[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.20426643 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

stupid weapon thread

>> No.20426671

the one on his left hand

>> No.20426701

>> No.20426752

what is that, a shark tooth knuckle duster?

>> No.20426776

i dont think i'd call that guy stupid

>> No.20426786

this count?

>> No.20426790

>> No.20426807


>> No.20426817

Is this cosplay chain-sword for 40K ??

>> No.20426819

Hey chainswords make sense if you have access to the technology and are stuck in the medieval era with no access to wood.

>> No.20426826

Hey, what if they're magic crystals? Who knows what power it may hold then.

>> No.20426837


nigga dats boss as fuck

>> No.20426839

No, it's a working Rhino.

>> No.20426844

>> No.20426868

no idea how this sword is used

>> No.20426870

That one on his right is fantastic for pre-metal weapons. It would be even better if it had a stabbing point that was fire-hardened.

>> No.20426878


Looks more like something Sub Zero from The Running Man would use.

>> No.20426886


>> No.20426892

Dumbshit Israelis thinking they can make MBT's.

Yeah, it works. When you're fighting some guerilla fighters maybe.

>> No.20426894

just because you aren't familiar with a weapon doesnt mean that its stupid

>> No.20426903

But do you know how to survive these terrifying weapons?


>> No.20426908

No they don't, a chainsword would get choked up on shit and jam horribly pretty much immediately, plus it'd be stupidly heavy and need fuel. You're better off just using a normal sword.

>> No.20426914

what, precisely, makes this stupid?
It's flamboyant as fuck, bit it's still essentially a pair of knuckledusters with a dagger on either side
I wouldn't want to fight the guy holding it

>> No.20426917


is that the merakava IV?

when it was relevant it was practically invulnerable... Served both as a MBT and a APC.

>> No.20426923

Not if the chains are made of self-cleaning nanoteeth with little self-repairing individual engines.

>> No.20426926

isn't that all they fight though?

>> No.20426927

hahahaha my sides
You won this thread

>gaylard choopeac

>> No.20426932

In order to properly stab with one of the daggers, you would have to bring the other one in towards your wrist. It's dangerous to use without adding any extra utility. Knuckleduster with one dagger? Fantastic. Knuckleduster with two? Dangerous and stupid for the same reason that a double-bladed sword is.

>> No.20426934

Someone has been fapping a little too hard to futureweapons

>> No.20426935


No, they have serious conflicts from time to time.

>> No.20426938

The fuck? Most of the weapons in this thread are sub optimal but still perfectly lethal
I have no idea what the fuck you gents are on about

>> No.20426942

>> No.20426950


Pro tip: chainswords are retarded, and bolters fire bullets that shouldn't work.

>> No.20426951

it's a macuahuitl, a sword-like slab of wood with obsidian shards stuck on it
slashing with that is like getting torn by fucking strong pieces of glass, and tears shit up

>> No.20426954

and it makes you look like the lamest dinosaur ever. Do you want to look like Iguanodon in a fight?

>> No.20426957

then it's just expensive as fuck with no real practicality and slow ass manufacturing.

1/10, made me respond

>> No.20426961

I highly doubt it would be able to hold a candle to the French, American, German, British and Russian MBT's.

After all, it's designed to combat kids with rocks, and historical Russian scrapmetal.

If Israel would ever pick a fight with Saudi-Arabia, it would be like the battle in the Sinai desert.

Except this time, Merkava's burned out throughout the desert.

>> No.20426962


wether you like it or not anon the tank was good until better arms became available.

>> No.20426972

So, essentially, you're saying that a weapon is stupid because someone might use it in a foolish manner?
Because although difficult, you could theoretically stab someone with that thing without stabbing yourself
I don't know how to use an M2 Browning Machine Gun, and I'd probably hurt myself if I tried
Does that make it stupid?
I thought these threads were for stuff like baseball bats with grenades taped on to them

>> No.20426977

I believe they're discussing the weapon on the other hand, hence the comparison to knuckle-duster.

>> No.20426981


> macuahuitl

No it's not. The best term for it is 'proto-sword'. Macahuitil only applies to Aztec versions of the weapon, and that one looks more like a polynesian version.

What you just did is like looking at a bastard sword and calling it a katana.

>> No.20426982

Not if you live in a post-scarcity society.

>> No.20426991

Bolters are actually fairly sound technology - the gyrojet pistol could punch through tank armor at ranges greater than about 20 feet. It was just that they hadn't figured out how to stabilize the round properly for anything over...about 20 feet, when development was halted.

>> No.20427000


That tank wasnt designed to fight those MBTs, aside from the russian scrap metal their neighbors use in mass.

Also they have been phasing out the Merakava, you can actually buy them from israel these days.

>> No.20427002

they curve outward, I agree it looks retarded and I would rather have a seperate knife and a knuckle duster, but it's not dangerous to self.

I'm more concerned that you can't do a back and slash with the weapon, and you can't stab with the blade on the opposite side of your thumb.

>> No.20427007


Also, we've had a prototype bolter back in the late 70s. Project was cancelled because the rounds were more expensive individually than the US Army wanted to bother with, but that was the main problem because exploding rocket-bullets and flechette-rockets are actually a pretty good idea.

>> No.20427016

Bombs that can destroy entire cities and turn land into dead wastelands for thousands of years are stupid too. And they exist.

>> No.20427018


>Bolters are actually fairly sound technology

Oh, no, I'm not arguing that the bolters themselves are retarded. They're shaped weird but they're basically just slightly faster firing versions of our own 20mm grenade launchers.

My beef is with the fact that they fire 'depleted deuterium rounds'. Which is patently retarded.

>> No.20427026

>> No.20427033

>Depleted deuterium rounds
Is ridiculous
In a setting where there are fucking demons and shit
You find that bit of pseudo science ridiculous?
What the fuck bro

>> No.20427034


We actually have several prototypes still in the running. They're far more powerful than how 40k bolters are described though.

>> No.20427046

You mean like the way that our railguns make tau railguns look like popguns?

>> No.20427051


Yep. The demons and magic have their own internal justification - the warp - but the bullets are retarded because they're based on "real science". If they used the warp as a justification for the bullets, that would be fine.

But as it is, nope. Bolter rounds are as retarded as Land Raider armor.

>> No.20427054

Okay, yes, the materials science is clearly a case of DNDTR, and could have been circumvented by just saying they're gyrojet rounds.

>> No.20427055

What's the new thing they're planning on?

I might wanna use it as an inspiration for a "Generic Evil Corp Tank". Because damn, those Israeli's sure know how to pick a visually effective tank design.

It's like you see a tank in an RTS roll by with two barrels, huge tracks and lots of spikes.
>yup, that one belongs to the bad guys

>> No.20427062


Pretty much. 40k's writers are brits, it makes sense that they would know jack shit about weapons.

>> No.20427064

That's ridiculous logic you have there
In a universe where the warp is a thing
Deuterium may well be something entirely different to what real science says it is
Stop being silly

>> No.20427070


Exactly. Or used some kind of magic future space metal with a made up name.

But instead they went with depleted heavy hydrogen cores.

>> No.20427072

Not to mention they are practically impossible to use outside Israel and other countries with very dry and hard ground due to their weight.

>> No.20427074

I'm a brit, I love weaponry
Just because we don't have handguns doesn't mean we can't take an interest in serious military grade firepower

>> No.20427076


Except that's wrong. 40k, like all fantasy universes, is built on this precept: "Like ours, except where noted".

>> No.20427078

Someone just fucked up and wrote deuterium instead of uranium.


Space Marines aren't tanks on legs.

They're A-10's on legs.

>> No.20427086


You know, im not sure...

I would hope they go back to using the centurion

>> No.20427087


>I'm a brit, I love weaponry

That could make you a statistical outlier. In my experience, only countries with a lower base level of intelligence like America, my own homeland, and Russia, tend to have cultures fetishizing firearms.

>> No.20427089

Aren't all of our railguns vastly greater in size, though? And from my admittedly limited understanding of how railguns work, that does have some bearing on their effectiveness.

>> No.20427092

>Like ours
1/10 I replied

>> No.20427095


We already have depleted uranium rounds bro. I somehow doubt even a heavy bolter could fire with the same speed or power as the GAU-8.

>> No.20427107


nvm that apparently the new british MBT is the challenger.

>> No.20427115



This is what passes for intelligent discourse on /tg/, guys. Point at him and laugh.

Pro tip: if you don't know the basic precepts of fantasy, you probably have no place on a board about make-believe.

>> No.20427118

That's the thing.

In Europe you can be fascinated by guns, despite being fetishising guns.

You know, sipping some red wine with tapas while watching Russian commercials of the TOS-1 Buratino turning 10 acres of land in one napalm covered wasteland within one minute.

>> No.20427121


Eh, not too convinced about that.

