about was the lack of equipment, despite repeated government promises, dating back to a 2014 NATO summit, of a change in direction. That does not count as a surprising development, considering the barrage of poor press the German military has been facing.
Heavy machinery was a particular concern: [Hans-Peter] Bartels found that often less than 50 percent of the Bundeswehr’s tanks, ships and aircraft were available at any one time, either for training or operational purposes.
“Spare parts are still missing; maintenance in industry is dragging; the training programs are suffering,” Social Democrat Bartels said. “An absolute must is the acceleration of procurement.” (…)
Another worry for the Defense Ministry is the stagnation of its post-conscription recruitment drive, which began after Germany scrapped national service in 2011. Though the Bundeswehr is expanding overall (the report found a net gain of 4,000 professional soldiers), most of these were won by extending existing contracts. In other words, the German military is aging.
The government has promised 198,500 active personnel by 2025, up from the current 181,000, but the number of new recruits dropped from 23,000 in 2017 to 20,000 last year.

While the army is in a state of grave disrepair, the country’s first female Defence Minister and Merkel’s confidant, Ursula von der Leyen, is busy promoting diversity and ‘multiculturalism’ in the military.
As German business daily Handelsblatt reported in January 2017: “Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has invited senior officers from Germany’s armed forces, the Bundeswehr, to a groundbreaking workshop on sexuality.” The workshops titled “Dealing with sexual identity and orientation in the Bundeswehr” included eminent speakers such as the minister herself and “a sex therapist who supports transsexuals in the army.”
As laudable as these cosmetic efforts may be, they do nothing to enhance the combat readiness or boost troop morale.
Minister von der Leyen’s efforts to “open the army up to minority groups” hasn’t been a great success either. In recent years, the Bundeswehr has caught 24 Islamist infiltrators in its ranks. At least 29 Bundeswehr soldiers have traveled to Syria and Iraq to fight for the Islamic State.
The findings are a vindication of President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly asked Germany and other NATO members to increase their defense spending up to two-percent of their economic output. He tweeted in July 2018: “Germany just started paying Russia, the country they want protection from, Billions of Dollars for their Energy needs coming out of a new pipeline from Russia. Not acceptable! All NATO Nations must meet their 2% commitment, and that must ultimately go to 4%!”
Currently, the United States contributes 4.2 percent of its GDP to NATO, compared to just 1.2 percent chipped in by Germany. In 2017, the U.S. “accounted for 51.1 percent of the allies’ combined GDP and 71.7 percent of combined defense expenditure,” Virginia-based Defense News reported. In addition to that, over 35,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Germany to bolster Europe’s military preparedness.
Under Chancellor Merkel’s watch, however, the Germany army has other pressing issues at hand than border security or defense preparedness. In wake of the 2015 migrant crisis, thousands of German soldiers were whisked off to build migrant shelters, making it the largest domestic deployment of the postwar ear. The county is busy converting army barracks into migrant camps.
The annual defense report glaringly highlights the fatal flaws in Germany’s military armor. Perhaps Chancellor Merkel should take a pause from her saber-rattling about an EU army and invest in the Bundeswehr for change.

The military was relying on civilian helicopters for tactical troop transport and the soldiers on the battlefield lacked even the basic equipment such as body armor and overalls, the annual report published by the German parliament’s military commissioner, Hans-Peter Bartels, said. The report found that “often less than 50 percent of the Bundeswehr’s tanks, ships and aircraft were available at any one time, either for training or operational purposes.”
Things look just a grim on the recruitment front. “The government has promised 198,500 active personnel by 2025, up from the current 181,000, but the number of new recruits dropped from 23,000 in 2017 to 20,000 last year,” the report disclosed.
German state broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported the details of the annual parliamentary inspection:

