|
Squalid posted:Possibly related to the German radio shortage, US radios used giant Brazilian crystals to send messages through some kind of wizardry. The blockade obviously meant Germany had to find an alternative, probably less effective, manufacturing process. Basically when a electric current is passed through a crystal it distorts at a certain frequency. So you can put the crystal in a oscillator to create a carrier signal at a certain frequency. Then you can inject information with a modulator (either amplitude or frequency) into the oscillation and send it to a amplifier and then a antenna. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu3ASt2kwFo
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
Today, in 1945, Denmark became free, as German troops in Denmark surrendered. As is custom, I'm placing a candle in my window to honour those who died during the occupation 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
German Silicon Valley would probably be less funny so I'm fine with how things turned out
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
InAndOutBrennan posted:
i don't remember him having a lightsaber also: 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:German Silicon Valley would probably be less funny so I'm fine with how things turned out We even had a second attempt long after the war to give it the good old college try, but Telefunken in its infinite wisdom decided the German Orion PC was a bad idea. And so the last chance to get in there before the IBM PC revolutionized computers was lost and gone. That was the last great German computer innovation. Nowadays Telefunken is only a brand, the old corporation collapsed long ago. (I wonder why???)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Weren't the Ultra computers and the stuff the Allies used for decryption more advanced than the German computers?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:So how sloped does the armour need to be for it to count, and what would be the earliest examples for the various Allied nations? Until late in the war with the Panther (initially a direct copy of the T-34) and Tiger II, German armor was at a right angle to the ground, a slope of 0 (or 90 - depends on if you're measuring from vertical or horizontal) degrees. This is the worst possible angle for armor to be at, because it offers almost no chance of deflecting the round, and creates the maximum surface area that must be armored. Precisely how much of a slope is ideal is a matter of balance - the sharper the slope, the better the chance of rounds deforming or deflecting becomes, but slopes put pressure on interior space and increase manufacturing complexity. However, the German choice of "none" is always the wrong answer. The first users of sloped armor were the French, who had sloped frontal armor on their 1916 Schneider CA1 armored vehicle. It was used on most post WWI French tanks, although imperfectly due to the complications of a turret. The US seem to have used sloped armor starting with the M2 medium in 1939, the British Crusader of 1941 seems to have been their first foray into it (although they did build quite a few slopeless vehicles for a number of reasons, the most famous example of which came with an apology letter in every tank), and the Soviets appear to have started using it with the BT-5 in 1935. quote:There's very little in terms of rifles for the Germans, unless you count most small arms as rifles. If you list the Mp44 as a rifle (for assaulting, you see!) then its pretty advanced compared to other nations. The Stg-44 was the only advanced rifle used by WWII Germany. Their main rifle was a slightly updated 1890s design, a close cousin to the Springfield rifle (which was slightly better) that the US army was phasing out at the time, their famous FG-42 was essentially a lighter analog to the M1918 BAR or the exact analog to the M1941 Johnson Machine Gun, which was very similar. The Gewehr 41 was garbage (heavy, inaccurate, and unreliable) and the improved Gewehr 43 was only viable due to a direct copy of the mechanism from the Soviet SVT rifle. German artillery was decent, but not particularly innovative. They never developed some of the Allied innovations in shell design, and didn't put enough effort and industry into making sure they could move their towed guns around, which was a huge problem. quote:
quote:Allied jet fighters didn't start before the Germans, who had at least two separate aircraft flying under Jet power before anyone else, unless I'm missing something with regards to the testing and flight dates for the He-178 and the He-280. Hell, even the Italians beat everyone else but the Germans with the Caproni Campini N.1. British jet experimentation began in 1936, and the first working engine was built in 1937, but the RAF put development on the back burner for a long time because they were still able to improve piston-engined aircraft considerably, and they didn't want to waste time developing and retooling for a radically new kind of aircraft when they needed to massively build up their arsenal of perfectly good planes already. The only reason that Germany flew jets first in 1939 was because their engine was being developed by a private company rather than a government agency, and thus had more discretion in funding. The Reich banned jet research not long after the Heinkel aircraft flew (for the same reasons the British used - there was a war to fight) and only took them up again because of desperation. quote:The Panzerfaust was before the Panzerschreck, and started development at around the same time as the M1 Bazooka, so that's more a draw than anything else. And the Russians were the first to put rockets onto aircraft, but I can't say I've heard people say the Germans were the first so I dunno The Panzerfaust was just a small recoilless rifle, little different from weapons that were very popular with armies at the time. The Germans are often credited with introducing the man-portable anti-tank rocket, but their first such weapon was a copy. I'm rather surprised you haven't heard the notion that they put rockets on planes first - it's a pretty common Wehraboo (Luftaboo?) claim.