Not to wank the IDF, because god knows that they gets wanked more than enough.

But from what little i have heard the Saudi`s have some of the best gear in the world and some of the absolutely worst soldiers in the world.

That being said the Merkava does its job pretty well, and that job is being an invulnerable pillbox that really should not move too much.

>> No.20427123

if they wanted to make a fictional thing, they should've called it a fictional thing instead of a real thing.

"my character drinks Uranium!" see how retarded it sounds when I haven't given any reason for the "Uranium" to be different from ours?

>> No.20427126


Yes, of course! Clearly the existence of the warp means that gravity doesn't exist! And the humans don't need to breather or eat! Because of the warp, which means everything is different! Also
"Terra" is not in fact Earth, and "steel" is actually some kind of super space steel!

>> No.20427130


>liquid uranium

Jesus christ

I mean, it's possible, but still

>> No.20427134

M60A2 "Starship".

So many problems, all to get a shitty cannon with a even shittier ATGM to fire from the barrel. And all of that as bleed-off from the failed (for good reasons) MBT70 project.

The Soviets did the entire thing better from the start by just designing the missile to fit the barrels they had in the first place.

Still, does look pretty cool.

>> No.20427136

I dunno, it could be DU gyrojet rounds. That would pack a fair punch, I imagine.

>> No.20427144

Well, since a heavy bolter is basically a depleted uranium tipped fragmentation rocket, I'd say it's more like a slow-firing A-10 that has grenades attached to its bullets.

>> No.20427157


Yeah, but still. They'd have more punch than a 20mm regular slug, yet that probably wouldn't approach the power of a giant car-sized gun.

>> No.20427160

Oh, you mean that thing they replaced with Plasteel in order to specifically differentiate it?
Oh yeah, I forgot that in our universe the earth has no water, and a quarter of the moon is missing, and the fucking warp is a thing, and we have psykers, and humans routinely mutate in to meta-species
No, seriously, you can not state that the 40k universe is "like ours"
It's incredibly vaguely analogous at the very best

>> No.20427161

Yes, well, not every idea is a good one. And frequently shit like this is caused by fuckwits in the Pentagon. Just look at the M-2 Bradley.

>> No.20427166


A punch would be effective with that if you have no idea about fighting. At least one sharp edge would hit the enemy and hurt him even if you miss.

>> No.20427171

It probably is just a DU gyrojet that frags.

Dunno. The depleted uranium makes it sound even scarier than "generic weird scifi material".

Also comes with various ethical implications.

If Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka gets cancer, will he put the blame on the Space Marines, for using depleted uranium weaponry on his brain?

>> No.20427186

That thing sucked?

Oh man, blow to the childhood.

That was my favourite tank in my dads Encyclopedia. It looked so futuristic.

>> No.20427200


>Land Raider Armor

>2 layers of ceramite, 1 titanium/plasteel layer, 1 adamantium layer and 1 thermoplas layer, equivalent to 365mm conventional steel armour

>conventional steel

See? Words still mean what they mean. Conventional steel =/= plasteel, which is why they said conventional steel in the first place: in order to draw a comparison between real world armor strength and land raider armor strength.

>> No.20427203


I think he already has the supercancer.

>> No.20427208


It does look futuristic.

Kinda retro, probably would work in a Fallout game.

>> No.20427221

The Bradley at least found a niche, and not a terrible one at that.

>> No.20427227

all those things are defined in the "different" category from our universe and explained as such.

yeah, they had plassteel to differentiate from our familiar steel.

they didn't have (insert prefix)deuterium in the setting. anything not specified assumes similarity to our familiar world.

>> No.20427244


>> No.20427246


Speaking of which, wow, looking at the Land Raider's stats, even the Bradley could kick its shit in.

>> No.20427269

It was originally supposed to be a recon vehicle. You know...like a Jeep. Or a HMMWV. (which they promptly slapped armor on. Dumbasses.)

It only found its niche after they redesigned the thing to mitigate its glaring flaws.

>> No.20427279

palestinians throwing rocks at them isn't a major conflict.

>> No.20427282

Cue my uninformed, completely question, "Does it not?"

>> No.20427287


Yeah it's a shame, but thems the cards dealt for it.

>> No.20427289


That is OK enough, it is their fictional science so it can do whatever they want it to do.

They don't get to redefine words like "Conventional steel" or"mm" however. As that utterly destroys any frame of reference.

>> No.20427290

I think he means the actual wars.

>> No.20427312

Stop being an autistic sperglord and just admit that GW are just nerds that are good at drawing and designing minis with crazy stories attached to it.

They're not trying to imagine a realistic scifi story on the level of Arthur C. Clarke.

Not everyone is as OCD fucked up as you guys.

>> No.20427330

Looking at the fact that the Landraider laughs at plasma, railguns and laserbeams, I'd say it's probably closer to the armour value of a battleship than a tank.

>> No.20427334

In and of itself, not as such. What it DOES do, is enable semi-effective defense against multiple weapon types, rather than being easily defeated by, say, plasma.

>> No.20427335

What's your homeland?
Is it America or something else? Your sentence can be read both ways.
Also Russians fetishize weapons but know jackshit about them, even if they own some themselves. At least from my experience with Russia and Russian internet denizens.

>> No.20427348


That would make it worse actually. Modern tanks have better armor values than Battleships had.

>> No.20427354


Actually, it means that 40k's plasma, railguns, and lasers are super pathetic. See, we know the stats of the Land Raider's armor. Which means that, since 40k's weapons have a hard time denting it, those weapons are laughable compared to modern day weapons.

>> No.20427363


>I'd say it's probably closer to the armour value of a battleship than a tank.

It is. Battleships couldn't take much in the way of heavy fire, dude.

>> No.20427365

Parry then stab at the face/throat with a backhand stroke, I guess. The ridges look like they're meant to hold the other guy's sword better. Probably an offhand-weapon.

>> No.20427367


Huh. I guess I could see it then.

I'm just finding it difficult to see that a bullet (for simplicity's sake) would be able to punch through two slabs of steel at the same rate that it would punch through one- wouldn't a lot of it's force be stopped by the first slab?

>> No.20427380


Well, no. Sandwiching multiple layers allows you to concentrate more protection in less space than just slapping a huge chunk of armor on.

>> No.20427383

>retard shitheads whining about landraider armour again

I wonder if it's the fluoride in the water.

Like, it destroys the part in your brain that tells "Stop you're arguing over something that can easily be explained by the fact that some modellers just writes up something without thinking too much about it."

>> No.20427390


>I wonder if it's the fluoride in the water.

Actually, it's the deuterium.

>> No.20427397

>Actually, it means that 40k's plasma, railguns, and lasers are super pathetic. See, we know the stats of the Land Raider's armor. Which means that, since 40k's weapons have a hard time denting it, those weapons are laughable compared to modern day weapons.

>> No.20427398


u mad your precious 40k is retarded?

>> No.20427399

Not really, especially not DU gyrojet rounds or rail slugs. .50 cal bullets, for that matter, can punch through about a quarter inch of steel and still have stopping power left. (don't quote me on the thickness. That's an off-the-top-of-my-head-asspull figure.)

>> No.20427418


Sure, that is why bullets are not just bullets anymore.

There is a vast amount of Science! being applied to creating ever better ways of killing each other dead.

>> No.20427420

Concerning the Bradley:


>> No.20427427

I highly doubt that a Tiger would have armour comparable to a battleship.

>> No.20427435

All of the double weapons from DnD are pretty fucking retarded.

>> No.20427445


What? Tigers aren't modern battle tanks at all.

>> No.20427451


And a Tiger is not a modern tank

>> No.20427452

slabs of what thickness and strength? and what kind of bullet?

also materials react differently to same amount of stress, and depending on the locations and such needs to act accordingly.

>> No.20427453

I'm mad about you fucking up a great thread.

We're discussing stupid weapons. Not things that you're too retarded to understand.

>> No.20427460

A battleship was designed to stand up to fire from the guns it carried. The could stand up to a lot of fire from anything smaller than them, and it was a slugging match with anything the same size.

>> No.20427480


That's true.

And yet the Yamato's 650mm of armor - the thickest battleship armor ever fielded - is still inferior to the protection on the good old Abrams.

Granted the Abrams is supposed to be pretty advanced.

>> No.20427483

And battleships stopped being relevant AGES ago.

The moment I said BATTLESHIP, your idea of TANK should kick back to the idea of a tank during the time that people used BATTLESHIPS.

It's not that hard. Do you fucks even discuss weapons often or are you too spergtarded dumbshits for such intense mental capacity?

>> No.20427496


I'm not the guy who brought up battleships, though. That's the 40kid up there's fault.

>> No.20427503


Sup /k/, how's that /pol/ 2.0 thing coming along?

