|
oh, and whoever was talking about ISIS with Mosins - I'm sure they have them. Getting 7.62x54r is no chore at all. The gun and ammo are ubiquitous as gently caress and if you've got nothing better it's preferable to not having a weapon at all. Iraqi insurgents used them all the time. There are just two problems: 1) a sniper rifle isn't just a gun with a scope. There are tons of examples in the US of scoped Mosins that can't hit a barn. Sniper rifles are made to be much, much more mechanically accurate than their battlerifle doppelgangers. The Russians in particular used two different production lines, and the sniper line got much more care during manufacturing. I own both a purpose-made m91/30 sniper and a couple standard m91/30 rifles and the difference in quality is very obvious, doubly so when you take them out to the range. Does this prevent people from doing it? No. Plenty of "snipers" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria have/are using bog standard 91/30s with a modern scope thrown on top. It still makes them a pretty lovely sniper rifle, inferior to any off the shelf hunting rifle or even an M16 with an optic. 2) that said, #1 doesn't really matter because being a dude with a 19th century bolt action rifle loving sucks when you're fighting soldiers with M16s. The difference in effective range between a rifle and intermediate rifle cartridge is a real thing but not as much of a hindrance as everything else the Mosin is lacking. If bolt action rifles were such a great budget choice for facing off modern armies every broke as poo poo third world country would still be using 100 year old bolt actions rather than the cheapest select fire assault rifle they can find (usually surplus AK derivatives). Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Aug 7, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
which is why this talk of firearms not evolving since the Moisin is extremely absurd Lead down range rules everything around me. edit: I think part of the issue is people can easily look at the question of "Have firearms advanced?" and think on an individual loadout level. A guy with a Moisin can kill a guy with an M-16 some percentage of the time, but a platoon of guys with M-16s is going to loving run roughshod on a platoon of guys with Moisins 100% of the time. Firearms and individuals don't exist in a vacuum - the development of firearms is directly interrelated to improved small unit and battlefield tactics. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:04
|
|
|
Why do we even have M4s with ACOGs when we could all just be using Krag-Jorgensens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
And better yet, modern weapons are a hell of a lot lighter than a Mosin, so that can constrain the Mosin havers in other ways too. It's a win-win for the guys shooting at them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Why do we even have M4s with ACOGs when we could all just be using Krag-Jorgensens? Krag-Jorgensen is also much more fun to say. Checkmate, barbie gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/7z_dUOhkygY?t=8s : Geographically inaccurate, but no less powerful for that. 100 Years Ago It's another two-for-one day. Again, most of the rest of the war has politely taken a back seat so's we can focus on Gallipoli. First we have the shambles at Suvla Bay, which has taken about ten hours to degenerate into utter, total, and complete farce. It may be Kitchener's Army here, but the Guards and Gurkhas would have had the devil's own job doing any better with the senior officers these poor buggers had. And at the Nek, this is the day when the 3rd Australian Light Horse claims its final resting places: in the history books, in Mel Gibson movies, and in No Man's Land at the foot of Baby 700. The story here is slightly different; over-optimistic and far too complicated planning, rather than incompetence in carrying a plan out. The result is the same; a day of death and failure. The British official history notes simply that "Nothing was achieved today".
