|
Cyrano4747 posted:Edit: the Japanese went so far as to put AA sights on their rifles to help calculate lead.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
Finnish conscripts were still trained to do that poo poo 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:yeah but for "optimistic gun things" the japanese are the worst, these are the people that put a bayonet on a machine gun Famously, Chesty Puller was shown a flamethrower and asked "so where do you mount the bayonet?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:By 'Transvaal Campaign 1880-1881' he means a 3 month 'conflict' with ~1000 total involved on each side and in which most activity consisted of Boers sniping at British forts on the next hill. She >:c bewbies posted:That all makes sense too...I guess what I find baffling is why no one did the math on the advantages of intermediate rounds once all of the other gear (machine guns and IDF and so on) came around to much more effectively engage stuff at longer ranges. I can kind of see wanting to finish out WWI with the old stuff just because of logistics and production concerns, but why on earth did they not make the switch in the intervening years? Pure organizational inertia? The critical part of machine guns and other support weapons is not that they exist, it's that you have enough of them to use them effectively. A machine gun can usually fire accurately out to 800 m, but that does not mean that simply having one machine gun in the squad is enough to deliver effective fire at 600 m. The French experience (which I'm citing a lot because I have a paper on it at hand) was that to deliver a sufficient volume of fire at 600 m, you needed the majority of the squad to have rifles effective at 600 m. A machine gun wasn't enough. (And again, French infantry doctrine assumed a very chaotic battlefield where the squad ends up scattered, so ideally every man in the squad can deliver effective fire at 600, not just the squad as a whole.) Also, machine guns and the trucks to carry tired machine gunners are expensive! (Also, "doing the math" is exactly what the US did in the 50s and 60s that led to the adoption of the 5.56 NATO round.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:with mosins? would that do anything the army just dusted off all this stuff "what to do if your tiger tank is attacked by a cobra"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Were any planes ever actually shot down with just rifles? Sure. You read about it now and again. Some aircraft were more vulnerable than others of course. P51s pretty notoriously were not getting home if you put a hole in the radiator and a rifle will do that just fine. Pilots are also less than bulletproof and barring a few dedicated ground attack aircraft usually weren’t surrounded by rifle-fire proof materials. There was a WW2 KIA recovery a few years ago that I remember from the pacific where a USN pilot was found in his wreckage with a bullet through the head from what was probably ground based rifle fire. Unlucky but that poo poo happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:with mosins? would that do anything Hogge Wild posted:Finnish conscripts were still trained to do that poo poo 20 years ago. I think people are missing that 7.7mm class rifle rounds are absolutely fine. People can shoot them accurately out to decent distances, you can carry a reasonable amount of them, they're not uncomfortable to shoot through a rifle, they work in machine guns too and when someone is shot by one they remain shot. Until you start to get assault rifles there's really no compelling reason to go to a smaller bullet. Look at what's happening today with 6.5mm class ammunition: Absolutely sod all because 5.5mm class ammunition is fine too. Maybe not 100% optimal but fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Look at what's happening today with 6.5mm class ammunition: Absolutely sod all because 5.5mm class ammunition is fine too. Maybe not 100% optimal but fine. 6.5 Grendel, because Alexander Arms needs a military contract damnit!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:6.5 Grendel, because Alexander Arms needs a military contract damnit! 6.8 SPC, because no u
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Quite possibly with some of the same Mosins in the less well equipped formations. I also liked the Lahti AT rifle being kept around for anti-helicopter duties. The FDF were pretty keen on shooting rifles at aircraft overall. Nope, the training was done with assault rifles. And the Lahti AT rifles were discarded in the 80s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
Going back to the thing about powder, you also run into problems with effective barrel length depending on the cartridge. Snubnose .357 Magnum revolvers are really popular for self-defense. Imagine my surprise when I was inspired by a GURPS weapon table to look up ballistics tests and I found that the ballistics on a .357 with a 2-inch barrel were about the same as a Glock 19 with top notch defensive ammo! The .357 Magnum case is extremely long, which lets you pack in a lot of powder and get huge velocity out of a long barrel, but you need a long barrel to get everything you can out of it. When you’re down to 2 inches, most of the powder comes out in a huge fireball while the bullet doesn’t do much better than a compact 9mm pistol. And the heavy bullet and lack of a slide to absorb some recoil means you’re also battering your hand pretty badly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:By 'Transvaal Campaign 1880-1881' she means a 3 month 'conflict' with ~1000 total involved on each side and in which most activity consisted of Boers sniping at British forts on the next hill. Most of it is flat grassland, with some gently rolling hills and a sparse tree cover. Occasionally you get big rock promontories with open space around them. There's really no where to hide if you're trying to move from one spot to another, any sizeable group is going to be spotted. If someone starts taking pot-shots from long range - which they will have the lines of sight to try - they don't have to be a good shot to do some damage, because they're probably going to have a good amount of time to plink away before you can find something to hide behind. You really couldn't find a better place for long range iron sight duels, outside of maybe Kansas or Nebraska.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Cessna posted:There's a thing known as "Golden BB." Yep. Was just going to post about the Golden BB...