>> No.20427504

>Do you fucks even discuss weapons often
>are you too spergtarded dumbshits for such intense mental capacity?
Talking about weapons confirmed to require intense mental capacity

>> No.20427507

I lol'd at that way harder than i should've

polite sage for not contributing

>> No.20427519


>Yeah, it works. When you're fighting some guerilla fighters maybe.

Because that's exactly what it's designed to fight you dribbling retard. Why would the Israelis spend ten million dollars per tank to make something that can compete with an Abrams or Leopard 2 in an open tank battle? They are never going to have to engage modern Western armour.

They don't have to fight huge open tank battles. They have to manoeuvre well in the confines of a city, and they have to protect their crew from IEDs, RPGs and mortars. It has to be cheap enough for a stretched military, and, in the absolute worst case scenario, it has to out-perform the various Soviet relics that Iran and Egypt can field.

>> No.20427520

Don't you think that when a guy mentions battleships in an example, you should like... follow his train of thought and not talk about modern tanks within that example?

Like when someone says "this thing, it's like the swords among things!" and you don't go yell "HURRR GAU-8 KILLS PEOPLE BETTER THAN SWORDS!"

>> No.20427541

>> No.20427542


> it has to out-perform the various Soviet relics that Iran and Egypt can field.

>Egypt has nearly 800 M1 Abrams units

>> No.20427543

And we're talking about Landraiders compared to modern day tanks, not WWII era naval ships.

>> No.20427544

But they might.

If they go throwing nukes around, there will be Leopards and Challengers and Leclercs all over Israel.

>> No.20427552


>don't you think that when a guy mentions battleships in an example, you should like... follow his train of thought and not talk about modern tanks within that example?

Dude, I was talking about modern tanks. He then compared Land Raider armor to battleship armor, clearly thinking battleship armor was superior to modern MBT armor.

Which is patently retarded.

>> No.20427557

Still waiting on the A3 upgrade, for now though I will just have to keep fapping to the Leopard 2 Awhateverthey'reuptonow the BMPT and it's WE NEED 2 OF EVERYTHING approach.

>> No.20427559


What you're saying is, if someone tries to shift the goalposts, you should just go along with it? Okay then.

>> No.20427588

And the guy said that the Landraider compares to tanks like a battleship compares to tanks (that are from the same time as battleships).

Which is correct, because when the US Navy has finally rigged those railguns up, there won't be a tank capable of surviving railguns for a loooooong, looooooooong time.
Same with the lasers.

The plasma... well, thing is, plasma might work in 40k, but it won't work in the real world.
But given the comparable temperatures of plasma and nuclear weapons, it's safe to say that a Landraider will work fine as a make-shift nuclear bunker.

It just won't drive anymore. And you probably need some help getting out. As in a pretty good plasmacutter or whatever.

>> No.20427595

Imagine that thing spinning the fuck around like mad. It would be fucking intimidating. Useless but intimidating.

>> No.20427604

I still love that thing for it's stupidity. It's so stupid it's kinda endearing

>> No.20427620

That thing would make me laugh if I saw someone pull it on me.

>> No.20427629


Modern Tanks are pretty good nuclear bunkers, you know.

Due to the fact that they were made to perform well in a combat environment where they expected the use of nuclear weapons.

>> No.20427631

yeah, intimidating to the user.

those blades are just asking to get your eyes or worse gouged

>> No.20427632

No I didn't.

I clearly meant the battleship as in a direct comparison between WWII era battleships and WWII era tanks.

Otherwise the comparison would be USELESS. Because you know... battleships aren't used anymore.


If you deck out a battleship in Chobham armour, that battleship will be far more difficult to destroy than a Challenger II.

So I don't get what you're whining about. You're just being a pain in the ass.

>> No.20427646

You mean radiation shelter.

That is completely different from a nuclear bunker.

>> No.20427649

Only if you are an idiot. It would not be hard to get it spinning fast out to your left or right.

>> No.20427673


>I clearly meant the battleship as in a direct comparison between WWII era battleships and WWII era tanks.

>Looking at the fact that the Landraider laughs at plasma, railguns and laserbeams, I'd say it's probably closer to the armour value of a battleship than a tank.

Yes, clearly. You clearly meant WWII tanks when everyone else was talking about modern tanks.


>> No.20427680


If you deck out a battleship in enough Chobam armor to give it the same RHA as a modern tank, it sinks.

Even back in the days Battleships were considered the finest ships at sea, they still only armored up the really vital parts of the ship, such as the magazine. otherwise the weight would make them cripplingly slow.

>> No.20427681

Whoever posted this.


This brought a smile on my face.

>> No.20427688

i can attest to the Saudi armed forces being shit. their maintenance and personal reliability is beyond awful. they would i belive be combat ineffective due to their own incompetence within a week. also they are a cowardly lot in general and are not remotely in to scrapping in any form at all. spent 4 months with the lazy useless wankers in 1998 and i'd be stunned beyond the telling if they had gotten any better. quote "we will never have to fight a war again. people saw what you did to Iraq and we are better friends than Kuwait."

>> No.20427703

This was in a previous thread. It is used to kill horses.

>> No.20427710 [DELETED] 

Abandon thread. Trolls ruin everything. Fucking summer.

>> No.20427721

Know the movie?
It's even more funny if you're not American.

>> No.20427741 [DELETED] 


Trolls can't ruin what 40kids have already tainted, chum.

>> No.20427745

It's a funny movie that has some truth to it...but it's not truth, it's a misleading and very loose interpretation thereof.

>> No.20427756


The vast majority of tanks that Egypt can field are things like T-62s and T-55s, and M60 Pattons.

The M1 Abrams that they have won't have the new Chobham armour, which is standard on all new American Abrams. This is what makes the British Challenger 2 so damn invincible. Egyptians also won't have access to the American and German ammunition, which is the really good stuff.

When I say "modern Western armour" I mean armour produced in and operated by a Western nation. A key difference is in the fit and finish of the tank, which goes a long way towards crew comfort and morale. The crew themselves would be well below the standard of American, European, and even Russian/Israeli tank crews.

Consider also that the current Egyptian military hierarchy is in something resembling chaos due to the revolution. On crew-versus-crew and general-versus-general scales the Egyptians would basically be outperformed. Realistically, of course, Egyptian tanks would just be bombed into the ground by Israeli (and later American/NATO) air power.

>> No.20427796

From what I hear and read, the M1A1 Abrams is the true fuckup of the US military.

Got some info on that? I know the Abrams has gone through more redesigns than any other MBT as far as I know.

Costly redesigns.

>> No.20427817


Is the Challenger 2 really invincible? It has yet to actually face an equivalent MBT in the field, or any weapon that could harm it.

>> No.20427857

not invincible but better than most but the leopard 2 might (probably is) better

>> No.20427858


I am in no way an expert, but i have not heard of anything exceptionally bad about it.

Of course none of the current MBT`s have been put to the ultimate test, which is good since they were all built for WWIII.

I have heard that the Abrams is very fuel hungry however.

>> No.20427872

Well, it might not be invincible, but of all the MBT's on the planet, it comes closest to invincibility.

Remember, the only one that was truly wrecked was an unlucky friendly fire accident down a hatch or some shit.

>> No.20427893


not that I've heard, but then even the Lee-Enfield went through a lot of work and revisions to get it to be an amazing thing, so it would not surprise me that it was not what it became from the start.

No tank is invincible. Not even slightly. Anything built by man can be destroyed by man. What it is though is tough, very tough, and has a history of taking a lot of RPG hits. Problem is that nearly all the hits it's taken over the past decade have been shitty old RPG-7 rounds not fuck-your-tank rounds from newer models with well built and maintained ammunition.

>> No.20427900

I came here for pictures of silly weapons and all I see is people arguing about 40k

>> No.20427907

oh, and tanks I guess

>> No.20427912

Note, there aren't many Chally 2's.

So the low numbers might contribute to an overtly positive image.

But yeah, if you have to pick between the Abrams and the Challenger II to drive through a street full of guys with rocket launchers and missile launchers, pick the Challenger II.

>> No.20427927

Thread derail courtesy of the Bolter concept.

>> No.20427947


I doubt that the abrams is a fuck up...


It was designed to destroy russian tanks and it did just that shockingly well.

>> No.20427962


What the fuck are you smoking? The gyrojet pistol and carbine didn't "Punch through tank armor at distances greater than 20 ffeet" That was about the point where they started being lethal to humans, rather than just bouncing off. And even at their optimal range, they were only about as powerful as a .45 out of a long barrel. Y'aint gonna take out a tank with a 1911.

Early production gyrojet rounds were plenty accurate past 20 feet. They were, by most accounts, about as accurate as regular pistols and carbines out to similar ranges. But the rounds were expensive, and when the company started skimping on quality control to lower prices, they ran into problems with burrs blocking the gas ports and sending the rounds spiraling off to nowhere.

