|
JcDent posted:Well, Palestinians are making their own rockets in their bid to dig themselves a bigger hole. Granted, those aren't very good rockets. I'm pretty sure they are used a lot more then really reported in any country with access to old Soviet hardware. I've read stories the SAA actually used quite a few in the civil war. There was also a poo poo ton fired in the Iran-Iraq war and even more in the Afghanistan Civil War after the soviets withdrew. To great effect is another issue entirely because it highly depends on the model/type since things like CEP changed pretty drastically over time. The Russians used quite a few Iskanders in their various more recent wars, and it's considered a very big deal when some were moved to Kaliningrad IIRC. Mazz fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Sep 15, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, Palestinians are making their own rockets in their bid to dig themselves a bigger hole. Granted, those aren't very good rockets. Iraq used them to try and terrorise Israel during the first Gulf War. Not much military effect but I guess it was probably good for Iraqi morale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Does using them as a deterrent that also results in Western powers spending an absurd amount of money and time on air defense systems count as effective? I presume you mean any tactics ballistic missile when you say SCUD? I guess they incidentally got an F-18 and Tornado shot down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Speaking as a gun nut, I'd love detail on the manufacture of matchlocks. The mechanism is simple:  This is a regular matchlock. There is also a thing called a "snapping matchlock" which has no sear; the cock is held in place with a spring instead. (Some of them fire by pulling triggers, some by pushing buttons, and some by pulling strings at the bottom of the lock.) Compare that to the massive amount of time that JaucheCharly puts into his projects, as well as knowledge of, like, how glue and wood work HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Does using them as a deterrent that also results in Western powers spending an absurd amount of money and time on air defense systems count as effective? I was under the impression that they're like the V2 and basically completely useless for anything other than scaring idiots because they were intended to be used with tactical nukes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Well the idea is that they are also a lot cheaper than an armored vehicle of the same offensive power. But AT guns aren't even supposed to be offensive weapons, they are supposed to defend an area so you can use your tanks elsewhere to actually win the war. The NVA (East German Army) had them in the 70ies to hold the flanks of an armored thrust against counterattacks. Which is fine in theory, except the NVA found during exercises that this was pretty problematic because the version they had had no IR sights and could easily be blinded by smoke or suppressed by artillery fire if they were spotted. A tank could just move out of the beaten zone and most of them had more sophisticated sights. But the bigger issue is that an AT gun weighing several tons and with a crew of seven would perform, on the best of days, slightly better than a two-man ATGM team with man portable equipment. Plus the ATGM team is a lot harder to smack with an airstrike.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I was under the impression that they're like the V2 and basically completely useless for anything other than scaring idiots because they were intended to be used with tactical nukes. Not really, but answering this satisfactorily isn't something I'm willing to peck out on a phone. I'll probably respond later today or tomorrow when I have a keyboard in front of me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:The mechanism is simple: Sorry, I'm finding this really confusing. That's the trigger on the lower right, and this gun would be shooting left? Is the pan behind the hammer-like thing that the trigger moves? That seems like a weird, but also I guess effectively low-tech, way to build a gun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Sorry, I'm finding this really confusing. That's the trigger on the lower right, and this gun would be shooting left? Is the pan behind the hammer-like thing that the trigger moves? That seems like a weird, but also I guess effectively low-tech, way to build a gun. You are looking into the lock. The trigger is on the lower right, the cock/serpentine is on the upper left, the gun is shooting left. The pan is on the other side of the flat plate behind the entire thing, you can't see it from here. The serpentine or cock is the thing that is moving downward, it's a long metal thing with a clamp at the end and that's what holds the match. None of this stuff does anything to the pan cover, you flip that open with your hand. Here's more drawings:  A - Flash pan cover B - Flash pan (with touch hole) C - Serpentine (or cock) D - Trigger E - Slow match (i.e. a lit rope) F - Sear G - Pivot H - Flat spring I - Tumbler link J - Barrel K - Lock plate http://firearmshistory.blogspot.de/2010/04/matchlocks.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Re: Scuds and other theater ballistic missiles I guess: they get used in freaking African civil wars these days, with pretty extensive use in Sudan during the civil war. As a terror weapon IIRC. Also ATACMS (MLRS TBM) were used quite a lot during the Iraq invasion. Those 60 or so GCC dudes that got plastered by a 'rocket attack' in Yemen recently? That was a Tochka. Like guided missiles (both AT and AA) in the hands of 'freedom fighters', heavily proliferated ballistic missiles are probably here to stay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Sorry, I'm finding this really confusing. That's the trigger on the lower right, and this gun would be shooting left? Is the pan behind the hammer-like thing that the trigger moves? That seems like a weird, but also I guess effectively low-tech, way to build a gun. It helps if you realize that the "hammer" on matchlocks moves towards the shooter when it fires, rather than away like we're most familiar with from the flintlock on forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:It helps if you realize that the "hammer" on matchlocks moves towards the shooter when it fires, rather than away like we're most familiar with from the flintlock on forward. and that's the serpentine, i actually had to look the word "hammer" up