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
Cessna posted:There's a thing known as "Golden BB." I also imagine there are morale benefits as well. Feeling like you can do something rather than just taking the attack. I also imagine on the few times it worked, the unit debating furiously whose shot actually accomplished the kill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:And the heavy bullet and lack of a slide to absorb some recoil means you’re also battering your hand pretty badly. .38 Special out of a aluminum-framed Airweight is less pleasant to shoot than .44 Magnum out of a Blackhawk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Kangxi posted:Do you count scuttled ships? Because the Oriskany was sunk in 2006 to make an artificial reef. Anyone know what the deal is with these forward prong thingies on Oriskany? Clearly catapult related, and other carriers seems to have them as well, but they seem to appear and disappear depending on the refit cycles. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:09
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Anyone know what the deal is with these forward prong thingies on Oriskany? Clearly catapult related, and other carriers seems to have them as well, but they seem to appear and disappear depending on the refit cycles. Bridle catchers. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7099/__trashed-9
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
They're what is called a "bridle catch." Older planes used a sort of sling-like mechanism (the "bridle") to attach to the catapult. The extensions were there to keep them from flying over the end of the deck when the plane was launched. Today's airplanes don't use the bridle system, so they don't need bridle catches anymore. Edit: Phanatic beat me to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Anyone know what the deal is with these forward prong thingies on Oriskany? Clearly catapult related, and other carriers seems to have them as well, but they seem to appear and disappear depending on the refit cycles. Bridle catcher. The Navy used to use a bridle - basically a heavy duty lanyard - to hook aircraft to the catapult's shuttle, and when the aircraft launched they would get flung off and forward. Initially the Navy considered them a one time use item and they got flung into the ocean. Later on they decided that was wasteful. Those prongs were set up to catch the bridles so they could be reused. They're angled down so the bridle doesn't bounce up and hit the aircraft. The Navy started replacing that system with integral launch bars on the aircraft, starting back in 1962. At this point I think there are no active NATO aircraft that use a bridle, so they got rid of the catchers entirely. For the Oriskany, I know the ship was built without them and then they were added in a refit, but I don't know if they came off and got put back on in between. If they did, it would have been because the Navy was going back and forth on what aircraft were being assigned to it, and whether it was worth recycling bridles given what the ship was doing. e: f,b
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:.38 Special out of a aluminum-framed Airweight is less pleasant to shoot than .44 Magnum out of a Blackhawk. I shot an M1917 revolver last week. The recoil of .45 ACP out of that gun with thin wood grips is outright painful. Ironically, the Mauser C96 was better to shoot than that or a Luger P08. It takes a few seconds to figure out how to hold it, but the recoil of 7.63mm is mild and it’s really accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Finnish conscripts were still trained to do that poo poo 20 years ago. But mind you, against helicopters which is actually a feasible target, or at least it can't just hover there idly. Shooting at a jet would be foolishness, you would be more likely to hit a nearby friendly that way when the bullets tumble down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
IIRC the first two settings on the G3's diopter sights are both zeroed at 200 meters but the first one is a V notch intended for shooting at helicopters or in low-light conditions, and you're supposed to use the other 200 meter one for regular shooting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:But mind you, against helicopters which is actually a feasible target, or at least it can't just hover there idly. Shooting at a jet would be foolishness, you would be more likely to hit a nearby friendly that way when the bullets tumble down. at planes too, and yes it wasn't very smart imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Knowing that mans terrible dress sense the uniform is either a shade of light blue or shining white. Speaking of Goering and Nazi production - this has probably been posted before, but I still get a laugh out of it... 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:But mind you, against helicopters which is actually a feasible target, or at least it can't just hover there idly. C.M. Kruger posted:IIRC the first two settings on the G3's diopter sights are both zeroed at 200 meters but the first one is a V notch intended for shooting at helicopters or in low-light conditions, and you're supposed to use the other 200 meter one for regular shooting. In the early Cold War era, if a helicopter can shoot at you, a G3 is probably sufficient to shoot back. The helicopter probably has a PKT on a wobbly mount, you have a G3 on a stable mount, and the helicopter is big and probably coming in for landing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:You really couldn't find a better place for long range iron sight duels, outside of maybe Kansas or Nebraska. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:19c afghanistan  Shame on me for forgetting that one
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:
i hate smokeless powder /hipster
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:or tibet, which is why those guys have tripod-mounted black powder matchlocks for the longest loving time pics
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:pics  1938, here are some musket dudes with their bipods flipped up there's at least one other guy in this series of photos incorrectly identified as an "archer" http://www.manchuarchery.org/photographs-tibetan-archers here's one for sale. have a million quid? http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2016/supreme-number-one-l16214.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:
Thanks! Hah, unfortunately not.  So drat cool!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:
edit: the thing is these guns are very long and the assumption is that you're going to have a lot of time to set yourself up, hence the bipod HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Please tell me that those bipods are sharp enough to work as bayonets, like they look. And if yes, tell me about other armies doing similar things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
tonberrytoby posted:Please tell me that those bipods are sharp enough to work as bayonets, like they look. also like i keep saying, modernity means everyone is a dragoon edit: if you're sniping in the mountains at someone in a valley, they won't smell your match either HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
the pokey part is probably to stabilize on rocks and stuff more so than to poke other people
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:also like i keep saying, modernity means everyone is a dragoon things that aren't dragoons light leg infantry tankers artillery literal shipboard marines
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:
those are magoons
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:things that aren't dragoons Maybe . . . but chances are they don't walk literally everywhere. quote:tankers this is legit - the tank is basically the horse, they fight from the tank, thus cav quote:artillery quote:
Still dragoons - the boat is just a big horse edit: possible other explanation, they're the dragoon contingent that stays behind to mind and guard the "horses"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Space Dragoons is kinda catchy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:41 |
|
|
All those things can get airlifted by the horses of the sky
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:32
|
|