The prototypes were a fascinating toy, but their advantages of light weight silent operation and no recoil were rather outweighed by their cost, inconsistency, and the fact that they left a smoke trail leading back to the shooter.

Also they didn't explode, and they weren't flechettes.

A bolter, as usually portrayed, is actually not a lot like a gyrojet gun and much more like the Russian "Balkan" automatic grenade launcher. It's "caseless" but not recoilless, and it's shots explode

But then, I suppose bolters eject shell casings, which make them like neither a gyrojet nor the Balkan. it's just a bunch of jargon some limey nerds threw together to sound cool.

>> No.20427984

The Abrams did that again and again. More than a few M1s took in excess of 30 RPG hits per engagement.

>> No.20427999

I swear there's some fucking autist scanning /tg/'s page 0 for threads with even the tiniest relevance to 40k to fuck up.

I wasn't saying it's a piece of crap. It's more like when the standard Abrams was competing with the Leopard, how the FUCK did the Pentagon not pick the Abrams?

Yeah, the Abrams is on par with the Leopard now. Thanks to the redesigns. And shitloads of evaporated tax dollars.

>> No.20428016


The Abrams is a very specialised tool.

The problem isn't that it's shit (it's really not), the problem is that the war in Iraq forced the tank into a role it is not designed for.

It all comes down to this: the Abrams is designed and built - it is completely engineered in every way - to engage and destroy other tanks. That is its job, and in open tank battles it is a complete fucking monster. Against a T-72 or less it's armour is impenetrable and its weapon is certain death.

Now, you take this tank, this precision instrument, and you put it in the middle of Baghdad. This is when you notice problems. Its sheer size and weight limit its travel options. The powerful engine - which let it easily out-manoeuvre other tanks - runs so hot that infantry can't stand behind it. The armour scheme is almost completely focussed on stopping enemy tank rounds from the front and sides, leaving the rear and top (especially the upper glacis) vulnerable to RPGs (especially from above - say from a rooftop). It also has a generally low resistance to anti-tank mines, and therefore to IEDs.

The upgrade packages are for many reasons and yes, they are expensive, but when these upgrades allow you to share ammo with other NATO nations, reduce your insane fuel consumption, and stop tanks from being destroyed then overall you're saving money.

>> No.20428020

> did the Pentagon pick the Abrams?

My bad. Little fuckup.

>> No.20428025

Ironically enough, the fellow that caused the derail wasn't an autist. Or did a good job of disguising same.

>> No.20428029

The hell? No, those aren't redesigns, they're upgrades. The M1 is so good, the US just upgrades it instead of building a whole new tank like Russia does.

It's good enough, the army predicts it will last to 2030 before needing replacement.

>> No.20428049

Did somebody say Chainsaw paddle thread?

'cause I think somebody said Chainsaw Paddle thread!

>> No.20428073


Admittedly that is not so much because it is awesome and more because anyone wanting a new MBT on the current and foreseeable budgets would be crucified.

>> No.20428078

Get the fuck out.

That thing is fantastic.

>> No.20428084

No, they can handle a little bit of the actual explosion, too. Granted, not much, but if an M1's crew buttons up and holds the fuck on they can ride out the blast if they're at the outer edges of a small nuke blast. Remember, a nuke's explosion does damage by thermal and pressure. Modern MBTs are designed to handled shaped-charge warheads (thermal) and KE penetrators (pressure). The pressure is a bigger problem since it's not single point but rather massive generalize pressure, so it actually handles the heat wave a bit better.
Your track will still be a useless lump of shit, but you and your crew will be alive unless Murphy has it in for you.

Nah, the Brad beats it hands down unless you're including the MBT-70 program in with it. The Abrams only had like two competing tank designs, and the design demands were fairly straightforward, IIRC. After the MBT-70 and M60A2 the Army seemed to find a shred of intelligence for the M1. That, and most of the stupid got shifted to stuff like the Bradley.

Notice that it was the SCOUT aspect from the cav fag that started the clusterfuckfest in that Pentagon Wars clip.

>> No.20428109

What's up with the SA-80?

Whenever I mention it, people either start calling it a shit gun, or call it the best thing since powdered toast.

>inb4 bullpup hating faggots swarming in

>> No.20428113

I'm more amazed that that thing is held only by 3 strands of duct tape.

you figure you would need a whole roll to keep it in place.

>> No.20428136

They would have been crucified in the past, because the proliferation of smart indirect fires and AT missiles would have made tanks less important, if funding had continued at cold-war levels.

Fighting insurgencies and third-world armies, without cold-war funding at hand, reminded everyone that mobile, armored direct fire is still a powerful niche.

>> No.20428142

Quality post man.

Have some random shitty looking Middle-Eastern tank.

>> No.20428159

Don't the current gen of man portable AT missiles rape the shit out of tanks anyway though?

>> No.20428165


>Implying any modern version of the leopard 2 isn't just as heavy, and that the challenger 2 isn't even heavier, and that ALL main battle tanks don't skimp on top and back armor and aren't vulnerable to AT mines. I mean think about it for a fucking second. ANTI-TANK MINES. What do you suppose is vulnerable to an ANTI-TANK MINE?

The very latest leopard 2 PSO (which I'm not sure is even in service) might be a bit more mine resistant than most other tanks as a result of the refinement of going through more than half a dozen of those aforementioned expensive redesigns and taxpayer dollars and whatnot.

The next American tank will likely use a diesel instead of a gas turbine in light of experience, but it wasn't a bad decision per se to put it there in the first place. It was a very powerful engine at the time, and it is an incredibly versatile multi-fuel engine, which could theoretically help with logistics problems in the sort of war it was designed for.

>> No.20428167

Bullpups are pretty retarded, but then again so is that 5.56mm ammo that they use now. I would be scared shitless if there were people that had full auto 7.62mm FALs able to punch through trees at 500m in the area. But I can not find the 5.56 as very intimidating with its range

>> No.20428171


There is no difference in the armour composition between the M1A2, the Cr2 and the Leo2. It is all either Chobham or something based on Chobham. The difference is in the layout: the differences in slope and distribution that can optimise a tank for certain roles.

The M1A2 for example is very front-heavy but needs to be fast. The Leo2 is more balanced, and the Cr2 is designed to be the last tank standing no matter what is thrown at it.

All of these tanks have taken stupid numbers (going up to about 90+) of hits from shit-tier Soviet-era equipment. The thing is that all serious anti-tank weapons, such as Javelin/Hellfire missiles or the various Russian barrel-launched ATGMs, are top-attack munitions using their guidance to hit the weakest part.

This is primarily why a massed tank battle (as in Desert Storm) will only happen if the superior side forces it, as things on this front are getting really, really scary. Examples of this are guided artillery shells with an error margin smaller than the tank they're aiming at. Or, my personal favourite, missiles which would release several guided sub-munitions which could engage and destroy a tank each. Railguns aren't relevant now, and I personally doubt that they will be for a long time.

>> No.20428173

That's an American tank, not a middle-eastern one. An M3 Lee to be precise, early WW2.

>> No.20428179


I believe it was utter crap in the beginning, amongst a ton of other problems the polymers that made up a large part of it reacted with mosquito spray and deformed when exposed to it.

Later it was revamped a good bit and turned out pretty OK.

>> No.20428182


A WWIII scale war with the "Western" forces in it would be so destructive, that within a few months of warfare, pretty much the only option that remains is nuclear warfare.

>> No.20428197

Why are bullpups retarded? I keep hearing this, but I've never seen anyone explain why having a longer barrel in a shorter, lighter gun is bad.

>> No.20428198

Yes...but they aren't common enough, mobile enough, and networked enough to make tanks obsolete. Getting those qualities available could have happened already, but it would be more expensive than using tanks.

So while smart missiles are still rare and expensive, tanks are adding active-defense systems that need to be spammed for a missile to get through. That raises the bar more.

In 50 years, maybe AI drones with smart-missile racks will be the new manoeuvre vehicle of choice; but not sooner. than that.

>> No.20428208

That's the American M3 Lee bro.

>> No.20428220

So it's probably being used or was used as a tank in some Middle-Eastern country a couple years after the expiration date, I guess.

>> No.20428223


It's kind of shit, but since the germans unfucked it, it's plenty good enough.

Rifles only have to *sort of work* to do their job. Their job being making the infantryman enough of a threat that the enemy doesn't just completely ignore them, so the enemy will stand still long enough for the meaningful weapons to kill them.

Infantry small arms (excluding machine guns) account for much less than 10% of battlefield casualties. If bullets usually come out the correct end when you pull the trigger, it's a good enough rifle.

>> No.20428229

Slower to reload, and they don't point as naturally. The ones that don't eject forward are also awkward to fire from the opposite shoulder.

