|
Though that does increase logistical demand.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Or rather than making the rifle a tiny bit more effective at a range where it's not very effective, add stuff that is, like more mortars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Or rather than making the rifle a tiny bit more effective at a range where it's not very effective, add stuff that is, like more mortars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Logistics wins wars, not doubling or tripling the range at which you can produce accurate fire. But delivering the bullet from the rifle chamber to the end user's face is the final and decisive part of the logistical chain that starts at the ammunition factory 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Generally "armor-piercing" is one of a big group of buzzwords like "assault weapons" that help scare people into passing legislation but ultimately don't hold up when you try to apply the definition to the real world. Normally it's applied to special ammunition made from certain materials, but pretty much every civilian hunting rifle out there just pretends Kevlar doesn't exist and only the most expensive hard plates (like $200 each) can withstand multiple blows from them....and only if they hit directly on the plate. The most common police body armor is Level II soft concealable vests, which are rated against most .357 Magnum and 9x19mm ammunition but can still be penetrated by stuff like heavy .357 hunting loads, larger calibers like .44 Magnum and above, higher velocity 9mm rounds, and alternative pistol rounds like .357 SIG. If you were to mandate the actual penetrative power as the definition of "armor-piercing", you'd end up banning virtually every civilian hunting rifle in existence. If you were to use typical police body armor as your point of reference, a massive number of handgun ammunition (including pretty much every cartridge used in handgun hunting) would now be banned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:But delivering the bullet from the rifle chamber to the end user's face is the final and decisive part of the logistical chain that starts at the ammunition factory However delivering the bullet in to the 5000l gasoline bladder that is next to the crate of rifle ammunition in the C-117 because the ammunition ~is sensitive for maximum pleasure/performance~ is an interesting deviation from logistical best practices
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:However delivering the bullet in to the 5000l gasoline bladder that is next to the crate of rifle ammunition in the C-117 because the ammunition ~is sensitive for maximum pleasure/performance~ is an interesting deviation from logistical best practices Shooting a container of gasoline usually does gently caress all except punch a hole in the container and spill gas on the ground. Yes, even tracer rounds. As hugely problematic as mythbusters is for anything ever they proved completely unable to do it with all sort of specialty ammo. You can also find all manner of youtube videos demonstrating this. Gas just doesn't like to explode unless it's vaporized. The one time I managed to get a 5 gallon gas can to blow up we had to put it on top of a few ounces of a pressure sensitive explosive (Tannerite) and stick a road flare in the ground about a foot away. The tannerite cracked the can and made it into a mist and the flare ignited the fireball. That was less of an exploding gas can and more of an improvised miniature fuel-air bomb. edit: for that matter solid shot small arms ammo (as most rifle ammo is) doesn't explode so much as it just burns. You get some little pops but without a chamber to contain the explosion it's about as menacing as one of those Black Cat firecrackers. Again, look it up on youtube, there was a huge demonstration done a while back where a giant stack of ammo was lit on fire surrounded by various household materials. THe projectiles wouldn't even go through drywall. They had a guy standing next to the blaze in a firefighter's outfit with no problems at all. It is quite the fire hazard, though. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Back on the horse. That was a busier weekend than I was expecting! Louis Barthas posted:First of all was my friend Tort, who, seated on the firing step, was moaning and groaning enough to break your heart, saying that he had a shattered leg. Upon inspection, all we could see was a tiny scratch on his heel, from which not one drop of blood had flowed. We teased him for being such a crybaby, but it turned out that he did have a little piece of shell fragment in the bone, which brought on gangrene, and they had to amputate his leg a few days later.  Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Shooting a container of gasoline usually does gently caress all except punch a hole in the container and spill gas on the ground. Yes, even tracer rounds. As hugely problematic as mythbusters is for anything ever they proved completely unable to do it with all sort of specialty ammo. You can also find all manner of youtube videos demonstrating this. Gas just doesn't like to explode unless it's vaporized. I was speaking less from a fire hazard perspective and more from a hey that 5000L of gasoline that we were transporting around won't actually get there. I know about the burning properties of ordinary small arms ammo, we were talking about that doofus who wanted to use more volatile propellants in small arms ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Tomn posted:Ask Us About Military History: PYF Burning Animals Judges 15:4-5 "Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took torches, and turned the foxes tail to tail and put one torch in the middle between two tails. When he had set fire to the torches, he released the foxes into the standing grain of the Philistines, thus burning up both the shocks and the standing grain, along with the vineyards and groves." I feel like the scripture glosses over the logistical challenge of obtaining and transporting 300 foxes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