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Why do we even have M4s with ACOGs when we could all just be using Krag-Jorgensens? I got to play with a Krag the other day in 30-40, it was pretty rad. I want one now. That mag design is so goofy and also rad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Firearms evolution tracks both firearms technology and the situation on the battlefield. Designs can reach an evolutionary peak for a specific situation and become useless when the situation changes. Look at the heavy machine guns used in WWI. I'm not sure you could improve much on the Maxim or Spandau if you're defending a static position in that environment. The moment that someone invents a useful tank and battlefields become fluid again, those weapons become relics. The same thing could happen to the current generation of assault rifles next time there's a big change in battlefield conditions. We could be sitting here in 20 years talking about how the assault rifle is useless in a battlefield dominated by armored drones, or how intermediate cartridges became militarily useless once everyone started wearing the fancy body armor of 2022, but weapons firing some fancy AP round with targeting computers represent the height of firearm evolution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Except the HMG was and is still extremely useful in battlefield applications even after the advent of tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Except the HMG was and is still extremely useful in battlefield applications even after the advent of tanks. However, the heavy water cooled HMG made to fire a day at a time if need be wasn't the later HMG used in later conditions. I wonder what other people in the thread think of the French love of big ol' rifle grenades for modern combat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:oh, and whoever was talking about ISIS with Mosins - I'm sure they have them. Getting 7.62x54r is no chore at all. The gun and ammo are ubiquitous as gently caress and if you've got nothing better it's preferable to not having a weapon at all. Iraqi insurgents used them all the time. Hell they found a warehouse of StG-44s that were sent to Syria decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:1) a sniper rifle isn't just a gun with a scope. I was assuming Simo Häyhä was using just your average standard issue Mosin, since I was assuming he was using a regular one with iron sights, rather than taking a special one with the scope removed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Hell they found a warehouse of StG-44s that were sent to Syria decades ago. Source? I'd love to see pics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:I was assuming Simo Häyhä was using just your average standard issue Mosin, since I was assuming he was using a regular one with iron sights, rather than taking a special one with the scope removed. Simo Hayha is an odd situation. First off, the Finns were obsessive about accuracy from their rifles. In the 20s they rebuilt the arsenal of Mosins that they inherited when they broke away from Russia. The most important part of that was all new barrels manufactured by some very good companies. SIG, for example, made a ton of them. The result is that they are much, much more accurate than your run of the mill Russian/Soviet Mosin. Still not sniper rifle quality, but far more accurate than your average battle rifle. Second Hayha was more of what we would call a designated marksman today than a sniper. His shots were certainly long-ish (multiple hundreds of yards) but not the 600-1000 yards at a high value target that you think of when you think of snipers. In part this is because Finland was coming out of the Russian context as far as their military. Russia always employed far, far more marksmen than contemporary armies and used them in roles that wouldn't really demand a sniper in western armies. Finally it's worth noting that he did a lot of regular infantry work. About a third of his kills were made with a submachine gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Tias posted:Source? I'd love to see pics.  They're in beautiful loving shape too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Except the HMG was and is still extremely useful in battlefield applications even after the advent of tanks. I think you're talking about a different classification of heavy machine gun. Today it refers to guns firing .50 caliber or greater anti-materiel cartridges that are meant to rip up light vehicles and penetrate unarmored fortifications like sandstone walls. Before, it referred to literally heavy machine guns mounted on tripods and used for massed fire support. The MG 42 was classified as one when it was mounted on its complex tripod setup, even though today it would just be considered a medium machine gun for firing standard rifle rounds. The Maxim series (like the Vickers and MG 08 from World War I) is the quintessential concept. The original definition of HMG is indeed pretty outdated, as they're not really able to put out more firepower than a lighter weapon like an FN MAG. Their real advantage is the tripod and sighting setup that let them provide things like indirect fire support, and water cooling jackets let them literally fire for hours as long as ammo and water is available. But they're only suited for static defensive positions and can't be easily taken apart and moved, unlike a medium machine gun on a bipod. And if you really need sustained fire support from a machine gun with great long range accuracy, you can just use a .50 cal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
 In my mind the Mosin and Mauser are the ur-guns, but you're probably right in that my experience is blindingly influenced by hunting guns, since those are the only ones I've got more than a couple hours on. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:which is why this talk of firearms not evolving since the Moisin is extremely absurd  , that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the Mosin is the first example of a modern firearm. It just took half a century to explore the boundaries of the box that design placed the thinkers of the world in, and settle on the most effective patterns. Firearms evolution could have gone a completely different way, but I won't speculate here. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:edit: I think part of the issue is people can easily look at the question of "Have firearms advanced?" and think on an individual loadout level. A guy with a Moisin can kill a guy with an M-16 some percentage of the time, but a platoon of guys with M-16s is going to loving run roughshod on a platoon of guys with Moisins 100% of the time. Firearms and individuals don't exist in a vacuum - the development of firearms is directly interrelated to improved small unit and battlefield tactics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:Hey Cyrano4747, I'm not sure I'm remembering you wrote this really interesting effort post on how current black poverty in America was caused by post World War II racist practices like redlining. Got a book recommendation for learning more about it? xthetenth posted:drat and now I'm really interested in that and also wondering how much the movement into the cities for jobs in the war effort that dried up after might have hurt. Start here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439 Go here: http://www.epi.org/publication/making-ferguson/ Then just read all of this: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:
