Quantcast
[ 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.26140085 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

In this thread we shall ask questions about weaponry from any age and then try to answer them.

Image and info dumps are also welcomed.

>> No.26140104

>>26140085
how would you go about safely making an atomic bomb using only 12th century technology

>> No.26140137

>>26140104
Impossible. The hard way of making nuclear material required advanced chemical techniques that were not possible until the 1900s at the earliest.

>> No.26140149

>>26140104
Some really good mathematicians and a bankrupted kingdom or two.

>> No.26140159

I'll shoot. Why did Nazi Germany invest in garage queens like the Panther and Tiger tanks?

>> No.26140260

>>26140159
Because Hitler loved tanks since they were glorious phallic symbols of power.

>> No.26140292

>>26140085

I bring gifts from /k/

>> No.26140331

>>26140260
Superficial response detected.

>> No.26140354

>>26140331
u wot m8

Hitler repeatedly shot down designs for tanks because they weren't big enough.

>> No.26140365

>>26140159
Because the planning for these things started when Germany's only hope wasn't "maybe the Russians won't arrive first". It's easy to invest into "bling" war machines when the Red's aren't shooting up your neighbourhood yet.

>> No.26140399

>>26140159
wait what's wrong with the tiger ii?

>> No.26140527

>>26140292

>> No.26140546

I always thought it was a little odd that tri or quad barreled shotguns were never a common thing. Beyond the somewhat heightened complexity they don't seem like they would be too terribly impractical to implement. That being said, I haven't done overmuch research on the subject, so feel free to disabuse me of that notion.

>> No.26140555

>>26140399

Not enough of them.

No, really, that's a problem.

>> No.26140642

>>26140546

Cause they're fucking heavy. And the advantage to having 3 or 4 shells over 2 shells isn't enough to make it worthwhile. Remember that until the 20th century shotguns were never really manufactured with combat in mind.

>> No.26140679

>>26140399
Short range, requires a lot of maintenance, heavy (so it can't go over any old bridge), expensive, not remarkably effective in battle.

It stinks.

>> No.26140728

>>26140679
Wasn't there some design for a superheavy tank that flopped hard because it was so heavy it fucking sunk into the ground?

>> No.26140733

>>26140354
Sauce? Pro-Tiger sites like http://www.worldwar2aces.com/tiger-tank/ don't back you up.

>> No.26140754

>>26140728
Probably. People were doing a lot of dumb things with tanks.

>> No.26140762

>>26140527
>metal storm description

>>26140728
More than one. The Russians had an interwar one, and the Germans had the Maus, and a whole lot of other shit that didn't make it past the drawing board.

>> No.26140836

>>26140399
>expensive
>incredibly over engineered
>hard as fuck to fix road wheels
>so goddamn heavy it couldnt even cross most bridges
>Unreliable
>largely unnecessary, overkill on many medium tanks and the Germans had plenty of other things to kill heavy ones.
>was a giant target for enemy air

>>26140159
because the panther wasn't a garage queen. It was arguably the *best* tank of the war. Fast, good armor, powerful gun, and in the later models, reliable. If the Germans had made more of those instead of money pits like the tiger program and the NAZI SPACE MAGIC programs, the war might have drug on a lot longer.

For every retard idea like the King Tiger II or the Komet, the Germans had ideas like the STG 44, the Panther, and the ME 262. Hitler fucked over the German military quite a bit. You can almost tell how good an idea something was by how much Hitler hated it!

>pic related, German overengineering at its finest

>> No.26140947

>>26140836

I thought the French used late-model Panthers after the war and had persistent problems with the drive-train?

>> No.26140994

>>26140836
fuck wrong pic. This is a Neubaufahrzeug, or "new construction vehicle". It pretty much sums up Hitlers fascination with fuckhuge tanks perfectly. Fucking useless, only a handful were made in 1939

>>26140733
Good crews foesnt mean the tank was a good idea. The Tiger I E was a decent tank, and is where many Tiger Aces earned their fame. But by the end of the war it wasn't really that well armored or armed compared to newer tanks, and it still suffered from an over taxed suspension and that horridly complex roadwheel system.

