PYF Weapon system: Introducing the new flat pack war machine! Dreadnoohst

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Weapon system: Introducing the new flat pack war machine! Dreadnoohst

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

The Gay Bomb

wikipedia posted:

The "halitosis bomb" and "gay bomb" are informal names for two theoretical non-lethal chemical weapons that a United States Air Force research laboratory speculated about producing; the theories involve discharging female sex pheromones over enemy forces in order to make them sexually attracted to each other.[1][2][2] [3][3][4][5][6]

In 1994 the Wright Laboratory in Ohio, a predecessor to today's United States Air Force Research Laboratory, produced a three-page proposal on a variety of possible nonlethal chemical weapons, which was later obtained by the Sunshine Project through a Freedom of Information Act request.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2015 16:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:25

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

The Davy Crockett

It's a recoilless rifle that fires nuclear warheads, but not far enough to keep from irradiating those firing it.

:stonk:

wikipedia posted:

The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun (smoothbore) for firing the M-388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. Named after American soldier, congressman, and folk hero Davy Crockett, it was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built.
...
Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard. The M-388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m).[3]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE

edit. Beaten like a Gitmo prisoner :downsgun:

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 18:19 on Apr 8, 2015

# ¿ Apr 8, 2015 17:19

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Frostwerks posted:

Somebody report this post please, I don't believe in it.

I'm a huge loving idiot and didn't see that someone posted about it just a few posts before mine, in a thread with only one page so far. :downsgun:

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 18:27 on Apr 8, 2015

# ¿ Apr 8, 2015 18:18

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

To redeem my stupid, stupid, very stupid self:

Tsar Bomba

The largest nuke ever built at 50mt, and it was only half the size of one they wanted to make.

wikipedia posted:

Tsar Bomba (Russian: Царь-бомба; "Tsar of bombs") is the nickname for the AN602 hydrogen bomb, the most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. Its October 30, 1961 test remains the most powerful artificial explosion in human history. It was also referred to as Kuz'kina Mat' (Russian: Кузькина мать, Kuzka's mother),[2] referring to Nikita Khrushchev's promise to show the United States a "Kuz'kina Mat'" at the 1960 United Nations General Assembly. Developed by the Soviet Union, the bomb had the yield of 50 megaton TNT (210 PJ). Only one bomb of this type was ever officially built and it was tested on October 30, 1961, in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, at Sukhoy Nos.[3][4][5]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPhn64TA

The detonation site:

The fireball 5 miles in diameter:

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 18:30 on Apr 8, 2015

# ¿ Apr 8, 2015 18:25

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Hey, you see that poo poo? Yeah, that poo poo aaaaaallll the way over there. It would be great if it was on fire.

The Flamethrower

wikipedia posted:

A flamethrower is a mechanical incendiary device designed to project a long, controllable stream of fire. They were first used during World War I, and widely used in World War II.

Some flamethrowers project a stream of ignited flammable liquid; some project a long gas flame. Most military flamethrowers use liquids, but commercial flamethrowers tend to use high-pressure propane and natural gas, which is considered safer. They are used by the military and by people needing controlled burning capacity, such as in agriculture (e.g., sugar cane plantations) or other such land management tasks. They can be designed to be either carried by the operator or mounted on a vehicle.
...
The man-portable flamethrower consists of two elements: a backpack and the gun. The backpack element usually consists of two or three cylinders. In a two-cylinder system, one cylinder holds compressed, inert propellant gas (usually nitrogen), and the other holds flammable liquid�typically petrol with some form of fuel thickener added to it. A three-cylinder system often has two outer cylinders of flammable liquid and a central cylinder of propellant gas to maintain the balance of the soldier carrying it. The gas propels the liquid fuel out of the cylinder through a flexible pipe and then into the gun element of the flamethrower system.
...
The flamethrower is a potent weapon with great psychological impact upon unprepared soldiers, inflicting a particularly horrific death. This has led to some calls for the weapon to be banned.
...
Flamethrowers pose many risks to the operator.