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Flash pans!! When you pour your powder, do you pour it from the front (down the barrel), and a little in the back (through the touchhole)? If you do, what stops powder from spraying everywhere if you need to shift your gun around just before firing? I've seen videos of musketmen carrying their slow matches in short loops, and its a very stiff cord so that stops it from tangling. How much of a bitch is it to not get tangled up? And how hot is the end of the burning match? Is it much cooler than that of a cigarette?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Wasn't serpentine also a type of powder? Was that before or after your period?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Wasn't serpentine also a type of powder? Was that before or after your period? My understanding is that component C from above is what is called the serpentine: because it looks like a lil' snake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Flash pans!! When you pour your powder, do you pour it from the front (down the barrel), and a little in the back (through the touchhole? If you do, what stops powder from spraying everywhere if you need to shift your gun around just before firing? quote:I've seen videos of musketmen carrying their slow matches in short loops, and its a very stiff cord so that stops it from tangling. How much of a bitch is it to not get tangled up? And how hot is the end of the burning match? Is it much cooler than that of a cigarette? Grand Prize Winner posted:Wasn't serpentine also a type of powder? Was that before or after your period? HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:My understanding is that component C from above is what is called the serpentine: because it looks like a lil' snake. I bet the soldiers had another name for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Hold the gun more or less horizontally and pour powder into the pan itself, then flip the cover closed and either slam the side of the gun with the heel of your hand or blow on the cover to get rid of any stray grains of powder. The cover should prevent powder from falling out. I see, the flash pan cover is kind of like a safety, except it gets flipped off during aiming and just before firing. If you ever need to stop and reposition, you need to flip the cover back on again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Some of the big innovations with future lock systems were automatic opening of the pan. The wheellock and snaphance (an early flintlock) had mechanically opened pan covers. The flintlock used an L-shaped piece of spring-loaded steel called a frizzen that acted simultaneously as a pan cover and sparking surface: the falling hammer would scrape along the frizzen to create sparks and push it open, exposing the gunpowder in the pan to the falling sparks. Percussion caps did away with pans and priming powder entirely in favor of tiny caps of chemical (usually mercury fulminate) that would be detonated by the falling hammer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I see, the flash pan cover is kind of like a safety, except it gets flipped off during aiming and just before firing. If you ever need to stop and reposition, you need to flip the cover back on again. The very last two commands in the firing sequence are "Give fire:" at "give" you flip the pan cover open and at "fire" you pull the lever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Rodrigo Diaz could say more about specific metalworky knowledge, but it is possible to make these things in bulk quickly and I don't think you need great precision to do it. Ask Us About Military History: The Cock Is Held In Place With A Spring
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The flintlock used an L-shaped piece of spring-loaded steel called a frizzen that acted simultaneously as a pan cover and sparking surface: the falling hammer would scrape along the frizzen to create sparks and push it open, exposing the gunpowder in the pan to the falling sparks. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Well, Palestinians are making their own rockets in their bid to dig themselves a bigger hole. Granted, those aren't very good rockets. The actual Scuds were basically evolutionary developments of the V2. They weren't all that useful as a conventional weapon but they've been continously upgraded and fielded in such numbers that they represent a pretty significant threat even today. The latest variants can usually hit something the size of an airfield or seaport and are generally fired in such large numbers that they have the potential to overwhelm ABM systems by sheer weight of numbers. They don't have a ton of actual combat history but they've served as a pretty effective deterrent/force projection platform for third string militaries for a long time, and they'll continue to do so for a long time to come. More modern ballistic missiles are tremendously capable and versatile weapons that generally overmatch systems designed to counter them. The US/NATO is way, way, way behind the curve with regards to this stuff and it is bad. bewbies fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
I thought that at least the US specifically uses tomahawks for doing roughly the same thing (at an astronomically higher cost, natch) that scuds do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I thought that at least the US specifically uses tomahawks for doing roughly the same thing (at an astronomically higher cost, natch) that scuds do. Tomahawks aren't really that much more expensive than a comparable BM, they just have a slightly different capability set. They're more precise, and longer ranged, but they're much easier to counter and they basically can't be used tactically: they fly far too slow and can't be launched from the surface (at least from US platforms), so they're not really responsive enough for a lot of modern applications. Counterfire is a good example. bewbies fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Well, Tomahawks are significantly more complex than a dumb Scud missile. Scuds are ballistic missiles: they carry fuel and oxidiser and burn it in a rocket motor during the boost phase, and once the fuel runs out it coasts to its target on a ballistic arc at mach 5 using simple inertial guidance. Tomahawks have a turbojet engine: they carry fuel, breath air, and so have at least twice the range Scuds. They burn fuel the entire length of the run, cruising along at low altitudes, and navigates using sophisticated guidance systems. So you use alot fewer Tomahawks for a job than Scuds. In general, there's no easy counter for a ballistic missile: its a physically difficult task to shoot missiles out of the air. Especially Scuds, which can saturate defences, and when cruising on their empty ballistic arc, aren't going to be significantly redirected by a few gaping holes in their engine compartment. Iron Dome can do well against cheap low-velocity unguided rockets, but I don't think it's been proven against a supersonic Scud missile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