>> No.26141037

>>26140546

Getting two metal tubes parallel with each other is difficult, especially before modern machine tools. Four tubes? Well, hope youve time and money, or your not too picky on quality.

>> No.26141113 [DELETED] 

>>26140994
Then again, fuckhuge do make for an impressive sight when not getting bombarded by aircraft.

Germans should've made more Stug III's though.

>> No.26141347

>>26141113
exactly. Tigers were great for pyschological warfare, but in reality they just needed more solid medium tanks like the StuG.

Take a look at the US and USSR armies. They were built around primarily medium tanks and could massively outnumber their German rivals. It doesn't matter that your konigstiger can one shot a Sherman head on at two miles when the Shermans outnumber you 5, 10, 20 to 1.

Its like when you play a strategy game and blow all your points on fancy deathstar units, only for your opponent to just roflstomp you with a balanced list.

>> No.26141574

>>26140836
>Hitler fucked over the German military quite a bit. You can almost tell how good an idea something was by how much Hitler hated it!
Imagine what the Me262 could've done if Hitler didn't decide it needed to be a bomber.

>> No.26141988

>>26141037
They're not parallel though.

They're just off parallel enough that both barrels shoot to the same point at the regulated range. This would be far more difficult to achieve with 4 barrels though Vierlings did exist in some quantities.

>> No.26142113

>>26140728
Funny thing about the KT is that it actually had great floatation and could easily cross terrain that bogged down most other tanks.

It was a well chosen suspension design, even with all its problems.

>> No.26143401

>>26141347
Even worse when you consider what most of a tank did was infantry support. While your Tiger is winning fights, the rest of the Shermans it isn't fighting are steamrolling the rest of your army.

Industrialized war isn't about elite units shattering the morale of the adversary, it's about making the most efficient use of resources.

>> No.26143947

>>26141574

It would have decimated the allied bombing campaign and be considered a legend in aviation history today. As it stands it's only really notable for being the first jet powered aircraft to fly and fight in a conflict.

>> No.26143980

>>26143401

One of the best quotes I've heard about the Sherman (though I don't recall the source, sadly) was basically, "it was a great tank because it was there. When you needed armor support, a Sherman could be there, because we had enough of them."

>> No.26144144

>>26141113
The Germans were really at the head of the pack with infantry support vehicles and assault guns. They were also true innovators the Sturmtiger is something that would of payed of immensely in places like Stalingrad and was a new tactical inovation. Although too little too late could also be used to describe it. The main problem was they lost the air war, the unsolicited rape of inner Germany by the allied bombing campaign is what really lost them the war. Germans ALWAYS gave better than they got and if they could have brought more units to bear from undisturbed factories. As well as being more tactically flexible and mobile (cough) kursk (cough) they could have fought to a draw at least. The focus on death star units worsened the production problem. Although not fighting on two fronts would of been smart too.

>> No.26144354

>>26141347
Meanwhile, the PzW IV was a workhorse with constant upgrades throughout the war that the Nazis mostly just ignored in favor of supertank designs.

>> No.26144564

Why dint the germans make more infantry?

>> No.26144685

>>26144564
>6 year war
>make more infantry
Maybe if it went another 12, anon, but there were probably some promising new soldiers being "made" by then.

>> No.26144752

>>26144685

so what six years, it cant take more than a week to make alot of people.

>> No.26144798

>>26144752

This Anon doesn't understand the realities of modern, total war.

You don't produce more infantry like an RTS, bud. Infantry requires seventeen years to mature, like a fine whiskey.