-The first disadvantage was the weapon's weight, which impairs the soldier's mobility.
-The weapon is limited to only a few seconds of burn time since it uses fuel very quickly, requiring the operator to be precise and conservative.
-The weapon was very visible on the battlefield, which caused operators to become immediately singled out as prominent targets, especially for snipers.
-Flamethrower operators were rarely taken prisoner, especially when their target survived an attack by the weapon; captured flamethrower users were in some cases summarily executed.[1]
-Finally, the flamethrower's effective range was short in comparison with that of other battlefield weapons of similar size. To be effective, flamethrower soldiers must approach their target, risking exposure to enemy fire. Vehicular flamethrowers also have this problem; they may have considerably greater range than a man-portable flamethrower, but their range is still short compared with that of other infantry weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmvvEbedHr4

# ¿ Apr 8, 2015 22:33

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Dear god that would be an uncomfortable takeoff

Why's it only have one bomb/fuel tank? I would think that would noticeably change the handling and aerodynamics.

# ¿ Apr 10, 2015 22:52

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

FirstPersonShitter posted:

They actually made it at 100mt, but at the last minute swapped out half the uranium with lead tamper because of the likelihood of it potentially killing the crew of the plane that'd drop it.

Oh wow, I didn't realize they got that far into the 100mt design, I thought it was just theoretical before they scrapped it for being even more of a waste of fuel. I also didn't think the Soviets would have cared about the pilots surviving.

"Indeed comrade, you will survive. If you worry, fly faster. Extra vodka in the bag" :ussr:

Why didn't they make a stationary test site? Too remote to build properly?

# ¿ Apr 13, 2015 03:20

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Scattergun carpetbomb post incoming! :siren:

The Punt Gun

Not meant for wartime, but still pretty bizarre.

"Wikipedia: Punt Gun posted:

A punt gun is a type of extremely large shotgun used in the 19th and early 20th centuries for shooting large numbers of waterfowl for commercial harvesting operations.

Punt guns were usually custom-designed and so varied widely, but could have bore diameters exceeding 2 inches (51 mm) and fire over a pound (≈ 0.45 kg) of shot at a time.[1] A single shot could kill over 50 waterfowl resting on the water's surface. They were too big to hold and the recoil so large that they were mounted directly on the punts used for hunting, hence their name. Hunters would maneuver their punts quietly into line and range of the flock using poles or oars to avoid startling them. Generally the gun was fixed to the punt; thus the hunter would maneuver the entire boat in order to aim the gun. The guns were sufficiently powerful, and the punts themselves sufficiently small, that firing the gun often propelled the punt backwards several inches or more. To improve efficiency, hunters could work in fleets of up to around ten punts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7FeeamC4qk

The ammunition for a smaller kind of punt gun compared to a 12 gauge shotshell

e. ~~I genuinely can't figure out why the syntax is hosed up in this post, I've tried like 40 times to fix it.~~
Gotta put it in two posts I guess.

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 03:04 on Apr 15, 2015

# ¿ Apr 15, 2015 02:17

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Now something similar that is used for war:
Grape Shot

"Wikipedia posted:

In artillery, a grapeshot is a type of shot that is not one solid element, but a mass of small metal balls or slugs packed tightly into a canvas bag.[1] It was used both in land and naval warfare. When assembled, the balls resembled a cluster of grapes, hence the name. On firing, the balls spread out from the muzzle, giving an effect similar to a giant shotgun.

Grapeshot was devastatingly effective against massed infantry at short range. It was used to savage massed infantry charges quickly. Cannons would fire solid shot to attack enemy artillery and troops at longer range and switch to grape when they or nearby troops were charged. When used in naval warfare grapeshot served a dual purpose. First it continued its role as an anti-personnel projectile. However, the effect was diminished due to a large portion of the crew being below decks and the addition of hammock netting in iron brackets intended to slow or stop smaller shot.[2] Second, the balls were cast large enough to cut rigging, destroy spars, blocks, and puncture multiple sails.[3][4]

Canister shot, also known as case shot, was packaged in a tin or brass container, possibly guided by a wooden sabot. Canister balls did not have to punch through the wooden hull of a ship, so were smaller and more numerous. The later shrapnel shell was similar, but with a much greater range.