The biggest problem that Bundeswehr soldiers complained about was the lack of equipment, despite repeated government promises, dating back to a 2014 NATO summit, of a change in direction. That does not count as a surprising development, considering the barrage of poor press the German military has been facing.
Heavy machinery was a particular concern: [Hans-Peter] Bartels found that often less than 50 percent of the Bundeswehr’s tanks, ships and aircraft were available at any one time, either for training or operational purposes.
“Spare parts are still missing; maintenance in industry is dragging; the training programs are suffering,” Social Democrat Bartels said. “An absolute must is the acceleration of procurement.” (…)
Another worry for the Defense Ministry is the stagnation of its post-conscription recruitment drive, which began after Germany scrapped national service in 2011. Though the Bundeswehr is expanding overall (the report found a net gain of 4,000 professional soldiers), most of these were won by extending existing contracts. In other words, the German military is aging.
The government has promised 198,500 active personnel by 2025, up from the current 181,000, but the number of new recruits dropped from 23,000 in 2017 to 20,000 last year.

While the army is in a state of grave disrepair, the country’s first female Defence Minister and Merkel’s confidant, Ursula von der Leyen, is busy promoting diversity and ‘multiculturalism’ in the military.
As German business daily Handelsblatt reported in January 2017: “Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen has invited senior officers from Germany’s armed forces, the Bundeswehr, to a groundbreaking workshop on sexuality.” The workshops titled “Dealing with sexual identity and orientation in the Bundeswehr” included eminent speakers such as the minister herself and “a sex therapist who supports transsexuals in the army.”
As laudable as these cosmetic efforts may be, they do nothing to enhance the combat readiness or boost troop morale.
Minister von der Leyen’s efforts to “open the army up to minority groups” hasn’t been a great success either. In recent years, the Bundeswehr has caught 24 Islamist infiltrators in its ranks. At least 29 Bundeswehr soldiers have traveled to Syria and Iraq to fight for the Islamic State.
The findings are a vindication of President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly asked Germany and other NATO members to increase their defense spending up to two-percent of their economic output. He tweeted in July 2018: “Germany just started paying Russia, the country they want protection from, Billions of Dollars for their Energy needs coming out of a new pipeline from Russia. Not acceptable! All NATO Nations must meet their 2% commitment, and that must ultimately go to 4%!”
Currently, the United States contributes 4.2 percent of its GDP to NATO, compared to just 1.2 percent chipped in by Germany. In 2017, the U.S. “accounted for 51.1 percent of the allies’ combined GDP and 71.7 percent of combined defense expenditure,” Virginia-based Defense News reported. In addition to that, over 35,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Germany to bolster Europe’s military preparedness.
Under Chancellor Merkel’s watch, however, the Germany army has other pressing issues at hand than border security or defense preparedness. In wake of the 2015 migrant crisis, thousands of German soldiers were whisked off to build migrant shelters, making it the largest domestic deployment of the postwar ear. The county is busy converting army barracks into migrant camps.
The annual defense report glaringly highlights the fatal flaws in Germany’s military armor. Perhaps Chancellor Merkel should take a pause from her saber-rattling about an EU army and invest in the Bundeswehr for change.

Some information on the U.S.S Nevada (BB-36)

I decided to do something on the Pearl Harbor battleships after doing the blog postings about the  IJN Yamoto.  I still think that it was ironic that me being an Army guy happen to like Naval history. 

From her conception in 1911 to her survival at Pearl Harbor and use as a target for atomic testing, the battleship Nevada had a remarkable career. She served all around the world in times of war and peace, but it was her remarkable durability that strikes many readers.
The construction of Nevada was authorized in a period of rising tensions and the rapid introduction of new technologies. Not long after construction on Nevada began, that tension in Europe would lead to World War I.

USS Nevada in 1925, probably during visit to Australia, prior to the removal of her cage masts

The Nevada was the first of a new class of US battleships to use triple gun turrets and “all or nothing” armor. With 14-inch guns, the use of triple turrets allowed more firepower to be put in the forward position. When bigger guns were used with triple turrets, such as those on the British Nelson-class battleships, this created an often-unstable firing platform.