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The He-219 wasn't terrible, but the earlier P-61 was considerably better. The Ju-88 was not a very good bomber, having been designed under the 1930s "fast bomber" concept intended to create a bomber too fast to intercept, which predictably failed. I don't know that it was that predictable at the time. Hell, the Mosquito was a light bomber that was bloody hard to intercept, and that was with radar. In the environment of the mid 30s, when there was no radar, just 'some bloke in a shed on the ground telephoning central HQ to indicate a bomber went overhead', the fast bomber wasn't that dumb an idea, it just got overtaken by technology.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Wasn't the fast bomber a totally reasonable concept in WWII? The issue was that the Luftwaffe wanted to do strategic bombing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Weren't the Ultra computers and the stuff the Allies used for decryption more advanced than the German computers? There essentially were no German computers. I mean, there was this guy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Zuse who did all sorts of fascinating stuff, but the German military wasn't really interested in computers unlike the British and later the Americans. Edit: configurable vaguely general-purpose digital ones made out of electronics, that is. As opposed to analogue hardware or indeed human beings who were employed to do maths a la Hidden Figures. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Until late in the war with the Panther (initially a direct copy of the T-34) and Tiger II, German armor was at a right angle to the ground, a slope of 0 (or 90 - depends on if you're measuring from vertical or horizontal) degrees. This is the worst possible angle for armor to be at, because it offers almost no chance of deflecting the round, and creates the maximum surface area that must be armored. Precisely how much of a slope is ideal is a matter of balance - the sharper the slope, the better the chance of rounds deforming or deflecting becomes, but slopes put pressure on interior space and increase manufacturing complexity. However, the German choice of "none" is always the wrong answer. Very few tanks had no slope at all, and sloping armour appears basically as soon as tanks do. The problem is, like you said, how much slope is the right amount. The British started using slopes much earlier than the Crusader. The Medium Tank Mk.D had a sloped upper front plate. The Vickers Mk.E did, the Light Tank Mk.VI did, basically every single design had some kind of sloping to help with ricochet. Once you get past the mid 1930s, you see it used a lot more, for instance the Cruiser Tank Mk.II has very prominent slopes on the front of the hull and sides of the turret. The Soviets inherited a sloped front from the Renault FT in their MS-1, and then the BT-2 and T-26 inherited sloping of the hull from the Christie and Vickers tanks. The mid-1930s were also a time of experimentation with sloped armour (but much thicker than what the British had), where you see stuff like the T-46-5 and BT-SV. That's when the BT also got a conical turret, and the T-26 got a conical turret and turret platform. Even the Germans didn't go with "none". The PzI has a sloped front and there is slight sloping to the various mostly vertical plates. The difference is that they continued to use the same layout after that, which was very poorly adapted to V-shaped fronts and resulted in ridiculously cramped and difficult to maintain vehicles.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The Panzerfaust was just a small recoilless rifle, little different from weapons that were very popular with armies at the time. The Germans are often credited with introducing the man-portable anti-tank rocket, but their first such weapon was a copy. I'm rather surprised you haven't heard the notion that they put rockets on planes first - it's a pretty common Wehraboo (Luftaboo?) claim. I thought their credit was making disposable ones and mass producing them, the precursor to stuff like the LAW.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Weren't the Ultra computers and the stuff the Allies used for decryption more advanced than the German computers? I remember having a long argument about this, with multiple effort-posts about the multiple computer-systems on both sides. I think the main reason that came up was that not the computers were better, but instead the allies (especially the British) had the better mathematicians working for their side, helping with cracking German codes. Also there's this thing were in every world war, German encryption machines sooner or later end up in the other sides hands thanks to a mixture of bad luck and incredible arrogance. Having better computers doesn't really help if you're stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I don't know that it was that predictable at the time. Hell, the Mosquito was a light bomber that was bloody hard to intercept, and that was with radar. In the environment of the mid 30s, when there was no radar, just 'some bloke in a shed on the ground telephoning central HQ to indicate a bomber went overhead', the fast bomber wasn't that dumb an idea, it just got overtaken by technology. "Fast bomber" didn't just mean "fast enough that by the time you detect it you won't have time to vector fighters in", but "it doesn't matter if you vector fighters in, because the bomber is faster than the fighters". The Ju-88 was inteded to be the latter, inspired by the Spanish Civil war where the available fighters were slow and obsolete compared to the modern bombers. That is why the Ju-88 was initially designed with no defensive machine guns and wasn't built to take much damage - speed was to be the only defense the bomber needed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:There essentially were no German computers. I mean, there was this guy - Nah, I know that's plain wrong. But I'm not writing all that poo poo again on a Thursday evening just after work. On Saturday I'll try to get everything back together for an effort post about German computer technology in WWII.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