Scattershot is an improvised form of grapeshot which uses chain links, nails, shards of glass, rocks or other similar objects as the projectiles. Although scattershot can be cheaply made, it is less effective than grapeshot due to the lack of uniformity in the projectiles' mass, shape, material, and resultant ballistics.

I think this might be from a videogame, but it's a good comparison of grape shot and canister shot

And a modern version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8

It's loving crazy watching a sonic boom in slow motion :stare:

# ¿ Apr 15, 2015 03:05

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

3 posted:

It wouldn't, and it was cancelled for a reason (okay, several reasons). Sure, it was heavily armed and armored enough to theoretically take on an entire armored division and come out on top, but as soon as the Allies could pin its location down, they could just saturate the area with bombs dropped from B-17s flying well outside of the range of its paltry AA defenses. When the lynchpin of your armored forces is the size of a middling building and moves about half as fast, flattening it from the sky becomes extremely trivial.

What if you stationed mobile AA right next to Gigantotank, hmmm? :colbert:

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 00:15

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

To continue with my scattergun posts yesterday...

Rhodesian Jungle Shot

It's a 12 gauge shell, although you could sometimes get it in 10 gauge, which is bigger if you didn't know, filled with one large round, a few rounds of buckshot, and a whole bunch of birdshot. I've been told it was used in a war in the ex-country Rhodesia, but when googling it for more history, all I get are gun forums asking if it's a good idea to use the shells for home defense :rolleyes:

Nowadays, it's a gimmick cartridge, much like dragonshot (powdered magnesium for a huge fireball, or bolo shells (2 slugs linked by a cable), and the only people who take it seriously as a legitimate cartridge are either huge morons, white supremacists, or both.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HM5f6uuErVc&t=56s

Flechette Shells

Again, 12 gauge or bigger. Still a gimmick cartridge nowadays. Anyone who regards them highly is again, a moron who's likely never even seen one, a white supremacist, or a sociopath. I was under the impression that they were against international war rules, but Israel still uses them in artillery shells.

[quote="Wikipedia
Small-arms makers are attracted by the exterior ballistic performance and armor-piercing potential of flechettes. A number of attempts have been made to field flechette-firing small arms.

Work at Johns Hopkins University in the 1950s led to the development of the Direct Injection Antipersonnel Chemical Biological Agent (DIACBA), where flechettes were grooved, hollow pointed, or otherwise milled to retain a quantity of chemical biological warfare agent to deliver through a ballistic wound.[1] The initial work was with VX, which had to be thickened to deliver a reliable dose. Eventually this was replaced by a particulate carbamate. The US Biological Program also had a microflechette to deliver either botulinum toxin A or saxitoxin, the M1 Biodart, which resembled a 7.62 mm rifle cartridge.

Several underwater firearms were experimented using flechettes.

During the Vietnam War the United States employed 12 gauge combat shotguns that were used with flechette loads that consisted of around 20 flechettes per shell.[2][3] The USSR/Russian federation had/has the AO-27 rifle as well as APS amphibious rifle, and other countries have their own flechette rounds.
...
Smaller flechettes were used in special artillery shells called "beehive" rounds (so named for the very distinctive whistling buzz made by thousands of flechettes flying downrange at supersonic speeds) and intended for use against troops in the open � a ballistic shell packed with flechettes was fired and set off by a mechanical time fuse, scattering flechettes in an expanding cone. They were used in the Vietnam War by 105 mm howitzer batteries and tanks (90 mm guns) to defend themselves against massed infantry attacks. There was also a flechette round for the M40 recoilless rifle, which was sometimes employed by American infantry.
[/quote]

It's hard to tell in this picture due to the low quality, but they're stacked in forwards and backwards and will stabilize once fired.

Used in the early 50s, probably during the Korean War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdkcEOjkzbc

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 00:42

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Tiberius Thyben posted:

You heard the man. We need rocket interceptors on rails strapped to the top of the Ratte!