why did the US navy still keep Torpedo Bombers after the battle of midway? Someone must have done the math on them and realized they contributed nothing to the war effort.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Judges 15:4-5 Or the challenge of getting foxes tied to each other to run out of your camp. Trench_Rat posted:why did the US navy still keep Torpedo Bombers after the battle of midway? Someone must have done the math on them and realized they contributed nothing to the war effort. That has as much to do with unescorted bombers sucking regardless as any particular flaw of torpedo bombers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Mr Enderby posted:Judges 15:4-5 The Lord giveth, even if thou maketh some really silly requests Trench_Rat posted:why did the US navy still keep Torpedo Bombers after the battle of midway? Someone must have done the math on them and realized they contributed nothing to the war effort. The sunk both Yamatos. I don't get where you heard they contributed nothing to the war effort, because that is very much the opposite of reality. And that is before all the work they did with regular bombs or depth charges hunting submarines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:why did the US navy still keep Torpedo Bombers after the battle of midway? Someone must have done the math on them and realized they contributed nothing to the war effort. The later torpedo bombers were better than the earlier devastators (?) and the later torpedoes were incredibly improved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:why did the US navy still keep Torpedo Bombers after the battle of midway? Someone must have done the math on them and realized they contributed nothing to the war effort. Torpedoes (and the bombers that carry them) are incredibly effective anti-ship weapons (just ask the Repulse and the Prince of Wales). Just as long as you don't give enemy fighter CAP free rein to install ventilation on them with extreme prejudice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Generally "armor-piercing" is one of a big group of buzzwords like "assault weapons" that help scare people into passing legislation but ultimately don't hold up when you try to apply the definition to the real world. Normally it's applied to special ammunition made from certain materials, but pretty much every civilian hunting rifle out there just pretends Kevlar doesn't exist and only the most expensive hard plates (like $200 each) can withstand multiple blows from them....and only if they hit directly on the plate. The most common police body armor is Level II soft concealable vests, which are rated against most .357 Magnum and 9x19mm ammunition but can still be penetrated by stuff like heavy .357 hunting loads, larger calibers like .44 Magnum and above, higher velocity 9mm rounds, and alternative pistol rounds like .357 SIG. It's worth noting that the Hague Convention forbids military use of hollowpoint bullets, because they cause more grievous injuries and it's not considered militarily justifiable. A civilian not wearing a bulletproof vest is more likely to survive being shot by an armour-piercing bullet of a given calibre, because they tend to stay together instead of expanding or fragmenting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Something like that, I think. Sorry, I couldn't find the English expression and my translation site got confused by that word. So the "American riflemen versus Redcoats" thing actually happened? I thought that didn't work. Though obviously this was just one tactic among many and not decisive by itself. Pretty sure the actual British army already had a counter for it too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Torpedoes (and the bombers that carry them) are incredibly effective anti-ship weapons (just ask the Repulse and the Prince of Wales). Or have torpedoes that fail due to differences in Earth's magnetic field across the globe. Or due to any reason in general. Was it just pure bad luck that Germany and USA had so much trouble with their torpedoes in WW2 or did everyone else have remarkably better (or perhaps less complicated) detonators? I assume those are the two navies that used more torpedoes during the war than anyone else did, so at least they were going to learn of the defects pretty quickly compared to some little league navy that might get the chance to torp' something once or twice a year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:So the "American riflemen versus Redcoats" thing actually happened? I thought that didn't work. Can someone with actual knowledge correct me here but how did they counter light infantry tactics? Off the top of my head you'd think the British would either use light infantry of their own or cavalry. Alternatively you could just ignore them, if its like 20 guys sniping at 10,000 do you really care? You probably lose more to the march than the 20 guys have bullets. If there are a lot of them could you just line up and fire huge volleys into the woods, "quantity has a quality all of its own and all that" or even just turn a bunch of cannon on them and reduce their hiding places to rubble and splinters?