>> No.26144830

>>26143947
Though it would've made itself much more impressive, one thing that is often forgotten is that they had an insane operating cost. Attempting to produce them like say the FW190 would've eventually bankrupted the Germans. The largest part of this cost, if I;m not mistaken, being that the jet engines could only be used for about 25 hours before critical failure. Despite this I think it would've made the bombing raids much less effective.

>> No.26144849

>>26140085
That be a fucking FAL, mate. She's a beut, I have almost a gig of pics of FALs.
>>26140159
Panther and Tiger, while not optimal, were decent tanks.

>> No.26144860

>>26144752

Well yeah, but you gotta run them in shifts.

>> No.26144880

>>26144849
Also, if people have weapon questions, ask away. If people have things they'd like dumped, ask away.

>> No.26144898

>>26144880
VSS Vintorez, a weapon with an integral silencer firing subsonic, armor piercing ammo.
Gotta love the Russians.

>> No.26144916

>>26144898
One of these day's I might get an AR.

>> No.26144920

>>26144798

Sir, i dont think you know how people are made, it only take about a week for a human to fully mature and awaken from its pod, the same way its been for a hundred of years.

>> No.26144934

>>26144916
Pic related, the G3 is the FAL's heavier, Germanic stablemate.

>> No.26144941

>>26144916
Most customizable weapon in the world, can't really go wrong with it.

Especially since you can change calibers by swapping uppers without losing zero.

>> No.26144959

>>26144916

TBH, why? My dad has probably $2k in parts in his BFB (Barbie For Boys). I'd rather have the six other quality guns I could get for the same price tag.

>> No.26144984

>>26144941
Aye. I might change it to some hipster intermediate caliber too.
Although my soul yearns for an M16A1 repro....

Anyway, pic related is an A-1 Skyraider, a single seat attack aircraft from right after WW2 up to Vietnam, carried more ordinance than an wartime B17 and was fucking indestructible.
>>26144959
AR's are relatively cheap (IE, $2k is a very good AR) you can't get six quality 5.56 rifles for $2k. They're fairly light, reliable enough, accurate enough, extremely common and fire an extremely common round.

>> No.26145025

>>26144898
I hate to break it to you but that's not a VSS, it's a VSK-94 another small suppressed Russian sniper rifle.Although

>> No.26145032

Bit of an odd question perhaps, but why are battle rifles like the FN FAL or the HK G3 so awesome?

>> No.26145037

>>26144984
Mosin Nagant, your cheap, cosmoline covered solution since 1891!

>> No.26145055

TELL ME ABOUT THE ARQUEBUS.

>> No.26145073

>>26144984
>>26144959
It's also easily the most accurate stock semi-auto out there. The accuracy tolerances on military ammo is a joke, and you've still got 1MOA with that stuff. Upgrade to hunting or match-grade stuff and you're going to do same-hole shooting with it, shooter's skill depending of course.

>> No.26145091

>>26145032
Because glorious 7.62 NATO.

>> No.26145099

>>26144564
Because it's the American's job to repopulate Europe after a World War, and we can only repopulate Germany after we liberate it.

>> No.26145118

>>26145037
One crate of 20 for $1200!

>> No.26145129

>>26145025
You are correct. My apologies.
>>26145032
How serious do you want your answer?
They're the next step from WW2 rifles, with hefty firepower and pure testosterone. Rhodesians used battle rifles, why shouldn't you?
Modern 5.56 (no insult to modern 5.56) is a rinky dink round that can't punch through doors, communists, kebab, communist kebab, kebab communism, or communist kebab doors. Full sized rounds can. Plus there's the fact that they're sheer sex.
>>26145055
Don't know much about em.
>>26145073
I must disagree. There are semi-autos designed soley for accuracy which exceed the AR-15 right off the bat.
>>26145118
Bayonet is free!

>> No.26145139

>>26145129

>> No.26145141

>>26144984
>AR's are relatively cheap

A decent upper and lower with 0 bells and whistles will run you 7-8 bills. Decent.

