|
Fangz posted:Well, consider that the 76mm and 85mm used by the T34 used the same ammo as their standard 76mm and 85mm field guns. To add though, this differs by nation. The 75mm guns used by the Panthers didn't even share ammo with the Germans' 75mm anti-tank guns. Hey, throwing in an additional ammo type or three shouldn't be an issue for the superior german logistics, rigggght? 
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Fangz posted:Well, consider that the 76mm and 85mm used by the T34 used the same ammo as their standard 76mm and 85mm field guns. The 52-K was an AA gun, the D-44 was an anti-tank gun, neither was made for indirect fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:dude How can you mention the sword and not post a picture of it?!! C'mon, man!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The 52-K was an AA gun, the D-44 was an anti-tank gun, neither was made for indirect fire. Alright, only the 76mm varieties then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
10 Beers posted:How can you mention the sword and not post a picture of it?!! C'mon, man! It is a Cool and Good museum and you should support it by travelling to Dresden and paying the entry fee 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:It is a Cool and Good museum and you should support it by travelling to Dresden and paying the entry fee Ich verstehe nur ein bissen und spreche kein Deutsch. I have no loving clue if that's right or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Ich verstehe nur ein bissen und spreche kein Deutsch. Speako no Krauto, but if you can't look at a sword that also does eight other things or a four-barrelled matchlock pistol and enjoy yourself without a sign that says "four-barreled matchlock pistol", I don't know what to tell you
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Speako no Krauto, but if you can't look at a sword that also does eight other things or a four-barrelled matchlock pistol and enjoy yourself without a sign that says "four-barreled matchlock pistol", I don't know what to tell you But if I can't speak the language how do I avoid the foraging mercenaries. (I feel super weird not speaking the language when I go somewhere)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:It is a Cool and Good museum and you should support it by travelling to Dresden and paying the entry fee Actually hoping to go to Germany for my honeymoon next year. I'll put it on the list!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Speako no Krauto You've been in amongst the tommies at Wipers too long mate
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As in, I thought that they actually lost velocity sufficiently that they became non-lethal, like being pelted with metallic hailstones. Unless you fire a gun at a perfect vertical angle so that the bullet is just tumbling as it returns to earth it will be capable of killing someone on the way down. People get killed all the time by celebratory gunfire shot in the general direction of "45 degrees above horizon thataway."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:But if I can't speak the language how do I avoid the foraging mercenaries I advise not avoiding them, they're totally chill as long as you drink some beer and laugh when it seems indicated to do so
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Unless you fire a gun at a perfect vertical angle so that the bullet is just tumbling as it returns to earth it will be capable of killing someone on the way down. People get killed all the time by celebratory gunfire shot in the general direction of "45 degrees above horizon thataway." I thought that was tested and a bullet does not have sufficient terminal velocity to kill someone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
This seems like a good a thread to post this in as any: it seems a legendary treasure gallon, sunk 1708 by the Royal Navy in the Caribbean, has been found. How much treasure? somewhere in the realm of $4-17 billion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I thought that was tested and a bullet does not have sufficient terminal velocity to kill someone? A bullet fired at any angle but 90 isn't going to be falling at terminal velocity, it's going to be on a ballistic trajectory with the correct end still pointing forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I thought that was tested and a bullet does not have sufficient terminal velocity to kill someone? Even a little angle and the bullet is going to still have a lot of lateral energy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:dude How about the pistol that's also an ornate wind-up clockwork with a tiny little clockwork bird that pops out of the works and sings? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd8SaNzeZqk Someone built a cuckoo Glock.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:How about the pistol that's also an ornate wind-up clockwork with a tiny little clockwork bird that pops out of the works and sings? lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:A bullet fired at any angle but 90 isn't going to be falling at terminal velocity, it's going to be on a ballistic trajectory with the correct end still pointing forward. My physics is lacking but I would have thought that a lot of high angles would allow the bullet to reach terminal velocity, as the proportion of the muzzle velocity lost to gravity would approach 100% as you approach 90 degrees perpendicular to the ground. So, the angle at which the bullet would be limited to terminal velocity would be the fraction of 90 degrees equal to the fraction the bullet's terminal velocity is, of the muzzle velocity, minus the duration at which the bullet's deceleration in-air would also slow it to terminal velocity over the duration of its arc. I wouldn't be able to calculate it but I would have thought it'd be a problem with a lot of higher angled shooting, for any projectile that isn't either heavy, or reliant on non-kinetic properties to do damage (eg, an artillery shell) If I knew how to calculate it and had the relevant information for different ammunition I'd work it out for a few different ammo types with wolfram alpha. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:My physics is lacking but I would have thought that a lot of high angles would allow the bullet to reach terminal velocity, as the proportion of the muzzle velocity lost to gravity would approach 100% as you approach 90 degrees perpendicular to the ground. Terminal velocity isn't the same for every body in motion. Drag, the density of the object, and other stuff all play a big role. A bullet that is still moving nose-forward and is spin stabilized is going to be moving along faster than one that's tumbling. Denser, more compact objects will also have a higher terminal velocity. My physics is seriously lacking so I can't really go into the science details and am just parroting what I've read people who DO know that poo poo write. Note that the wikipedia article says that someone calculated that a .30-06 rifle round can still be moving 300 FPS at terminal velocity, which is plenty fast to kill someone. To put things into perspective a .45 out of a pistol is moving at ~800 feet per second at the muzzle with a bullet that weighs in the same ballpark as a lot of common rifle rounds. It's not as deadly as getting shot by the same bullet at muzzle velocity, but it's also not the annoying to mildly dangerous lead rain that you seem to be imagining. There's also the buckets of anecdotal evidence out there of people being seriously injured or killed by celebratory gunfire. It's quite the problem in areas of central asia and the Balkans. edit: google to the rescue: Use the terminal velocity formula, v = the square root of ((2*m*g)/(ρ*A*C)). m = mass of the falling object. g = the acceleration due to gravity. ρ = the density of the fluid the object is falling through. A = the projected area of the object. C = the drag coefficient bullets are dense with a relatively low surface area and, if they're still spin stabilized and falling nose first (as they will be in anything but a near 90 degree shot) will have a low drag coefficient. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Sep 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Enh, I've seen some compelling videos on YouTube showing people doing long range shots demonstrating that rifle rounds crossing below the sound barrier start tumbling and losing speed rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Enh, I've seen some compelling videos on YouTube showing people doing long range shots demonstrating that rifle rounds crossing below the sound barrier start tumbling and losing speed rapidly. Is that compelling evidence taofledermaus If not, why not
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Enh, I've seen some compelling videos on YouTube showing people doing long range shots demonstrating that rifle rounds crossing below the sound barrier start tumbling and losing speed rapidly. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it causes it to veer off the desired course (which is a big deal for those kinds of insane long range target shots) but doesn't actually tumble. It's also really dependent on bullet shape. Phone posting so gently caress trying to get links to work, but google "transonic ballistics" to read more about it than you probably want to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
If your round's CG shifts behind the center of pressure (due to going subsonic or whatever), it's probably going to tumble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
To make up for my terrible amateur ballistics spergery and in keeping with the idea of bullets falling out of the sky I will share a perennial favorite image: I consider this to be a much superior method of shooting people you may not otherwise be able to reach. Especially as if 88 submachineguns are not sufficient the craft would also have carried a 76mm cannon in the belly, or two pairs of 37mm and 45mm cannons. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Sep 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:39
|
|
Tias posted:What's a racing spoon? 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:If your round's CG shifts behind the center of pressure (due to going subsonic or whatever), it's probably going to tumble. A rifle bullet starts out with the CG behind the CP, which is why you need to spin it to keep it stable and pointing in roughly the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To make up for my terrible amateur ballistics spergery and in keeping with the idea of bullets falling out of the sky I will share a perennial favorite image: You know what they say about asking a Russian to design a machine that massacres Germans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7996596 Here is a study on the dangers of falling bullets. It can be summed up as the velocity it hits with is lower, but that's off set by the fact that a bullet going downward has a higher probability of striking the head. Note that the 118 cases were cases at King/Drew Medical Center in LA over 7 year. So physics arguments aside, it caused enough fatalities in one LA ER alone to be grounds to write a paper on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
There's also the psychological factor to consider. Imagine you're some poor sap caught in one of those barrages, and there are hundreds of bullets of indeterminate origin striking the ground in all around you. "They're probably not going fast enough to kill you" is not much of a reassurance, and you'll really not want to go out there and put that to the test with your own head. And that's really the goal with suppressive fire, as long as the enemy soldiers in the targeted area are kept from moving about much, it's working.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:You know what they say about asking a Russian to design a machine that massacres Germans. something something you shoot them because they have swords! something something
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:something something you shoot them because they have swords! something something Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 11:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:You know what they say about asking a Russian to design a machine that massacres Germans. Neal Stephenson is a hack. That's what you say.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
On the IF by tanks thing: Israel is rather infamous for using tank guns as artillery, as late as 2015, maybe even this year. It is rather inaccurate, but in keeping with their doctrine of collective punishment, hitting civilians is a feature, not a bug.. What the hell 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 11:57
|
|
|
Tias posted:What the hell
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:do not attempt to understand the english I think that that spoon thing was an Oxford or Cambridge tradition, the one who passed the annual final exams with the lowest still passing grade was given a spoon by other students. It stopped at some point when the spoons got stupidly big and the faculty thought they were dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
Now I'm curious what the Greek on the handle says. (Of course it's going to be inscribed in Greek, it's Oxbridge  ...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Neal Stephenson is a hack. That's what you say.  would have gone with sword-worshipping navel-gazing Mary Sue hack but a hack all the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 12:45
|
|
|
bewbies posted:It was really common in WW2 and Korea, but modern tanks (at least in the US) don't do it at all...the guns can't elevate enough, they don't use HE rounds, and the firepower of a tank's main gun is pretty puny compared to a modern howitzer or mortar. When you can't elevate the gun, you elevate the tank 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 08:32 |
|
|
Polish army museum! The inside is overwhelming (I don't think I'm capable of giving a poo poo about bolt-action rifles anymore) and confusingly laid, snd not much in the way of English text. A poo poo ton of gear dating abck to X century, more armor and uniforms and guns than you can shake a pike at. Would recommend. Happy to have finally seen a Sherman and a Centurion. Back to page 81 with me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 13:30
|
|