Well, first of all, that's a much better idea than mine of stationing mobile AA next to it. :downs:

There's plenty of room on top for it to fit.

Humor the idea, but what if a country like the US were to develop a giant fuckoff tank like that? We don't have to worry about getting bombed, we hardly ever engage a country with an air force, and when we do, we cripple the AF first things first. I could totally see us developing something like that as a mobile HQ for artillery, tanks, and infantry. If you want to say it would cost too much, look at the F-35 that Son of Thunderbeast posted a minute ago :v:

It would be mostly immune to any kind of IED or RPG, due to the massively thick armor and treads, and, I would assume, the reactive armor on top of the thick-rear end regular armor. It would also have plenty of area to station different types of weaponry in different sizes, depending on the local difficulties, including the AA issue mentioned earlier

It could have a med bay, ammo dump for infantry and artillery, a small kitchen, local intelligence, and even possibly area enough on top for a helicopter to land on, and all sorts of other poo poo

I've definitely seen our military/congress make worse decisions on things to blow billions on, like, once again the F-35

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 01:27 on Apr 16, 2015

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 01:23

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Bhodi posted:

I'd have to fit in a C-130, wouldn't it? Unless you want to assemble it on-site. Or invade Mexico. Or canada.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind their poutine to become my poutine.

What about having it be delivered by some kind of large naval ship, and assembled on-site IKEA style with giant machinery?

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 01:26

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

What about modifying a few existing war ships to have one of these built into one end? They just putter up to the shipyard, have the rear end of the ship winched off, spend a couple days getting the treads and other stuff added on, then roll on up Kim Jong Un's backyard

Actually, now that I mention it, another war in Korea would be pretty much the only feasible place I could even come close to imagining such a machine actually being built. It could be assembled in South Korea, using the help of nearby Japan for their giant metalwork helping reduce cost slightly from shipping, and it would be immune to the mines and stuff on the DMZ if it were to just roll up the front door of North Korea

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 02:02 on Apr 16, 2015

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 01:43

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Besesoth posted:

Clearly it would just need to be a Voltron-style combining tank built of half a dozen smaller tanks.

This is also a decent idea we should consider

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 01:56

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Bhodi posted:

Yeah but then the marines would demand their own VTOL version

jesus christ, they totally would

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 02:00

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Son of Thunderbeast posted:

Picturing this made me laugh hard IRL. Also the flat pack war machine Dr�adn��hst

But you've got a great notion there. What if--and bear with me here--what if it was amphibious? What if it WAS the ship

EDIT: I just realized I'm kind of derailing the thread here, esp right after blunt's great posts. I'll stop pitching highdeas to the DoD now

If you ask me, it's still well within the thread's idea :v:

Having it AS the ship is still a better idea than the Avengers having a flying aircraft carrier for some reason

e. Also, the last time the DoD wasn't entirely a horrifying cash grab was when they were still working on highdeas. Bat bombs, Ice ships, Projects Pluto and Thor, nuclear recoilless rifles, gay bombs, etc. Pretty much this entire thread is made up of highdeas of a DoD in one country or another! :justpost:

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 03:28 on Apr 16, 2015

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 02:37

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Son of Thunderbeast posted:

I only see one main cannon, scrub

Ours would have 2, and that's twice as good.

*polishes shoulder stars*

2 pairs of megacannon :c00lbutt:

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 03:33

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

at this point, i'm essentially imagining an offshore oil drilling platform, except covered in armor and guns and rockets of varying sizes, and with tank treads reminiscent of those on the space shuttle launch platform with garages on to deploy tanks and humvees out the back and with helicopters on top

and it's cool as poo poo

*only problem is, with lowest bidder mentality, it would be five times more flammable than Deepwater Horizon

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 03:40

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Rorac posted:

We already have an unarmored version of it. In fact it even fires rockets as-is!