>> No.20428254

>still putting lefties in your armies

>> No.20428262

Basically the original version was a badly rushed badly designed piece of crap that wasn't the EM-2.

The fixed version now it fucking brilliant, and is what it should have been from the start.

That's pretty much it.

>> No.20428279

Why thank you, Anon.

Huh. I wonder which Mid East hellhole is still using the M3 Lee.

It's because the original version was a jam-o-matic, while the HK-led redesign for the A2 made it into a respectable assault rifle, largely by making it *gasp* more reliable under field conditions.
From there it comes down to Brits liking their own weapons, especially since few others have actually handled the damned things (whereas the AK-series and AR-15 derived weapons are the whores of the small arms world).
IMHO, still not the best bullpup out there, but the L85A2 is indeed respectable and I'd love to get my hands on one.

>> No.20428287


Probably five-six years ago i read that the Taliban was moving away from the "AK-47`s for everyone" model and going for "RPG-7 for most of us and AK-47`s for the rest" instead when they had the available resources.

>> No.20428293

Handedness doesn't matter. Shooting from either shoulder is a basic rifle skill useful in cities.

>> No.20428330

Yes, although the fact that small arms don't really matter much in conventional wars isn't the real reason for that.

It's to cram as much firepower into an ambush as possible; because fire support is slow in afghanistan, but still on-call. A radio will always be a bigger gun than anything infantry can carry.

>> No.20428335


>> 20428167 here

They require much more complex mechanisms. More moving parts means more ways your rifle can fail and leave you screwed over. If there is a failure in the ammo, it will blow up right by your cheek rather than a few inches above your face. They are less intuitive to train with, and when you fire prone the recoil can damage the magazine and cause jams. And the only advantage they bring is a lower overall length for a longer barrel, which is not really worth the trade off.

>> 20428254
If you can only fire right handed you are worse off when getting around left corners.

I'm a southpaw shooter, can't shoot worth shit with my right. I really want to get a modified bolt action sometime ...

>> No.20428341

the reason it was such a huge fuckup was not that the design was bad, but that the factory version was inferior to the prototype version. the prototype version of the gun was pretty good, but by being cheap the factory versions were shit, the mag fell out on random, the stock broke and many more stuff

>> No.20428384


>greentext implications
>[all main battle tanks skimp on top and back armor and are vulnerable to AT mines]

What you say is true but the M1 takes this to extremes. Look at my picture. The area of armour is in fact quite thin. Normally, as in when fighting an enemy tank, the angle of this armour is sufficient to deflect the incoming round.

However, the closer the angle of incidence is to 90 degrees, the weaker the armour is. So whereas a modern APFSDS round from the front would bounce off, some asshole with an almost-modern RPG would get a perfect angle if he were attacking from a rooftop.

There are ways to increase survivability versus AT mines, but these come at the expense of characteristics such as speed and a low profile, which are desirable in MBTs.

>> No.20428386

>> 20428197
Thanks, interesting stuff.

>> No.20428532


>5.56x45mm NATO is bad.

This is patently false. 5.56 from the right weapon is more than accurate enough to hit man-sized targets at range: US infantry are expected to hit at 550 metres. For longer ranges than this there are DMRs and dedicated sniper platforms, and of course light/medium machine-guns which retain their effectiveness into the kilometre-plus range.

From a long enough barrel the 5.56 is adequately lethal. It's not as scary as the 7.62x51mm NATO but it will kill you just as dead. Plus, for every round of 7.62 a soldier can carry two rounds of 5.56 which, combined with less recoil and larger magazines means more hits on targets.


Most "retarded" bullpup rifles are just badly designed, and would be equally retarded if they were conventional rifles. Problems of being a bullpup are;
1) Weapon is extremely back-heavy
2) The trigger is "squishy" because of the stretched mechanism
3) Ejected rounds would hit a left-handed shooter in the face
4) Reloading is difficult whilst prone

Points 1 through 3 are all solvable, and have been solved with various mechanisms or designs. Point 4 can be solved simply by training your soldiers. Conventional rifles have their own advantages/disadvantages too.

>> No.20428547

Stop saying nigga. "Boss as fuck" means you're confirmed for being a sweaty fucking suburbanite.

>> No.20428568

And then there is this faggot.

Loom buddy, let's just some up your post.


Move along, thats one phrase that does nothing in a barely credible book. That line is as credible as Xenology.

>> No.20428599

>implying wooden armor wasn't god tier where metallurgy was in its infancy.

>> No.20428612


Gonna need a source on that chief.

Not trying to be beligerent here, I love the gyrojet pistol. But I've never seen anything that even remotely sugested that it could take out tanks at any range.

>> No.20428621

Check out the M1A2 TUSK. They did try to address some of those problem. V-shaped hull + so many hundred more pounds of belly armor, reactive armor panels, slat armor over the ass end, etc. Saw one in person back at the 2008 Armor Conference, looked decent.

>> No.20428634


The Germans shook their heads and gutted the SA80 completely, and just replaced the innards with those from the G36.

>L85A2 is not the best bullpup out there

It's certainly not great, but what on earth is there to compare it to?

The ranking-worst-in-every-single-NATO-trial FAMAS?
The still flawed and unreliable AUG series?
The F2000 which has the innards of a coffee machine?
The Tavor which is generally considered to be a mess?

Even the Chinese QBZ-97 was swiftly abandoned for another AK clone.

The bullpup rifle which is, in my opinion, the best designed is the Kel-Tec RFB (pic related). It is perfectly balanced, ejects casings forwards and has a nice clean trigger by all accounts. Unfortunately there have been manufacture problems even in the small numbers they are making for the civilian market.

>> No.20428640

Are you fucking shitting me? Do you have no idea how useful a ship-launched sea-plane is?

>> No.20428661


Come on, it's only done in jest. Now, if he was actually trying to pose, I could understand your reaction!

>> No.20428673

This is now copypasta

>> No.20428679

US Army gets trained to shoot man-sized half-person targets out to 300m, DMRs get trained to shoot out to 500m (IIRC), and snipers are trained to hit at least 500m and then further out.
AFAIK, the Marines are fairly similar, don't let their anecdotes fool you. Their 500m targets are fucking huge.

Otherwise, well fucking said about the bullpup, sir.

>> No.20428686

>powdered toast
where can i buy this

>> No.20428692

Derp, I meant SDM, not DMR. SDMs 'shoot' DMRs.

>> No.20428696

What the fuck did you just fucking say about my favorite weapon, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

>> No.20428712

> the gyrojet pistol could punch through tank armor at ranges greater than about 20 feet
Then I realized /tg/ had no fucking idea about weapons development.

The gyrojet topped out at ~1250fps, which is less than half of the m16's 5.56 could muster.

>> No.20428718

Perhaps, in the mind of 40kiddies, "penetrate tank armor" means "penetrate the (aluminium) side face of a M113." 7.62 can do that on a good day, it's conceivable that a gyrojet could do that.

>> No.20428724

>not threatening

>> No.20428749

>gorilla warfare
Stopped reading there, the mental image was too great.

>> No.20428752

They are trained to do that in basic training, with iron sights.

In an infantry unit, routinely hitting targets at 500-600m with an M4 is what people are expected to do.

>> No.20428759

/k/ please leave.

>> No.20428770

Wecome to /tg/. Enjoy cultist-chan and HERESYHERESYHERESY ad nauseum.

>> No.20428785


>that is not so much because it is awesome and more because anyone wanting a new MBT on the current and foreseeable budgets would be crucified

>40% of national budget on military, still not enough

America, ladies and gentlemen

>> No.20428832

You are simply making a statement not similar to reality. Perhaps because you are a liberal arts major and can't understand accounting? (pic related).

>> No.20428833

Department of Defense is paying for me, the postdoc and professor in my lab. I fucking love military spending.

>> No.20428850


/tg/ brought this on itself by spouting shit.

It's out of love though, I promise.

>> No.20428884


Defense Department, Discretionary, and Other are all military spending, retard. Do you not even know how your government works?

>> No.20428887

Go away, I love hearing about the practicality of tanks and assault rifles.

>> No.20428905

>/tg/ wanted to talk about silly weapons
>/k/ comes in here being armchair soldiers

Nah, seems like you're all just being vapid cunts, now post some stupid weapons instead of being a gunfucking redneck.

No one here besides you /k/ faggots give a shit about marines and what a Gyrojet round really does.

Bolters are space Gyrojet weapons, Steel mentioned in the Imperial Armour is a special steel alloy, Space marines spit acid and their chainswords are folded over a million times.

Stop the bullcrap and post something relevent to the fucking topic.

>> No.20428918

dat triforce tattoo

>> No.20428925


> Steel mentioned in the Imperial Armour is a special steel alloy,

Then why call it steel? Dumbass, they've already got plasteel and adamantium. Steel as mentioned in Imperial armor is pretty clearly just regular steel.