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Or have torpedoes that fail due to differences in Earth's magnetic field across the globe. Or due to any reason in general. Japan did pretty well. They also used torps a bunch and it tended to actually work. I guess that's what happens when you test your torpedoes 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Chamale posted:It's worth noting that the Hague Convention forbids military use of hollowpoint bullets, because they cause more grievous injuries and it's not considered militarily justifiable. A civilian not wearing a bulletproof vest is more likely to survive being shot by an armour-piercing bullet of a given calibre, because they tend to stay together instead of expanding or fragmenting. FMJ rounds are more practical for military purposes as they're generally suitable for both armored and unarmored targets instead of specializing, but I have a feeling the ban on expanding bullets has more to do with making war pretty and "humane" than actually being too cruel. Hollow point ammo is widely regarded as the best option for self-defense and hunting due to the traumatic injuries being more likely to cause a rapid stop and/or death in the target at the cost of a bigger hole. Hollow points are nowhere near explosives, incendiary weapons, white phosphorous, and other weapons regularly used against humans and probably give a less painful and gruesome demise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:FMJ rounds are more practical for military purposes as they're generally suitable for both armored and unarmored targets instead of specializing, but I have a feeling the ban on expanding bullets has more to do with making war pretty and "humane" than actually being too cruel. Hollow point ammo is widely regarded as the best option for self-defense and hunting due to the traumatic injuries being more likely to cause a rapid stop and/or death in the target at the cost of a bigger hole. Hollow points are nowhere near explosives, incendiary weapons, white phosphorous, and other weapons regularly used against humans and probably give a less painful and gruesome demise. That's true. The Hague Convention was created at a time when countries were more optimistic about the possibility of enforcing such a convention.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Japan did pretty well. They also used torps a bunch and it tended to actually work. I guess that's what happens when you test your torpedoes Well the US did test them, just not in a great manner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Or have torpedoes that fail due to differences in Earth's magnetic field across the globe. Or due to any reason in general. Both Germany and the US tried to get cute with magnetic detonators and the former experienced failures with them in during the Norwegian campaign that they turned around and fixed relatively quickly, but "luck" had nothing to do with the USN's troubles: even their contact detonators sucked because the testing methodology for both the contact and magnetic detonators was not good, and BuOrd refused to own up to their mistakes for so long. Even if we grant that not being able to anticipate the magnetic field change across an ocean was beyond the ordnance developers (I really don't think they'd be that shortsighted though), there's just no excuse for filling torps with concrete for test shots then wondering why war shots don't work right when you never accounted for the weight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Can someone with actual knowledge correct me here but how did they counter light infantry tactics? But if you are paralyzed by indecision, confusion, bureaucracy, stupidity, drunkenness, senility, rigid doctrine or some combination of the above your dudes are going to get shot up just standing around in the open being sniped at.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Cavalry works wonders on a bunch of guys spread out in a field. If that's not an option you can just march over and gently caress them up. Skirmishers can't hold ground very effectively when they can only fire a few shots a minute. Also the American riflemen probably weren't all spread out in a field but stuck to forests probably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Also the American riflemen probably weren't all spread out in a field but stuck to forests probably.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The whole "American rifleman" thing is pretty overblown. The US won the Revolutionary War with a large conventional army and significant financial, logistical, and naval support from a world power ally. While there were some significant guerrilla-style actions what they mostly contributed was preventing smaller regional British forces from combining with and aiding the main force in the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast. Notable exceptions were Kings Mountain and Cowpens in South Carolina, where the Overmountain Men with their squirrel rifles tore the British to pieces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:So the "American riflemen versus Redcoats" thing actually happened? I thought that didn't work. It works fine when you're a real army with cavalry and artillery support. It works poorly when you're a bunch of militiamen without that support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 22:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The whole "American rifleman" thing is pretty overblown. The US won the Revolutionary War with a large conventional army and significant financial, logistical, and naval support from a world power ally. While there were some significant guerrilla-style actions what they mostly contributed was preventing smaller regional British forces from combining with and aiding the main force in the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast.  Speaking of which, is there a good Shelby Foote's Civil War equivalent set of volumes for the American Revolution?