I always thought a panzerfaust was a disposable HEAT round lobber, rather that a recoiless rifle.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Nah, I know that's plain wrong. But I'm not writing all that poo poo again on a Thursday evening just after work. On Saturday I'll try to get everything back together for an effort post about German computer technology in WWII. You could also just link your earlier posts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I always thought a panzerfaust was a disposable HEAT round lobber, rather that a recoiless rifle. That's what a recoilless rifle is. Assuming you want to lob a suitably large round without taking your arm off. Of course you could also do it the British way and just stick a load of padding on it and tell people to suck it up.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
The Ju-88 was essentially a generation older than the B-25/26, and was still largely comparable performance-wise. The Do-217 is much more comparable to the B-25/26 in terms of both time period and size and was at least as good if not better than both.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Everything Gnoman is writing is wrong in some important aspect or another.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Wasn't the fast bomber a totally reasonable concept in WWII? The issue was that the Luftwaffe wanted to do strategic bombing. The issue with the fast bomber concept is that it was formulated in the early 30's, and it was not only a feasible concept but a practical reality for a few years. Bombers were after all already going flat out at a significant altitude while the fighters had to take off and come all the way up, then run an intercept while at best having parity in top speed. But the years just before the war saw incredible development in aviation technology, and fighters suddenly turned into sleek monoplanes with engines making twice the power they were making only a couple years before, much faster climb rates and a significant top speed advantage over the contemporary bombers. And so died the fast bomber (pretty literally in a lot of cases). The countries who had invested heavily into their airforce earlier in the 30's saw their equipment become obsolete basically overnight. The Soviet Union got hit particularly hard by this, they had one of the world best airforces for most of the 30's but WWII happened just as much of the aircraft were getting obsolete. Germany on the other hand made out like bandits on this since they started from scratch just as the changeover happened, ensuring they had a very modern airforce on war's eve. But Germany never really cared all that much about strategic bombing, they were pretty focused on tactical air support, that's the reason even their medium bombers had to come with (useless) dive bombing capabilities. The Fallschirmjägers were screaming for fire support you understand, so you must divebomb in a Ju-88 since we can't seem to locate any 16 inch guns. Kafouille fucked around with this message at 21:11 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:
Eh, you're being a bit unkind to German small arms. First all, you're focusing on rifles which to be blunt were not their main concern. Their entire conception of how infantry worked was built around an LMG supported by a squad of infantry. The rifle was considered a secondary concern, so they never really felt a need to develop a semi auto to increase the base of fire provided by the individual infantrymen. That wasn't their job - base of fire was the MG team's job. That probably wasn't the right way to go about that, but it's the logic that drove keeping the Mauser 98 action around as long as they did. Calling the G41 garbage is also a bit much. It was a maintenance queen and not really that good a gun, but it still did its job. Really, most countries that adopted semi-auto firearms abandoned them for the exact same reasons. Even the SVT-40 stopped being produced because of problems with keeping them running in the field and the increased production time and cost compared to a Mosin. The US was fortunate in that it was a rich as gently caress nation with industry protected by oceans, hence being able to field the Garand and M1 Carbine. Where the Germans really shine regarding small arms is in production processes. They were way ahead of the game when it came to using stamped metal components and most of the changes we see through the war are a result of this. Converting existing designs to use as many stamped components was a big part of this. The transition from the MP38 to the MP40 is the easiest example, but if you look at K98k production you see a lot of parts that were milled in 1934 being stamped by 1943. This was doubly important when it came to machine guns. The MG42 wasn't better than the MG34 because of the fearsome rate of fire (although that doesn't hurt) but because it was a very simple design that used a fuckton of stamped components as opposed to the MG34's much more machining intensive design. edit: you also seem to be comparing German rifles only to American rifles. The British, Japanese, French, and Italians were all using purely bolt action designs for their main service rifles throughout the war. The Soviets had the SVT but they started phasing it out due to the pressures of the eastern front in favor of making a gently caress ton of mosins and PPShs. As flawed as the G/K43 was the Germans are members of a very small club of nations fielding semi-auto rifles in large quantities. For the most part WW2 was a bolt action war. gently caress, even US soldiers were using tons of Springfields in 1942. Guadalcanal was almost entirely a 1903 affair at the beginning, and we had tons of them in N. Africa as well.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
People in this thread rightly oppose Wehraboos, but sometimes it goes a bit too far and anything a German ever touched becomes utter poo poo.
Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 21:07 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Eh, you're being a bit unkind to German small arms. First all, you're focusing on rifles which to be blunt were not their main concern. Their entire conception of how infantry worked was built around an LMG supported by a squad of infantry. The rifle was considered a secondary concern, so they never really felt a need to develop a semi auto to increase the base of fire provided by the individual infantrymen. That wasn't their job - base of fire was the MG team's job. That probably wasn't the right way to go about that, but it's the logic that drove keeping the Mauser 98 action around as long as they did. I mostly compared to American arms because the US had among the best rifles and light machine guns of the era, just as I would use Soviet equipment if I were doing a detailed comparison of heavy tanks or submachine guns, or the British if we were comparing interception systems. My overall point was not "Germany had the worst weapons" but "for nearly every bit of German equipment, at least one Allied power had better in service, and those that didn't have better usually had something just as good". Your critique is fair enough, however.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:I mostly compared to American arms because the US had among the best rifles and light machine guns of the era, just as I would use Soviet equipment if I were doing a detailed comparison of heavy tanks or submachine guns, or the British if we were comparing interception systems. My overall point was not "Germany had the worst weapons" but "for nearly every bit of German equipment, at least one Allied power had better in service, and those that didn't have better usually had something just as good". Your critique is fair enough, however. You would sort of hope that, though, given that the allied powers comprised most of the rest of the planet.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
So was the Garand on the same level of complexity/expense/reliability as the SVT and German semi-autos and the Americans could just afford the extra cost?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:i don't remember him having a lightsaber a typical Sveduritari mind trick
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:So was the Garand on the same level of complexity/expense/reliability as the SVT and German semi-autos and the Americans could just afford the extra cost? Eh, kinda/sorta. Really the Garand was mostly helped by having a development cycle that started a lot earlier. We started work on it in 1928 and it went through all sorts of retarded variations before arriving at the final version. A good example of this is the method for trapping gasses to cycle the action. Same as the Germans we initially went with a muzzle shroud to avoid drilling a hole in the barrel to tap gas, only where the Germans had to actually field the G41 we realized it was dumb well before it got anywhere near a war. Parts of the German design are, of course, needlessly complex. The Germans had an idea that they wanted the G/K43 to be a sniper platform as well which lead to all sorts of silliness. The scope rail actually isn't the worst of it - it has a screw adjustable trigger that just has no place on a combat rifle. The bolt is also a bit more clever than it needs to be. Rather than using a turning bolt it has bolt lugs that actually retract into the bolt as part of the cycling process, which leads to it being needlessly complex. The SVT-40 has a tilting bolt rather than the Garands's rotating bolt but that really doesn't factor in to reliability. The SVT is a good gun, incidentally. Germans loved them when they captured them but it just required a lot more cost and better manufacturing to build. In the circumstances of 1942 it just made more sense to stop producing them and focus on Mosins. I will say that the stock is a bit weak around the wrist. This isn't to say that the Garand is perfect. It's got a kind of retarded system for bedding it into the stock which, combined with the big, open, rotating bolt that ejects brass straight up, makes it a real bastard to either accurize or mount a scope on. All of the attempts to make a Garand sniper rifle were really unsatisfactory. Hell, the drawbacks that the Garand had are all part of the reason why the M14 was in turn such a lackluster rifle when it comes to making a target gun. Both the Garand and M14 are also a lot more susceptible to getting jammed up by mud and other poo poo getting into the receiver via the cutout behind the bolt than either the German or Soviet guns.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Yeah, its not like the Germans could ever be the best at something, clearly there were only as good or worse than everyone else! 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Also the fast bomber concept was due to engines getting more powerful but fighter aircraft development lagged behind. This, in turn, caused bombers to have a higher speed than anything that should've intercepted them. If and when that advantage was lost, either due to better engines put into fighters or fighter design catching up, they generally relied on their ability to climb to higher altitudes than fighters could. Again, this was only temporary as design teams learned and implemented new ideas and vastly improved the quality and capability of the average fighter plane. Another issue that bombers faced, and which could not be countered by adding more speed (Unless you went full Arado), was the increased availability in medium and large caliber anti-aircraft guns.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Yeah, its not like the Germans could ever be the best at something, clearly there were only as good or worse than everyone else! Naw, it's mostly accepted that they led the way in advanced delousing and incineration technology.