how each of these "w"? im guessing it means work. and three weapons from then that are "new"? are:
Rifles. All nations used more than one type of firearm during the First World War. The rifles most commonly used by the major combatants were, among the Allies, the Lee-Enfield .303 (Britain and Commonwealth), Lebel and Berthier 8mm (France), Mannlicher–Carcano M1891, 6.5mm (Italy), Mosin–Nagant M1891 7.62 (Russia), and Springfield 1903 .30–06 (USA). The Central Powers employed Steyr–Mannlicher M95 (Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria), Mauser M98G 7.92mm (Germany), and Mauser M1877 7.65mm (Turkey). The American Springfield used a bolt-action design that so closely copied Mauser’s M1989 that the US Government had to pay a licensing fee to Mauser, a practice that continued until America entered the war.
Machine guns. Most machine guns of World War 1 were based on Hiram Maxim’s 1884 design. They had a sustained fire of 450–600 rounds per minute, allowing defenders to cut down attacking waves of enemy troops like a scythe cutting wheat. There was some speculation that the machine gun would completely replace the rifle. Contrary to popular belief, machine guns were not the most lethal weapon of the Great War. That dubious distinction goes to the artillery.
Flamethrowers. Reports of infantry using some sort of flame-throwing device can be found as far back as ancient China. During America’s Civil War some Southern newspapers claimed Abraham Lincoln had observed a test of such a weapon. But the first recorded use of hand-held flamethrowers in combat was on February 26, 1915, when the Germans deployed the weapon at Malancourt, near Verdun. Tanks carried on a man’s back used nitrogen pressure to spray fuel oil, which was ignited as it left the muzzle of a small, hand-directed pipe. Over the course of the war, Germany utilized 3,000 Flammenwerfer troops; over 650 flamethrower attacks were made. The British and French both developed flame-throwing weapons but did not make such extensive use of them.
there are many more, but here are 3 i found from a trustworthy source!
Answer:
operating cash flow = $21307.5
Explanation:
given data
sales = $50,000
costs = $23,000
depreciation expense = $2,250
interest expense = $2,000
tax rate = 23 percent
solution
we get here operating cash flow for that
EBIT = Sales - Costs - Depreciation .............1
EBIT = $50,000 - $23,000 - $2,250
EBIT
= $24750
and taxes is
taxes = tax rate × EBIT ..........2
taxes = 0.23 × $24750
taxes = $5692.5
so here operating cash flow that is
operating cash flow = EBIT + Depreciation - Taxes ..........3
operating cash flow = $24750 + $2,250 - $5692.5
operating cash flow = $21307.5
The case filed by Gerwin against Baker will be null and void, as thee is no existence of any legal contract between the parties as such.
<h3>What is a legal contract?</h3>
A contract is said to be a legal one when the party who is presented with such an offer accepts on the terms and with a condition that the offer must be for legal activities.
In case when any of the criterion mentioned above are not followed by the offeror or the offeree, then in such case, any lawsuit filed against the plaintiff will be considered as null and void.
Hence, it can be concluded that there is no legal contract between Gerwin and Baker, and thus their cases are null and void.
Learn more about a legal contract here:
brainly.com/question/3208041
#SPJ1
Answer:
Active traders often group themselves into two camps: the day traders and the swing traders. Both seek to profit from short-term stock movements (versus long-term investments), but which trading strategy is the better one? Here are the pros and cons of day trading versus swing trading.
Answer and explanation:
<em>Language </em>and <em>culture </em>affect directly in people's communication. Somebody who grew up in the jungle surrounded by its people is likely to have an open way of communicating with others since that individual has grown up within a society that is in great part his or her family. On the other hand, someone who is raised in a metropolis is likely to be more careful while communicating with others since that person is more exposed to different people with different cultures that react differently to situations.