>you can't get six quality 5.56 rifles for $2k

I don't want six 5.56 rifles. I want a semi-auto handgun, and maybe a wheelgun, and a home defense shotgun, and maybe another fucking-about shotgun, and a range rifle or two. Throw in a utility rifle like an AK variant or a Nugget. Who the fuck needs more than one rifle in 5.56?

>fairly light
>reliable enough
>accurate enough

Tallest midget.

>fire an extremely common round

9mm and .45 are fucking everywhere, and that doesn't make them cheap.

I see no reason to get an AR beyond "I want to" and "I can". It does nothing that another frame can't better, and it's not the best all-around utility gun by far, so there's no reason to go to it first beyond I HEART STONER MURIKA STRONK.

>> No.26145161

>>26145129
>I must disagree. There are semi-autos designed soley for accuracy which exceed the AR-15 right off the bat.
But they aren't mil-spec builds.

>> No.26145168

>>26145141
I prefer the Kalashnikov pattern, my dad says I'm a Commie.

>> No.26145263

>>26145168

Your dad is right. You're a dirty commie fuck.

But when the capitalist pig-dogs are fellating Eugene Stoner's corpse with their prissy little dress-up guns that break if you breathe wrong, you'll be dragging glorious people's liberation weapon through mud and sand and death, and still never encountering problem you cannot fix with bayonet, punch awl, and shoe polish.

>> No.26145304

>>26145141
>Cost
Yes, compared to other rifles in its category, it is a cheap rifle, which is why I said relatively.

>$2k example
You're comparing guns that are cheap by nature to an expensive rifle in an expensive category. The point that I'm trying to make is that the AR is the most cost effective route into a 5.56 rifle, and is an affordable semi-automatic mil-spec rifle.
But hey, whatever. What you like is what you like.

If I may ask, what do you say is the best all-around utility gun?

>>26145161
You don't count the PSG-1 as milspec? Cus I guarantee you it's more accurate than a common AR-15.

>> No.26145324

>>26145304
The FNC: FN's apology for the FN CAL, a moderately successful rifle in 5.56 NATO.

>> No.26145343

>>26145324
The F2000, FN's next gen bullpup 5.56 rifle, often teased as being a "Fishgun"

>> No.26145359

>>26145343
FS2000, a civilian legal fish.

>> No.26145379

What parts should I need to build a Mad Max-style Battlewagon?

>> No.26145397

>>26145304
Standard-issue stuff is more what I meant. A 10 year old AR is still better than a brand new L-85A2, G36, FAMAS, or AK variant.

And the PSG-1 is a rare, expensive sniper rifle. It's more common to see the MSG90 instead.

>> No.26145470

>>26145379
A Toyota Hilux, scrap metal, a National Guard armory, a mechanic's shop, surplus Soviet military stocks.
>>26145397
Actually, while the AR is better than an AK, the L85 is actually as accurate if not moreso than an AR.

>> No.26145481

>>26145324

>> No.26145495

>>26141347
>They were built around primarily medium tanks and could massively outnumber their German rivals. It doesn't matter that your konigstiger can one shot a Sherman head on at two miles when the Shermans outnumber you 5, 10, 20 to 1.

I guess what the rest of the world calls "human wave tactics", US tank strategist probably called "The Buddy System".

>>26141574
>Imagine what the Me262 could've done if Hitler didn't decide it needed to be a bomber.

He decided that he wanted an Ramirez aircraft. Which is quite visionary if you consider that the current gen's nothing but multirole fighters.

>> No.26145514

>>26145481
Heh. That was an amusing porno adaptation of Upotte!!

>> No.26145519

>>26145304
>category

What category is this that sets the AR apart?

>the best all-around utility gun?

Yeesh. That's a tall order. Both a solid AK variant and your namesake would be pretty damn good. M4s would outperform other AR variants, but still fall behind on reliability, round characteristics, and ruggedness versus other frames.