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:I mostly compared to American arms because the US had among the best rifles and light machine guns of the era, just as I would use Soviet equipment if I were doing a detailed comparison of heavy tanks or submachine guns, or the British if we were comparing interception systems. My overall point was not "Germany had the worst weapons" but "for nearly every bit of German equipment, at least one Allied power had better in service, and those that didn't have better usually had something just as good". Your critique is fair enough, however.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:It depends how exactly you're defining "light machine gun" for this, but TBH I think that's the one area in which Germany is pretty much definitively "the best" given that their LMGs were also perfectly capable of filling the MMG and HMG roles. At MMG+ you've got stiff competition from the Vickers and Browning families. I've always thought of the MG34 and MG42 as medium machine guns, which is the basis of what I was saying. Those were very fine weapons, although their push for higher and higher firing rates was probably unnecessary (which most postwar weapons seem to agree with, as fire rate has dropped a fair bit). There are a lot of varying definitons as to where to draw the line, mine is "If you can practically aim and fire it like a rifle, it is a light; if you can only fire it from the bipod or unaimed shots while moving, it is a medium", and the 34 and 42 are more in the latter category.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Shooting while moving is not a thing that people really do with any gun unless they're house clearing, in which case you have left the MG outside. You can fire the MG42 from the shoulder like a rifle, it's just not a great idea for the same reasons that it's not a great idea to do it with a BAR when you can get yourself a nice firing position and bipod up. In "spherical Battalions in a vacuum" textbook fire and movement attack practice terms the Germans were the winners at LMG I think.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
It's not being a Wheraboo to acknowledge they did some stuff well. They conquered a big chunk of the world and fought a losing war for years. The Wheraboo poo poo is the whitewashing of the Whermacht's role in the Holocaust, acting like Rommel was some upstanding guy, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Possibly related to the German radio shortage, US radios used giant Brazilian crystals to send messages through some kind of wizardry. The blockade obviously meant Germany had to find an alternative, probably less effective, manufacturing process. Oh god there's a lady with zero protection equipment fiddling with an xray machine at 12:30.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's what a recoilless rifle is. Assuming you want to lob a suitably large round without taking your arm off. It could also be a rocket, for a similar effect. Also the PIAT is a fine and serious weapon for manly men 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Until late in the war with the Panther (initially a direct copy of the T-34) and Tiger II, German armor was at a right angle to the ground, a slope of 0 (or 90 - depends on if you're measuring from vertical or horizontal) degrees. This is the worst possible angle for armor to be at, because it offers almost no chance of deflecting the round, and creates the maximum surface area that must be armored. Precisely how much of a slope is ideal is a matter of balance - the sharper the slope, the better the chance of rounds deforming or deflecting becomes, but slopes put pressure on interior space and increase manufacturing complexity. However, the German choice of "none" is always the wrong answer. Sloped armour's already been talked about but many nations had at least some sloping, but the major issue is how much sloping would fit your own definition. The Panther and Tiger II weren't the only sloped armour vehicles at the German's disposal, as they had the Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer IV, and Hetzer, among others. How much sloping they have, whether it be in degrees or number of sides and so on is something that needs to be defined before one can properly argue over its availability with the Germans. If the M60 was "heavily" influenced, then does that mean the FG-42 was super advanced for its time? Just trying to figure out how you compare stuff here. Not particularly innovative? Care to explain, or is your sole example VT fuzes? Also, not being able to move artillery is not a problem with their artillery, it is a problem with their automotive industry's capabilities. As for the aircraft, you mentioned Bf-109, Fw-190, and Me-262, why the hell do those three have no scrutiny but everything I named has problems and "Isn't all the great". poo poo, the Ju-88 saw production for the entire war and was surpassed by the Do-217 (Which I'm sure is super inferior to anything the allies have) but still saw a lot of use. Again, the Bf-110 wasn't terrible and saw good use as either a night fighter or bomber destroyer, many nations adopted the flying circle for defensive purposes. What did the allies use in place of the Fw-189? The Heinkel HeS-1, the jet engine, was first built in September 1937, beaten by the Brits who built their first engine in April 1937. Neither government took to jet engines or jet aircraft, so that's not an excuse for the Germans beating the British to the goal line. What did the Panzerfaust copy? Did other nations have very popular, hand portable, disposable, LAWs?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
spectralent posted:It could also be a rocket, for a similar effect. It's a fine and serious mortar that you're supposed to fire from the shoulder.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:44 |
|
OwlFancier posted:It's a fine and serious mortar that you're supposed to fire from the shoulder. With somebody to help you reload the fucker.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:37
|
|