Even then, still not really? The Lebel 1886 has a tubular magazine, but otherwise it's identical to the Mosin: smokeless powder, bolt-action rifle firing a high velocity cartridge of lower diameter than past ammunition. Both the Lebel and the Mosin predate spitzer bullets and both got them slightly more than 10 years after their respective introductions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think you're talking about a different classification of heavy machine gun. Today it refers to guns firing .50 caliber or greater anti-materiel cartridges that are meant to rip up light vehicles and penetrate unarmored fortifications like sandstone walls. Before, it referred to literally heavy machine guns mounted on tripods and used for massed fire support. The MG 42 was classified as one when it was mounted on its complex tripod setup, even though today it would just be considered a medium machine gun for firing standard rifle rounds. The Maxim series (like the Vickers and MG 08 from World War I) is the quintessential concept. You can roll around a Maxim gun on a Sokolov mount pretty quickly, no need to take anything apart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:You can roll around a Maxim gun on a Sokolov mount pretty quickly, no need to take anything apart. More the exception than the rule, no? chitoryu12 posted:Even then, still not really? The Lebel 1886 has a tubular magazine, but otherwise it's identical to the Mosin: smokeless powder, bolt-action rifle firing a high velocity cartridge of lower diameter than past ammunition. Both the Lebel and the Mosin predate spitzer bullets and both got them slightly more than 10 years after their respective introductions. The Gewehr 88 should also have a mention Jobbo_Fett fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Aug 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think you're talking about a different classification of heavy machine gun. Today it refers to guns firing .50 caliber or greater anti-materiel cartridges that are meant to rip up light vehicles and penetrate unarmored fortifications like sandstone walls. Before, it referred to literally heavy machine guns mounted on tripods and used for massed fire support. The MG 42 was classified as one when it was mounted on its complex tripod setup, even though today it would just be considered a medium machine gun for firing standard rifle rounds. The Maxim series (like the Vickers and MG 08 from World War I) is the quintessential concept. The .50 is pretty much just the logical evolution of the old HMG. It's a big heavy support weapon that is not man-portable. Advances in materials and to a certain degree tactics have allowed larger cartridges, a higher rate of fire and the removal of water cooling systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:Yes, I was thinking primarily on an individual or a squad level. I haven't seen stuff like platoon level actions in my internet middle eastern warporn videos. I do think the production is really lacking: If I was doing them I'd add in some maps of the immediate area with the various forces superimposed on them, narration, just a little bit to really put the footage into the correct context. Maybe we just need to wait a few years until things settle down and the historically minded participants can really do a good job of it. what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Keldoclock is a war-enthusiast teenager, and is basing his understanding of war on war-porn videos on Youtube. The outlook this results in is... interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Hazzard posted:Also, every history book I've read dedicates the preface to badmouthing other history books. Is this just something that happens? If other history books were good there'd be no reason to write one 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Tias posted:Source? I'd love to see pics.  .Source: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/09/30/mind-blown-remote-control-sturmgewehr-44-syria/
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
T___A posted:The problem I have with including intermediate cartridges to that list is the vagueness of the term. For instance 7.62 NATO was initially considered a intermediate cartridge (hence the name T65 Lightweight) and the logical successor to .276 Pedersen. Yet almost no one today considers 7.62 NATO a intermediate cartridge despite it being designed as such. Because of this I think the term intermediate cartridge to be kinda meaningless and should be avoided as a yard stick on determining whether or not a certain gun is an assault rifle. I would however include the Small Caliber High Velocity cartridge as a major development as that seems to be a more important development and more easily defined. 7.62x51mm NATO is anything but intermediate. It was designed simply as a slightly shortened .30-06 that would have the same power (slightly lower velocity, same bullet weight). In the end a complete cartridge is only 15 milimeters shorter, making it the same size as 7.62x54mm. If anything, .30-06 is oversized for the necessary military usage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:7.62x51mm NATO is anything but intermediate. It was designed simply as a slightly shortened .30-06 that would have the same power (slightly lower velocity, same bullet weight). In the end a complete cartridge is only 15 milimeters shorter, making it the same size as 7.62x54mm. If anything, .30-06 is oversized for the necessary military usage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