>> No.26145547

>>26145397
>A 10 year old AR is still better than a brand new G36

I'm gonna call bullshit right there.

>> No.26145552

>>26145470

Are you a brit?

>> No.26145576

What's the image limit on /tg/? Cus I found a whole bunch of NATO military pics...
>>26145519
The category of semi-auto mil-spec rifle?
And an AR-15 is perfectly reliable and rugged, and can be changed fairly easily to shoot any other round.
>>26145552
No, I'm from the Eastern coast of the US.

>> No.26145592

>> No.26145604

>> No.26145605

A little nugget from /k/ that seemed appropriate.

>> No.26145613

>> No.26145618

>>26145470
It's still a shitty weapon. And the built-in spike scope's just an odd design. Bullpups can also be awkward.

And yes, I have fired it. I was not impressed.

Is Google fuckslow for anyone else, tonight?

>> No.26145619

>> No.26145631

>> No.26145641

>>26145618
I have no contest to them being shitty weapons, I've just heard they're fairly accurate for a service rifle.

>> No.26145644

>>26145547
The G36 is a POS that has only evaded criticism so long thanks to the combat inexperience of its users.

Now that NATO has been in Afghanistan, the secrets out and its clear enough that even the HK fanboys have to admit it.

The AR direct impingement system is simply inherently accurate.

The G36, OTOH, overheats itself throwing the sight out of zero and even melts its' own plastic.

>> No.26145647

>> No.26145666

>>26145644
I heard there was a separate issue of the optics fogging up as well.

>> No.26145675

>> No.26145688

>> No.26145698

>> No.26145705

>> No.26145712

>> No.26145722

>> No.26145731

>> No.26145733

>>26145641
The AR had teething issues, the L85 has birth defects.

>> No.26145740

>> No.26145748

>> No.26145759

>> No.26145765

>> No.26145775

>> No.26145779

>>26145576
>Eastern coast of the US.

If you don't mind me asking, whereabouts? Next time I'm home, I might like to get some range time with a fa/tg/uy that shares similar interests. No homo.

>> No.26145785

>> No.26145788

>>26145731
>>26145740
>>26145748
>>26145759

I wuv you FAL guy :)

>> No.26145789

>> No.26145793

>>26145576
300 posts to autosage, 150 images.

>> No.26145800

>> No.26145824

>>26145779
Maryland, but I'm not interested in meeting up with anyone on 4chan for quite some time.
>>26145788
Hey, Cold War era NATO is my fetish, what else can a guy do?

>> No.26145830

>> No.26145842

>> No.26145850

>> No.26145853

>> No.26145859

>> No.26145863

>>26140085
That FN is one of the sexiest pics I've seen in a long while.

>> No.26145866

Sweet sweet Bundeswehr.

>> No.26145878

>> No.26145887

>> No.26145892

>>26145866
Ah, Bundeswehr FALs, how cute.

>> No.26145904

>> No.26145911

>>26145824

Too far north anyways. Ah well. I never lack for company at the range, as I'm stupid enough to bring my Thompson.

>> No.26145912

>>26145618
Is this Uppotte?

>> No.26145915

>> No.26145924

>>26145911
Say what what?

>> No.26145934

>> No.26145942

>> No.26145948

>> No.26145955

>> No.26145971

>> No.26145982

>> No.26145993

>> No.26146005

>> No.26146011

>>26145912
Yes.

>> No.26146018

>> No.26146025

>> No.26146040

>> No.26146050

>> No.26146062

>> No.26146063

All that plastic, man.