I just have a hard time picturing what you'd use BM's for besides: - nukes - we will shower your city in semi-random death if you don't comply with x I don't see what effect they would have against the enemy's military forces or ability to fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I just have a hard time picturing what you'd use BM's for besides: It depends on the conflict and the missile obviously, but these are high value missiles and they're intended for high value targets. Airfields, seaports, headquarters, assembly areas, supply depots, and so on. Even Iraq very nearly managed to hit the land component headquarters in OIF, which would have been a pretty significant hindrance to that entire operation. As to what effect this would have on an operation: imagine if you were defending against an attack from the US/NATO and you successfully damaged or destroyed every force generation (airfield, seaport etc) and sustainment asset in a 1000km radius away from your shores. bewbies fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I just have a hard time picturing what you'd use BM's for besides: Not all TBMs are created equal. Some are dumb pieces of crap that are unreliable, inaccurate, and only carry one type of warhead, unitary high explosive (UHE). Others are still not at all smart weapons, but through decent aerodynamics, quality fuel/engine burn rates, decent understanding of weather, and intertial guidance, can maybe land in a comfortably tight grouping where they aren't a threat to any single point target, but a small volley can reasonably expect to do serious damage to a large target like a seaport/airport/logistics base/city. Others can drop submunitions, essentially like cluster bombs which can vary from hundreds of munitions similar to a hand grenade to a handful of munitions that are heavy runway perpetrators. Then there's stuff like chemical weapons, nuclear weapons (I won't be discussing those as much because nukes = big deal is pretty obvious), and the really nasty ballistic missiles that can do things like transmit their own jamming or intentionally maneuver to throw off ABM systems or deploy decoys or with advanced electro-optical or RF seeker heads that can hit pinpoint targets. Ballistic missiles that are accurate enough and lethal enough to directly threaten runways, ships, HQ/Comms areas, radars, FOBs, etc are definitely a real thing. There are ballistic missiles that can do things like change course during reentry to try to throw off predicted impact points, outmaneuver interceptors, or simply maneuver to remain on target. As a result, as Bewbies said, they're pretty good for things other than delivering nukes or just hammering away at a city/base and hoping for a lucky hit. While they aren't exactly cheap, they're very cheap in comparison with building and maintaining decent strike aircraft and the pilots to fly them effectively, and even expensive missile programs are way cheaper than the ABM systems built to defeat the missiles as well as the targets the missiles are going after.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Considering it's always good to avoid risking manpower if avoidable, ballistic missiles are a good option toward that end if you aren't a military fielding cruise missiles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Do we have any railgun experts? Back when railguns were first starting to appear circa 2005 I was told one of the main appeals is that they deliver comparable range to cruise missiles at a fraction of the cost (with comparable accuracy thanks to cutting-edge targeting software). What is the range of some of the railgun systems out today, approximately, and what sort of payloads do they deliver?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
There are no railgun systems out today. Various branches of the US Military are testing them, but they are nowhere near operational, and nobody will be talking about their performance characteristics. Generally speaking though, they just fire a solid slug of something. Similar to a kinetic penetrator used against armor today, it's less about what the payload is, and more about how absurdly fast it's going.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:32
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:There are no railgun systems out today. Various branches of the US Military are testing them, but they are nowhere near operational, and nobody will be talking about their performance characteristics. In addition to solid kinetic penetrators the Navy is also testing a kinetic dispersing warhead that spreads tungsten pellets for use against aircraft and a high-explosive ASUW variant with a 2-lb bursting charge fragmentation warhead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Have they figured out how to maintain a reasonable rate of fire?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:nobody will be talking about their performance characteristics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeRQD0tK8h0 Polikarpov posted:In addition to solid kinetic penetrators the Navy is also testing a kinetic dispersing warhead that spreads tungsten pellets for use against aircraft and a high-explosive ASUW variant with a 2-lb bursting charge fragmentation warhead. thanks, I knew there was something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
It is not supposed to be cost efficient, it is a giant dick cannon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
hey baby my rail gun ejects hot plasma 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Hypha posted:It is not supposed to be cost efficient, it is a giant dick cannon. Cost efficiency is kind of a humor term in warfare though. You probably could find cost savings against a tomahawk launch by dumping a crate containing 4 tons of pennies onto the target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
Hey Gal, could you recommend any reenactment-type resources for DIY period costumes? Like, patterns with measurements. I've had a google but haven't found anything particularly useful. Say, if I wanted to sew myself a pair of GIANT TROUSERS like this guy:  I'm happy to fumble through instructions not in English.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Hey Gal, could you recommend any reenactment-type resources for DIY period costumes? Like, patterns with measurements. I've had a google but haven't found anything particularly useful. First, get 100 yards of fabric...
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 06:57
|
|