Nevada underway off the Atlantic coast of the United States on 17 September 1944

Later battleships like the Colorado had bigger caliber guns and went back to two turrets, and ships with more tonnage like the North Dakota could handle the weight of four turrets in superfiring position.
On Nevada though, three turrets gave the ship a decent mix of firepower, weight, and speed. This development combined with the use of oil instead of coal for fuel represented a leap in dreadnought technology at the time.
The “all or nothing” armor came from a new military philosophy regarding potential threats. The increasing range and size of weapons often meant that battles took place at longer ranges. So designers maximized armor in the most likely areas to be targeted, while other areas of the ship had little to no armor.
This allowed the overall tonnage of the ship to remain low, which improved the ship’s speed. The design became standard around much of the world at the time. 

Division of Naval Intelligence identification sheet depicting Nevada after her 1942 repair and modernization

The major threats during the period leading up to World War I were torpedo boats and submarines, so the armor on the hull was far more sturdy than that on the deck. This would prove almost fatal when airplanes took a larger role in the fighting during World War II.
The Nevada didn’t see much overseas service in World War I due to fuel oil shortages in Great Britain. Toward the end of the war, it protected convoys out of Bantry Bay in Ireland.
After the war it served in many diplomatic missions and goodwill tours, and it was upgraded during those interwar years with tripod masts, an engine upgrade from the stricken North Dakota, and an increase in the caliber and number of its various guns.

Nevada during her running trials in early 1916

Nevada’s location at Pearl Harbor at the end of Battleship Row allowed it to maneuver during the surprise Japanese attack on December 7, 1941 that brought the US into World War II. It was the only ship to do so and as a result it became a priority target for the Japanese pilots. 
The Nevada sustained heavy damage, and would have suffered the same fate as the Arizona except for the fact that the shells in the main magazine were being exchanged for new and it was mostly empty at the time. The relatively thin armor on the deck made it particularly susceptible to bombing runs and the Nevada ended up running aground, suffering a total of 60 killed and 109 injured during the attack.

USS Nevada beached and burning as a result of damage sustained during the attack on Pearl Harbor

But the ship wasn’t done. It was repaired, upgraded, and sent to serve on convoy duty in the Atlantic Ocean. Even though the battleship was approaching 30 years old, it was still incredibly useful in the Battle of the Atlantic in case the Germans tried to use capital ships to destroy merchant shipping. This freed up newer and more advanced ships for other missions.
In June 1944, the Nevada unloaded a furious barrage in support of the D-Day invasion. Its sailors received a great deal of praise for their exceptional accuracy, and were thankful that in the 27 times their ship was straddled by the fire from shore batteries it was never hit.

Damage sustained to the bow of Nevada, photographed five days after the attack

After this Nevada sailed to the Pacific theater where it again pummeled landing spots, this time at Iwo Jima and in Okinawa. It survived a kamikaze attack that crashed directly on its main deck, proving those deck repairs were worth it!

After the war Nevada was deemed too old to continue in the fleet and was assigned as a target at the Bikini Atoll for atomic testing. The ship was painted bright orange and sat near the atoll like a neon sentry.

Prinz Eugen, before the Atomic bomb tests in the Bikini Atoll

 Nevada survived two different atomic tests, code named “Able” and “Baker.” In the first, the atomic bomb was delivered by bomber, and in the second one 24 days later, a bomb was detonated underwater. 

Nevada suffered heavy damage and was incredibly radioactive, but remained afloat and was towed back to Pearl Harbor for decontamination and other tests. It was later decommissioned and sunk as a gunnery practice target.

Throughout its career Nevada became a durable ship for the US Navy. It survived the devastation of Pearl Harbor, living to help pummel the Axis Powers into submission.
Even when its final assignment was supposed to be getting blown up by an atomic bomb, the ship was too stout to die. Its entire career is a testament to the inspiring awe of battleships and their seamen.