>> No.20428948

Because this super special space steel is not super special and steely enough to have an awesome alloy name.

Like today, we have a varied amount of steel alloys under the roof word moniker. Humans in 40k could have found an awesome element mix for Steel alloy to make it ten times more awesome, but other alloys are also this awesome mix with even more awesome stuff.

Like how our steel is better than steel from 400 years ago.

>> No.20428952

I'm not even /k/ and I'm enjoying the talk.

also, no u. you post some silly weapons if you want to discuss silly weapons so much.

>> No.20428962

/k/ pls go

>> No.20428963

Or as an alternative.

Grimderp Particles make it harder. The Warhammer Universe is made of Grimderp Particles.

>> No.20428967

>Then why call it steel?
because the general-use steel of the time is more easily called "steel" than "Steel alloy #40,000"

Just like in the reals.

>Steel as mentioned in Imperial armor is pretty clearly just regular steel.
except it displays qualities that clearly aren't possible with our modern "conventional steel".

>> No.20428968


>Like how our steel is better than steel from 400 years ago

Hahaha, no. The only thing that's changed is the efficiency with which we can make it. Steel is steel.

>> No.20428977

I could feel the rage overtaking me until I realized I wasn't the only one who knew it was Lee...

Have some impracticality on me.

>> No.20428986

onlything different is level of impurities and stuff taken out of it, steel is steel.

>> No.20428988

No it's not.

Steel is a catchterm for an iron Carbon Alloy, you can throw any fucking thing in there and call it steel.

Nowadays we don't use Steel alloys from 400 years ago that would be just plain less efficient and strong or flexible as our alloys we have developed today.

>> No.20428997

>typical /k/ redneck cannot into alloys.

>> No.20429003

>mfw when the MGS3 starting with the launch of that thing

>> No.20429011

No, stop talking. ./tg/ isn't 40kid central, a fair number of us prefer to have conversations based on reality and not in the context of your favorite game.

>> No.20429012

actually I'm a pure /tg/ denizen, pardon my ignorance

>> No.20429015

Oh, why don't you just talk about sharks instead.

>> No.20429033

stupid weapons indeed. it's gotta keep on moving or it dies? Who designed this?

>> No.20429035

Here's why the L85A1 was shit.

Back in the 50's Brtitain developed the EM2 rifle, it fired an intermediate .280 round which had very good ballistics. America at the time adopted the m14 and more or less went NOOOO!!!111 .280 CARTRIDGE SHITTY TOO WEAK TO KILL COMMUNISTS WE WANT 7.62 AS NATO CARTRIDGE. The L1A1 SLR was adopted by Britain and the EM2 shelved. In the meantime Britain started developing the L85, originally it was designed to fire a 4.85 a superior round to the 5.56, at around this time America declared NOOOOO!!111! WE DON'T WANT TO ADOPT A CARTRIDGE NOT MADE IN OUT COUNTRY WE ARE GOING TO USE THE 5.56 INSTEAD. Shortly after Nato adopted the 5.56 after American pressure . So the L85 was hastily redesigned to fit the larger round, this caused a lot of issues with the rifle, shortly after the gun was put into production the factory making them was sold off and the workers faced redundancy,many of them were unsatisfied with this and the rifles construction suffered greatly, parts were miss aligned and no one really cared any more. The rifles plastic melted when mosquito spray touched it, it fired when dropped, magazines fell out and the bolt occasionly blew out of the gun. HK eventually upgraded it and it is now an ok rifle. Interestingly the 6.5 cartridge the us army wants to adopt has very similar properties to the EM2'S .280 cartridge that America declared as not powerful enough, I could go into a lot more detail but doubt anyone would be interested.

>> No.20429044

It's a gun so badly-made, its magazines randomly fell out.

The M-16 early marks were gabrage. The original SA-80 is "deliberate treason"-tier bad.

>> No.20429051

I guess the T-1000 is also made out of... just steel.

>> No.20429060

We don't want to hear about fucking Marines and their training and other wankery stupid facts like that and how this and this and this is awesome for some stupid reason.

You can practially SEE the line when the /k/ rednecks swarmed in and made this a /k/ thread because they started spouting crap and talking about how GOOD a weapon is instead of how silly or impractical it is by design or even by looks.

>> No.20429062

You're acting like bullets have arbitrary power levels, like a 7.62 is automatically better than 5.56.

It's still a chunk of lead flying at you at supersonic speeds, dude. It's going to hurt no matter what size it is.

>> No.20429080

Don't throw your lot in with these Wikipedia-fact spouting sperglords then.

>> No.20429083

Shit like this makes me wonder how double-spies during the Cold War thought. I mean.

Just so much incompetence on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

>> No.20429089

He's from /k/

he's not even fired on another person with a gun in a combat scenario. All he has done is fire are deer or black people.

>> No.20429103

Actually, this thread is full with nice /k/ommandos and 40kfriends.

There are just a couple trolls in the thread fucking it up for everyone.

>> No.20429110

when did looks ever come into the play of ridiculousness of a weapon?

hunga munga is the most ridiculous looking weapon ever, but it's certainly a more practical and deadly weapon than a fucking chainsaw on a paddle.

>> No.20429111

L85a2 never failed me once on the range or off it. good rifle, wee bit heavy but its short length is a god send when working with vehicles and in urban searches which was what i was doing

>> No.20429127

No possible steel alloys exhibit the properties 40k fanboys ascribe to their steel. It's more reasonable to interpret 40k-steel as being a variety of steel alloy, not a form of nonbaryonic matter.

And if 40k does use a 350mm steel-equivalent for their tank...most RPGs will pop it, a fact borne out in the Imperial Armor series where tanks are cited as having severe difficulties against shaped-charge weapons.

>> No.20429164

The sad part is my grandfather partially designed the L85 and when it fired the original cartridge it was considered a better weapon reliability wise than the AR 15. I live very close to the enfield factories that produced the rifle too, when I was young my grandfather would take me down there to part of it was a museum and I would get to see all the exhibits up close and touch them. I got lots of stories about its design and function from the old guys who used to work there

>> No.20429174

>No possible steel alloys exhibit the properties 40k fanboys ascribe to their steel.

No shit. It's a steel alloy from the year 40,000 A.D.

Here. Have an image of some steel alloy from the year 2050.
You'll notice it looks nothing like the steel alloys we have.

>> No.20429176

I'll throw what I want, where I want, when I want

>> No.20429180

Yeah, boring article entries are not fucking interesting in the slightest.

Especially when they talk about fucking bullets that have little different between them, they are fucking bullets.

Hell the first Rednec/k/ started the whole shitposting with the "Conventional Steel" bullcrap.

Every rednec/k/ who visits /tg/ always tries to start a pathetic debate to try and say "Real life is stronger than your fantasy Nah~nah!"

They act like that kid who smells of shit who says his dad works for nintendo.

>> No.20429184

Why are you even arguing with a buttmad 40kid?

>> No.20429188


No, don't invent retarded excuses for retarded numbers.

It is not space steel it is conventional steel. Explicitly so.

Otherwise i could state that space marines are all two feet tall because Space feet are only 1/4 of what the unit we call a foot.

>> No.20429193

>Land raider
>Having trouble with charge based weaponry

Just leave Rednec/k/. Stop riling up shit.

>> No.20429200

actually bullet designs are kind of a fucking big deal.

>> No.20429205

Chances are if you say conventional steel, it means steel that has no extra additions; hence conventional fucking steel.

When I say standard cheerios, I don't mean honey nut cheerios, I mean the goddamn standard kind.

So by reading conventional steel and claiming it has extra additives is not at all what basic communication is based upon.

Also I'll say it again. 365mm of equivalent steel IS. NOT. BAD. GW developers and writer are probably well versed in old-school tank battles. The all-mighty kind tiger had about 180mm of armor and could go 41 kph on the road. So naturally the guy at GW save time and just 1-up what they knew to create their uber-tank. Instead of just 180mm of armor, they just doubled it and proudly sribbled 365mm of equivalent armor and had its speed increased by 10 to give them 51 kph.

So when you compare it to retro-earth, its a titan. But today out tanks are about to adopt shells that can be fired upward before a computer steers it back down into a target, so we're in an entirely different world military wise than the setting that GW tried to 1-up.

>tl;dr GW made tanks that compare favorably to early 20th century vehicles, not modern ones.

>> No.20429214

because this is /tg/

>> No.20429225

mfw /k does stupid weapon threads ten times better than /tg.

>> No.20429229

I don't even like 40k, I prefer Fantasy if I want my money taken from me.

What I don't like more than 40k is faggot rednec/k/s turning fun /tg/ threads into factspouting circlejerks about weapons that quite honenstly, no one besides /k/ gives a flying fuck about.