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Wasn't the British response to the guerillas relatively gentle as well, apart from some massacres/incidents? I've heard the "fact" that they could have dealt with them much more harshly and effectively, but that sounds like a "sane, French George III" alt-history scenario to me. Not that I'm very well informed on the American Revolution. Well, there was a fair amount of house burning, civilian killing for both loyalists and patriots in several theaters, but that's I'd say more tangentially related to light infantry style fighting. I mean we associate it with guerilla war, but that's much more a matter of being able to, for instance, hide in the civilian population, which is what the whole retributive house burning is a response to. Not 'taking cover and aiming' specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Well, there was a fair amount of house burning, civilian killing for both loyalists and patriots in several theaters, but that's I'd say more tangentially related to light infantry style fighting. I mean we associate it with guerilla war, but that's much more a matter of being able to, for instance, hide in the civilian population, which is what the whole retributive house burning is a response to. Not 'taking cover and aiming' specifically. Something that's often forgotten is that a non-trivial amount of that happened between Americans. There were significant numbers of American loyalists to England, and violence between American rebels and loyalists. Americans today don't like to think about the fact that the American Revolution was also in part a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Something that's often forgotten is that a non-trivial amount of that happened between Americans. There were significant numbers of American loyalists to England, and violence between American rebels and loyalists. Americans today don't like to think about the fact that the American Revolution was also in part a civil war. My own ancestors were Mennonite farmers in Pennsylvania who moved to Canada after the revolution because they wanted to remain British subjects. There they remained until the Depression then WWII brought my grandfather back across the border for work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I have to ask, what sort of (legitimate, non-Russian-mafia) dealer sells armour piercing bullets? the good kind   Also all laws are ineffective. In Japan, where rifles are restricted, people just build rifles chambered in shotgun cartridges and do their sniping. The law wants to regulate intent, but the actual acts are based in reality and have physical laws governing them that legal laws can't just ignore. Rent-A-Cop posted:Especially when the range at which you can produce accurate fire is already well outside the range at which your soldiers can aim. A normal .308 or 8mm battle rifle of the last century is already mechanically capable of outshooting 99% of soldiers. I know, but that 1% is more interesting. It takes a real special kind of guy to shoot at a mile or more (mostly, currently). The kind of guy who takes a graphing calculator to a gunfight(but there's no reason to be doing the calculation with our own brains other than cost). I mean, self-firing guns already have been demonstrated to exist. Supposing we offload all the aiming business to a computer? Now it becomes a mechanical issue again. I think this sort of thing is perfect for COIN warfare, since it takes all of the stress and implementation concerns away from the soldier, letting him concentrate on whether it is morally right/politically viable to make the kill or not. Cyrano4747 posted:
That's what I'm saying man, lets put RDX in our brass. I also like the potential in coilguns. You could shoot metal sabots to save weight, or steel shelled explosives if you didn't want to do that. But OK, OK, this is A/T, not TFR. Clearly there is nobody else here who wants to speculate about the potential of these weapons systems. T___A posted:Yes the best way to increase accuracy is to increase rounds fired, as the more rounds a soldier fires the more accurate he becomes. Also firing more than round per trigger pull also increases accuracy. It would increase hits, not accuracy. The more shots you fire the more likely you are to miss at least some of them ergo your accuracy goes down. The goal with such a system would be like, shoot once from far away, then move, then shoot again, with the goal of killing hundreds of their guys per man-hour without losing a single soldier. Keldoclock fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 00:32
|
|
Do deer wear Kevlar now?
|
Keldoclock posted:That's what I'm saying man, lets put RDX in our brass. I also like the potential in coilguns. You could shoot metal sabots to save weight, or steel shelled explosives if you didn't want to do that. But OK, OK, this is A/T, not TFR. Clearly there is nobody else here who wants to speculate about the potential of these weapons systems. [Tell] me about the potential of these weapons systems. T___A posted:Yes the best way to increase accuracy is to increase rounds fired, as the more rounds a soldier fires the more accurate he becomes. Also firing more than round per trigger pull also increases accuracy. It works that way in XCOM. 
Slaan fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Targets killed: 1 of 1 is 100% accuracy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Targets killed: 1 of 1 is 100% accuracy Cars built: 1 of 1 is 100% job completion but you can still do it well, or poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Also all laws are ineffective. Keldoclock posted:since it takes all of the stress and implementation concerns away from the soldier, letting him concentrate on whether it is morally right/politically viable to make the kill or not. Some of this stuff is hinting at a very strange worldview
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Also all laws are ineffective. Yeah man, I mean murder has been banned for like thousands of years and people still kill each other. Clearly that approach isn't working.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Cythereal posted:Something that's often forgotten is that a non-trivial amount of that happened between Americans. There were significant numbers of American loyalists to England, and violence between American rebels and loyalists. Americans today don't like to think about the fact that the American Revolution was also in part a civil war. I think Kings Mountain, was it, pretty much wiped out the Loyalist militias as an effective force. The South for some reason had most of the Loyalist militia activity. They never organized quite as much in the North and mid-Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 01:57
|
|