T___A posted:It was designed and seen as the logical successor to the .276 Pedersen that with all of advantages of the .276 Pedersen and none of it's disadvantages. For longest time Army Ordinance that 7.62 NATO would lighter, smaller, and have less recoil then 30.06 and therefore along with an M1 Garand replacement could be used to replace the SMG, standard service rifle, and LMG with a single rifle. And in the end, it was still the same size, power, and recoil as any typical rifle cartridge because the US wanted something that worked in both rifles and machine guns effectively. In reality, it's great for machine guns and sniper rifles but too big and powerful to be effectively used in a service rifle on the modern battlefield. I'd compare .276 Pedersen more to something like 6.8mm Remington SPC or 7.62x39mm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
my dad posted:Keldoclock is a war-enthusiast teenager, and is basing his understanding of war on war-porn videos on Youtube. Not exclusively! But yeah, without going to a military academy, historical accounts (including the super recent stuff you find on youtube, liveleak, etc) are where I go to to make my own inferences about how this stuff really goes down. It's hard to argue with a primary source, and the blatant propaganda and whitewashing is easier to see through than the stuff presented simply as facts in accounts of older history. I'll supplement later with some more formal historical learning and formal education in military tactics, of course, but the tremendous amount of books, podcasts, videos etc for military history keep me stoked meanwhile. The intermediate rifle cartridge is a perfect example of the kinds of tweaks and re-balancing that most firearms development consists of: you can see the current reversal of the trend with things like 300BLK and the resurgence of 6.5mm ammunition, trying to maximize the performance from the ammunition now that the materials and design of the guns have improved a little.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
My copy of Before France and Germany arrived today and before I start reading, I have one question that's too goony and armchair-general-y for the book to answer: Would a representative "barbarian army" of the Late Roman Empire period pose a greater threat to an Early Roman Empire period than a barbarian army of that period?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Probably, what with all the experience those barbarians had in fighting for Rome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Monocled Falcon posted:My copy of Before France and Germany arrived today and before I start reading, I have one question that's too goony and armchair-general-y for the book to answer: Would a representative "barbarian army" of the Late Roman Empire period pose a greater threat to an Early Roman Empire period than a barbarian army of that period? You are going to LOVE that book. The first third is the best part, but it's good overall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:It's hard to argue with a primary source It is, however, very easy to misinterpret a primary source or extrapolate more from it than you should. See for instance 9/11 Truthers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Keldoclock posted:It's hard to argue with a primary source,
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I've seen primary sources that are flat out wrong, so blanket statements like that are asking for trouble. Be it down to genuinely misremembering or lying/editing to change the perception of the documenter things are only as reliable as the people who record them. Never mind that with primary sources, context matters a lot. Recently me and my friend were discussing a letter written by Johan Adler Salvius in the 1630's where he describes how poor the leadership of Swedish Marshal Åke Tott is. The popular interpretation is that Tott was a lovely general, but I've always figured that Salvius is actually saying "this guy is really sick with gout and his lungs are rotten and you should not have him lead armies."
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
I have a pet theory that on the modern battlefield rifles are probably over-stated in their importance. If you took an American infantry platoon/company and swapped out all their rifles for M1903 Springfields, but let them keep their automatic grenade launchers and laser guided mortars and drones, how much less effective would they be? Not very much I would think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
A primary source is just something someone wrote. Take literally any contemporary news event and you will find in the new media a half dozen different spins on what happened. History is that, added with anything up to a few thousand years of separation, a different (possibly dead) language, the vast majority of the sources lost, and no guarantee that the source you are reading even thought he was being honest himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I've seen primary sources that are flat out wrong, so blanket statements like that are asking for trouble. Be it down to genuinely misremembering or lying/editing to change the perception of the documenter things are only as reliable as the people who record them. I don't see how "this battle occurred in this place at roughly this time on this day, here is a video of it from 5 angles" can be wrong. I mean once, sure ok super expensive fake for something that the world doesn't care about, but they can't all be like that. I just like seeing people work through the problem of "ok these guys are trying to kill us lets kill them" and seeing all the infinite variates of the problems and solutions. I don't watch the stuff that's like, some dude filming a mass grave or a medic station with some young new amputees and saying "group X is responsible for this". I'm interested in combat, not politics. I am interested in stuff like data of electricity production and consumption organized by location, satellite images, force estimates, synopsis of tactics used (and especially new tactics as they are formed), lists of irregular combatants linked to biographies and real names (especially when they are still alive after the conflict), civilian radar records of aircraft during bombings (and dogfights! so hard to find though!), radio chatter recordings, that kind of thing. I don't really care about like, some guy wrote about what happened on this day, and maybe has some pictures. Generally speaking I'm interested in stuff that's happened between 3 and 30 years ago, but if something is old but unique in some way (dogfights between jets!) or intriguing (new tactics, weapons, or communications strategies on front-lines of ongoing conflicts) I'll make the effort to translate languages, learn context and ignore propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 10:32
|
|