How is a crappy Magazine funny or interesting? It's just a fucking design flaw that you can't laugh at unless you're a gunfucking dumbass.

>> No.20429234

that's... wow... just wow...

>> No.20429241

>It is not space steel it is conventional steel. Explicitly so.
It is explicitly "conventional" to the year 40,000. Twentieth century steel alloys may or may not be anywhere near conventional a million billion years into the space future.

IA is full of stats that don't make sense. Like Crisis suits being eight feet tall.

>> No.20429246

Pointing out that 40k steel is fucking magic is like pointing out that D&D writers are 5+ editions in and STILL haven't realised that Studded Leather Armour is not a real thing, and that their D&D Next armour table in general is quite shocking.

We know. We know that these writers are wrong, we know that historical/current technology was/is different/better.

It really doesn't matter, just move on.

As a regular of /tg/ and /k/, this thread was completely fine until /tg/ complained about /k/ being in a weapon thread, and /k/ then refusing to shut the fuck up about steel.

>> No.20429249

To /k/ maybe.

I don't see anyone here who is natively browsing /tg/ giving any kind of shit.

We want to see crap like the Axegun or the spikey shieldy gauntlet. not how one bullet is slightly worse than the other.

Seriously, Go away gun Autists.

>> No.20429252

Seriously guys, a couple of writers decided to throw out some numbers for 40k stuff, and they were retarded. Sci-Fi writers are FAMOUS for having no sense of scale.

40k has no one 'canon'. It's been stated that everything: Black Library, Codexes and RPGs are all canon, even when they conflict. Terminators can backflip and you're arguing about the armour thickness of a fictional tank.

>> No.20429254

>because i like to shit up threads whenever people mention 40k

Why don't you take a hobby? Or get permabanned or some shit?

Finally, someone with some sense.

It's like people crying about double barrelled tanks in RTS games. Game developers aren't military engineers.

>> No.20429259

/tg/ has NEVER had a fun weapons and arms thread ever.

you have to be new if this is causing you grief

>> No.20429277

>shitty weapons thread
>/k/ circlejerk commences

What in the fuck just happened?

>> No.20429287

This thread directly became shit when /k/ started talking about MINOR FUCKING FACTS about firearms that make them impractical, but not funnily impractical.

Let me sum it up.

David Crocket
Comparing bullets
>boring tedious shit for gun autists.

This happens every time one of these threads happens, because nednec/k/s cannot shut the fuck up about guns.

>> No.20429288

what happens normally on /tg/ when it comes to weapons and arms

>> No.20429293

Actually, it's the fag that kept whining about bolters, chainswords and Landraiders.

Since everyone decided to ignore that, he simply switched his approach, and now he's yelling about everyone that mentions types of ammo being autistic.

He simply wants to see this thread burn, for some demented reason.

>> No.20429304

I'm finally taking a stand about it after every time this happens.

These threads can be funny as hell, especially when someone posts a weapon and we even try to stat it in DnD.

But it always devolves into Guntalk and Guntalk is boring shit.

>> No.20429313

i want to hirer a regiment of girls dressed like that to follow me around with bubble guns

that would be pretty damn awesome

>> No.20429314

I don't get why fags are complaining that people are discussing guns in a weapons thread.

If a gun is stupid because of its ammo and its development cycle, that is relevant.

>> No.20429322

>fag whining about bolters
I never did that, I just said, as soon as the nednec/k/s pop into the thread, it instantly turns to shit with a huge gun circlejerk.

>> No.20429332

>Even the Chinese QBZ-97 was swiftly abandoned for another AK clone.

One has to consider that the Chinese aren't capable of useful original thought. They haven't had an idea they didn't steal from someone else and implement in an inferior manner in centuries.

>> No.20429344

It's relevent on /k/ maybe.

Here we want amusing crap not a fucking lecture.

>> No.20429348

u mad bro?

>> No.20429353

How the fuck are they supposed to kill anything when they're so slow and stupid?

>> No.20429361

>typical gunkid response.

And here we have the route of our problem.

>> No.20429365

tobe fair, it was the dumb ammunition that was the spark of all this

>> No.20429379

When you say untrue shit about weapons, the people who know what they're talking about will say otherwise. Complaining that this happens is exceedingly fucking stupid because this is a public message board. We don't have an obligation to respect your wrong facts.

There probably isn't a real dic/k/ here, the so called gun-autists are probably guys who have a minor interest in firearms; but to the fanboys they're horrible invaders because they don't share their narrow view of fun.

>> No.20429381

numbers, sheer numbers, also you can't really wound them in traditional sense since they have no pain response.

>> No.20429390

Weight of numbers, contagion, and having nowhere to retreat to.

Anyway zombies are just (un)living armor for your actual damage-doers.

>> No.20429391


They are communicating to the readers. If their conventional is not conventional at all but some arbitrary invention that can mean whatever then so can the argument be made for anything in the setting.

Space marines being eight feet tall ubermench? Sure that inferior unit that the Imperium call feet, compared to real feet however they clock in at 1.98.

Kilometer long ships, certainly, if you go by what they call kilometers.

Basically if you get to invent measurements then so do i, and i say my nonexistent housecat could maul a spacemarine.

>> No.20429394

Exactly, but people on /k/ have to carry it on, dragging it down into a big maelstrom of circlejerking about guntyps and bullet sizes.

They didn't see the topic was Stupid weapon thread, they just saw "weapon" and decided to burst in here and ruin shit.

>> No.20429395

>If Israel would ever pick a fight with Saudi-Arabia, it would be like the battle in the Sinai desert.

Uh, the Sauds don't actually let their crew train with all that expensive gear. Plus Arab nations can't into maneuver warfare.

Right now they're fencing their whole nation in as a solution to that.

>> No.20429396


That what you're looking for?

>> No.20429401

>Seriously guys, a couple of writers decided to throw out some numbers for 40k stuff, and they were retarded.

Because 40k itself is exceedingly retarded.

>> No.20429402

ammunition are not weapon, they're not related.

>> No.20429408

>people still not getting that the 40k hater at the start of the thread is now being a fag about ammo discussion.

Damn, you're all sheeple.

>> No.20429410


Sheer numbers.

For every thoroughbred Paladin on a thoroughbred horse, or cloistered Cleric, how many zombies can a Necromancer field?

And generally zombies are a terror weapon, to use against helpless villagers in the night. Or they are just extra bodies to fill your ranks: they cost nothing to obtain or maintain. Every hit that a zombie takes is one less hit on a minion that is worth something.

>> No.20429423

seriously though you are pretty mad bro

>> No.20429431

>Maybe the 40k steel is a bit more developed on it's in the future and we have seen Land raiders survive what amounts to a direct nuclear strike unharmed.

Rednec/k/ to the extreme.

You want a reason then? Fucking fine.

Grimderp Particles did it.

>> No.20429434

>If their conventional is not conventional at all but some arbitrary invention that can mean whatever then so can the argument be made for anything in the setting.
That's been pretty much the case from the get-go. Even in the more technical and laid-out days of Rogue Trader.

It's only gotten worse with the creations of Black Library

>> No.20429441

Your ammo belt is SMALLTIME.

>> No.20429450

Bullshit. This is the first shitty one I've seen in months.

>> No.20429452

That is exactly what I was talking about.. god damn!

>> No.20429454

>Hurr durr, I'm new to /tg
>Oh shit! Someone started talking about weapons in this weapons thread
>Must be from /k
>No fun allowed

>> No.20429463

they are components of the weapon. what you gonna tell me the blade of a sword is not relavent in talk about weapons because I didn't include the hilt and the pommel, and the guard?

>> No.20429468

>> No.20429479


But that does not work either, it is far more grimderp to have them trundling about on the battlefield in vehicles that would be laughed at mockingly in current second world armies.

>> No.20429485

>> No.20429487

Alright. Let me explain it to you simply.

You are circlejerking about bullets. Bullets are fucking boring, Bullets cannot be crazy hilarious designs that do crazy things. Bullets are little bits of cased lead in different sizes, just because one is slightly worse than the other does not give it credit to be compared to the fucking shark-tooth knuckleduster, at all, ever.

Stop being such a nerd.

>> No.20429493


This is what you see when you look up "stupid weapon" in the dictionary.

>> No.20429496



Maugen Ra is like purified Grimderpium.

>> No.20429498

now the nambu was a fucking terrible gun

>> No.20429505

Stop feeding the troll.

Unless you're the troll too, in one big samefag circlejerk. If so, good game faggot, good game.

>> No.20429510

Seems less the kid and more that you're such a thinskinned little twit who thinks people excitedly chatting about a particular topic are 'autists.'

Grow the fuck up and ignore them, shitbird.

>> No.20429511

>Hey Hienz
>Dah Fritzl?
>You know we have zis big tank wiv da two big guns ya?
>Well, we also need a smaller one too in the front!