That was something that always confused me. Why didn't they build underground launch facilities for the space shuttle like they did for ICBMs? Having a mobile launch platform seems like a stupid waste of money to me, it always felt like there were so many other options to launch shuttles to me

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 04:02

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

You can't do assembly of the stack in the silo. So the shuttle, SRBs and fuel tank would still have to be mated in the vehicle assembly building at which point you still gotta move it to the silo and build a second bigass crane to lower it in.

Why couldn't they build a special silo just for the space shuttle, where you could do those things? I feel like you could still have room for a crane up on top for doing crane stuff

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 04:40

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

Also I feel like reusing the Apollo VAB and crawler was way, way cheaper than digging a special silo would be.

Yeah, you might be right, I just figured that we were already digging silos all over the midwest, why not do a nice big one in Texas and one in Florida? Especially because manufacturing and maintaining the crawler is pretty expensive over time

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 04:52

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Tiberius Thyben posted:

Or they can just keep using the A10 in the ground support role, instead of failing to solve problems that never needed to be fixed.

The A-10 could replace 90% of our Air Force, and it would be cheaper, would last longer, and would generally be better in every way

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 15:20

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

The Lone Badger posted:

Isn't it hideously vulnerable to ground-based missiles now?

Oh, I genuinely don't know. I didn't think so, but I really have no idea. Maybe just replace the f-35 with it instead. :v:

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 15:31

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

CroatianAlzheimers posted:

crippled Warthog

Does not compute

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 17:17

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

dangittj posted:

Some of it has to do with reuse and not destroying itself. Missile silos are designed to be used once, the shuttle launch towers were designed to be reused and had a whole bunch of infrastructure installed to make them reusable. For example, on the 1st shuttle launch, vibrations from the engines during takeoff damaged the shuttle and the launch tower, so a sound/vibration suppression system was designed that dumped 300,000 gallons of water into the launch pad five seconds before launch.

Ah, thanks for the info!

I didn't know that silos were meant for one use only, but I guess it makes sense, they'd only be used in a "we're hosed anyway, launch everything" scenario. That, plus the digging a silo and keeping it dry in a swamp in Florida with a water table of "my feet are already damp on the surface" would probably end up being much much more expensive than a mobile launch platform.

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 18:00

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

raverrn posted:

The A-10 is old though. And dies in basically any environment where enemy missiles exist. And can't fire precision anything for garbage. And we can't build any more, and hell it's even getting hard to fix the ones we still have.

Not that we need a mojillion dollar stealth jumpjet, to fill in for it, but we do need something else.

Get the engineers for Porsche to assist in making the A-10 mark 2 (A-11?) so it's pretty much the same thing but better

:iiaca:

blunt for century has a new favorite as of 18:04 on Apr 16, 2015

# ¿ Apr 16, 2015 18:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:25

blunt for century: Jul 4, 2008; I've got a bone to pick.

Gridlocked posted:

This is the Wiesel AWC.

I dono why I like it so much, maybe because it's like a baby tank. Basically they were 2-3 man tankettes (if that is even a word) that could be outfitted with everything from TOW launchers to your SAMs of choice and communications gear to be used as a command post to a 20mm autocannon.

This thing seriously reminds me of the Ferret Armored Car

I actually know a guy who's got one of these. He got it for $700, and actually has a 1919 he mounts in it periodically. He got it so cheap because the previous owner thought it was broken and unfixable. My bud just replaced the gas tank, the fuel line, and all the filters, and it started right up. I got the chance to drive it around a couple of times. It drives quite nicely, much smoother than you'd expect, with a good response time and excellent turning radius. It has an interesting transmission though, it's a "pre-select transmission", meaning you use the shifter to change gear, then press the "select" button and it switches the gears for you, without the need to let off the accelerator. It has 5 forward and 5 reverse gears, meaning it can travel just as fast in either direction, which is pretty unique and fun. It's also an adorable little baby tanklette :kimchi:

# ¿ Apr 17, 2015 04:42

The Something Awful Forums > Main > Post Your Favorite: Carefully Curated > PYF Weapon system: Introducing the new flat pack war machine! Dreadnoohst