>> No.20429516


>> No.20429523

Hey! These aren't stupid weapons, they're entirely practical. We want stupid weapons, not cool combo weapons.

>> No.20429529

>excitedly chatting about the number differences between bullet sizes and how magazines were ineffective.

That sounds Autistic to me.

>> No.20429534

So, we're going to take one of the softest metals, right? And we mix it with potassium, oxygen, and hydrogen. Then, we surround it with biomass, you know, protein filaments and such. Then, we cover it in a layer of keratins. And people...this always makes me laugh...people will use them to hit things. Fucking stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

>> No.20429549

Nothing there showed an interesting bullet.

>> No.20429550

>> No.20429595


Grimderp is about things being moronically grim or grimly moronic, there is no need for grimderp to be powerful only stupidly dedicated to making the people in its setting suffer for the crime of living.

>> No.20429600

> Bullets are fucking boring, Bullets cannot be crazy hilarious designs that do crazy things.
Uh, yes, yes they can.
>Bullets are little bits of cased lead in different sizes, just because one is slightly worse than the other
Uh, no. Do you even know what a jacket is?
>does not give it credit to be compared to the fucking shark-tooth knuckleduster, at all, ever.
Bullshit. .17/50 BMG reporting. Lets pass 4000 fps or die trying.

>> No.20429602

well, you are a boring dullard

I can up the ante.
lower rate of strikes, greater recoil, less accuracy, and reduces mobility while using.

>> No.20429621

>tries to prove him wrong
>Does a total 180 and proves him right

You do know that shit IS very dull and boring right? It's like listening to a science teacher drone on about the Organelles in a cell.

>> No.20429628

As someone working in engineering this makes me want to slap you hard, right through the internet. Steel means iron/carbon alloy, +whatever other metals you fancy. The properties will be very different depending on the recipe. And over the centuries there have been plenty of recipes for standard steels, even plenty of ways of smelting.

S235JR ≠ X6CrNiTi18-10.

Don't know what that means? Then stfu and never talk about steel again.

>> No.20429633

actually yeah, the 5.56 is not as good as the 7.62, its a heavier, larger bullet going much faster. in most states they dont allow hunters to use the 5.56 on anything other than varmit to small sized game because it does not put down the animal humanely. also, when i was in the army back in the 90's we qualified out to 300m with the m16a2 but were skeptical of its performance. it is a fast small light weight bullet that is severely affected by barrel length. the shorter barrels, like on the M4 pick up less velocity which in turn has a negative impact on its ability to wound. the three ways you put someone down are to cause massive bloodloss, shut down the central nervous system or destroy a major organ ( ie heart, lungs or brain). the 7.62 can do this better at all ranges than the 5.56

>> No.20429636

Who cares about 4000fps.

Thats a fucking Shark Tooth knuckleduster, the guy is ten times more ballin' than anyone with a gun because of that fact!

>> No.20429637

What the fuck. Hahahaha oh wow.

>> No.20429644

That sounds like an interest to me.

Autism suggests we're talking about the type of propellants and the metallurgy of the slug.

If we were autists, we'd be talking about SS109 and M193.

>> No.20429648

What exactly is that tiny bullet with the giant case doing?

>> No.20429654

>if we were autists we'd be talking about some OTHER boring facts.

It's a bullet dude, they ain't interesting in the slightest.

>> No.20429670

So apparently you don't care about shit going faster than the speed of sound.

I don't know what to tell you boy, but you're a boring little shit yourself. I bet you like your stupid rock on a cupboard handle over a jet passing the speed of sound several times over.

Going to fucking Mars with a piece of your skull as a gift.

>> No.20429694

I know they're impractical as an actual weapon but I love scythes.

But I absolutely cannot stand it when the artist feels the need to add embellishments to distinguish a 'weapon/magical scythe' from a 'gardening scythe'. The scythe looks scary enough, you don't need to fuck with it.

Pic related. I can't stand this shit.

>> No.20429695

Right, listen.

A gun can be cool, a gun can look cool, it can look silly, it can have personality and can be talked about.

A bullet cannot, it's a bit of metal, it's expendable, it's just Ammo, all you can be impressed about is how fast it goes or how hard it penetrates.

To sum it up, I find a jet that can break the sound barrier ten times more interesting that a bullet that can break the sound barrier.

>> No.20429712

Autism would be knowing that the teflon = AP myth started with the KTW bronze round in the 1980s. Bronze was harder than lead, so it went through an engine block better, but for the same reason, it stretched gun barrels, so a teflon coating was added.

In hindsight, it was a stupid bullet.

>> No.20429726

KTW Bronze? never heard of it.

>> No.20429731

Tell that to the people who use them.
There are a lot of factors that are really important to how ammunition works.
If you don't know what the numbers mean it seems boring, but if you know how that translates to range, accuracy, impact and armor penetration, weight of weapon and magazine, cost, ease of production and so on, there are a lot of people who care about that.
From policemen to soldiers to pencil pushers and manufacturers, not to mention gun nuts and assassins.

It just seems boring because you don't see the significance of the issue.

>> No.20429741

Is there even a gun that uses these obscene construct?

>> No.20429841

Only custom one-offs based off a fiddy platform. It's a wildcat some random

Which is going to be ridiculously expensive, AND you're gonna need a lot of regular barrel replacements.

Worth it.

>> No.20429880


The most VISUALLY interesting bullet I have seen in this thread so far is the one with the ridiculously large casing compared to the shooty bit. I don't know jack shit about bullets and I don't care to. This isn't a thread about how awesome numbers are. It's a thread about LOOKING at a weapon and going man that LOOKS like the stupidest idea ever. It's about VISUALLY interesting weapons that also happen to be stupid in practice. There is nothing VISUALLY interesting about bullets. Until you can post a bullet with unnecessary spikes and doodads that make it LOOK stupid don't bother posting bullets.

>> No.20429886

Let me put this simply.

You are saying this topic would be interesting... on /k/

I am saying this topic is not interesting when it derails a funny weapons thread on /tg/ where what a bullet does is kill people and thats about as much most people care for them.

Sounds about right?

>> No.20429898

>Ease of production.

I'd hate to say it /tg/, but I think /k/ are even bigger nerds than us if they care about spreadsheet information like that.

>> No.20429905


>> No.20429932

Has anyone ever tried firing the Lightbulb?

>> No.20429982


Number 5 is like the circus freak of bullets, do all the other bullets shun it whilst it plots to murder them in their sleep?

>> No.20430018

They're all mafia henchmen.

That guys Pinhead, he's sat between Slim and Tiny obviously.

>> No.20430250

All you faggots whining about people talking about guns are way more annoying and autistic than the people talking about guns. And there's a simple reason why: They're talking about something that other people don't care about. You're MAD that they're talking about something you don't care about.

On topic: Set a place for me with Fork, Knife, and Gun

>> No.20430301

Because a non-bullpup rifle with a 20 inch barrel and a full length quad rail and a large scope just wasn't front-heavy enough.

>> No.20430302

I'm sorry, but that bullet just looks so silly I can't take it seriously. I'm sure it's ridiculously powerful, but it just looks so silly.

>> No.20430341

That's the joke, bro.

>> No.20430460

You actually should not fear that thing mainly because it is almost impossible to use.
To shoot it you need a ridiculously large gun witch you would need to have custom made.
Just like the bullet.
That means you have no real guanrantee round and gun actually work.
In addition the recoil would possibly prove more dangerous than the bullet if one tried to wield such a gun.

It is far more rational to fear these little fuckers. 4,6x30mm rounds are tiny but punch through body armor and tumble in the target, causing severe tissue damage.
Plus the gun that fires them is small, reliable and can pump some dozens of them into you before you know what hit you.

>> No.20430939

>> No.20430960

are you saying that you aren't strong enough to easily carry that?

>> No.20431437

Carry it, sure. Fire it, sure. Fire it accurately, unsupported, for more than a few minutes? no.

FRONT heavy. as in unbalanced. Like a bicycle with a 20 pound lead weight strapped to one side of the handlebar. You can still use it, sure, but it's fucking stupid.

>> No.20432056

5.56 was made to fill a niche of carrying more ammo by the point, and to allow more dakka whether or not it led to a hit. At those ranges you can certainly hit with 5.56, but it carries far less energy, which is quite a good thing if any cover is around.
There are instances like the Rhodie Bush war where they could put down kaffirs hiding behind trees at a range where their intermediate rounds could not cut through the foliage enough to even hit them.
What I mean is range, mainly. It would certainly suck to be downrange of 5.56 fire, less so 600m back.

I would still be shitting myself if someone was firing at me with 7.62 at 600m.

>> No.20432072

Actually I have in Rhodesia

>> No.20432295

Designed to kill horses apparently.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.