>> No.26146072

>> No.26146086

>> No.26146096

>> No.26146101

>> No.26146114

>> No.26146120

>> No.26146133

>> No.26146144

>> No.26146154

>> No.26146164

>> No.26146166

>>26145866
>>26145892

Sturmgewehr 57 > FAL

>> No.26146172

>> No.26146181

>> No.26146188

>> No.26146195

>>26146166
Countries using the STG 57:

>> No.26146204

>>26146195
Stupid auto post.
Countries using the STG 57: 1
Countries using the FN FAL: 90+

>> No.26146211

>> No.26146222

>> No.26146232

>> No.26146241

>> No.26146251

>> No.26146257

>> No.26146266

>> No.26146270

>>26145924

Ayup. Nothing makes 50+ year-old men act like children like a Thompson. I've never had a total stranger walk up to me and ask to shoot one of my firearms up until I got it. It's fucking hilarious. I've shot all sorts of shit, but you break out a Thompson and fire off three rounds, and suddenly there's a crowd at your bench.

Only thing we need to complete our "guns of the US Army, WW2" collection is a BAR, and that's highly fucking unlikely.

>> No.26146277

>> No.26146284

>> No.26146300

>>26146270
I'd never ask to fire a stranger's firearm. That just feels odd.

>> No.26146307

>> No.26146318

>> No.26146330

>> No.26146344

>> No.26146353

>> No.26146364

>> No.26146375

>> No.26146382

>> No.26146392

>> No.26146399 [SPOILER] 

>>26146375
This is a tank, right guys?

>> No.26146401

>> No.26146403

>>26146300

Same here. I'd have to be offered. Which is what makes it so surprising that I've had others do it to me. And at a public range that has a reputation for Feds trolling for illegal weapons, no less.

>> No.26146415

>> No.26146422

>> No.26146423

>>26146399

Is best kind of tank!

>> No.26146427

>> No.26146430

>>26144898
If you ever play STALKER, this is your new BFF. It'll last you a long time, and kill everything short of a goddamn pseudogiant, but why use bullets on mutants when there's shotgun?

>> No.26146431

>> No.26146433

>>26146423
Day 40: The Americans have not yet realized I am not one of them.

>> No.26146436

>> No.26146443

>> No.26146445

>>26146133
>>26146181
I love the look of those early Vietnam-era AR-15/M16s, even if they were so jam-prone that GIs would pick up dead guerillas' AKs because those didn't fuck up so much.

>> No.26146447

>>26146270
How much does an M1 run these days?

>> No.26146450

>> No.26146455

>>26146204

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork FN FAL" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Sturmgewehr 57s deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Sturmgewehr 57 in Switzerland for 18,818 CFR (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even hit a cracka's dick at 2000 paces with it.

Swiss munition makers spend years working on a single milspec Sturmgewehr and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest guns known to mankind.

Sturmgewehrs are thrice as precise as FN FALs and thrice as powerful for that matter too. Anything an FN FAL can shoot through, a Sturmgewehr can shoot through better. I'm pretty sure a bullet from a Sturmgewehr could easily bisect a German sitting in a Leopard 2 UrbOp with a mere richot shot.

Ever wonder why Nazi Germany never bothered conquering Switzerland? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Swiss and their Sturmgewehr 57 of destruction. Even during the Battle at Morgarten, Landsknecht soldiers targeted the men with the Sturmgewehrs 57 first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Sturmgewehrs 57 are simply the best rifles that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system.

>> No.26146459

>> No.26146462

>>26146445
To be fair, it's hard to find something that fucks up less than an AK.

>> No.26146465

>> No.26146483

>>26146455
Sorry, StG57, you've already been replaced. Your little sister, SG550, can perform assault rifle iaijutsu. Can YOU do that?

>> No.26146485

>>26146447
Fairly cheap if you're smart and go the CMP route. http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm
>>26146445
By the M16A1, the M16 platform was doing fine.

>> No.26146622

>>26146447

Ranging from "not terrible" to "are you fucking kidding me?". CMP Garands, as mentioned in
>>26146485
are cheap-to-moderate, considering the market. Me, I lucked out through contacts and got a pristine original H&R with matched serials for ~$500, all told.

>> No.26146729

>>26146485
The XM16E1 got redesignated to the M16A1 in early 1967 but it wasn't till about a year later until the jamming problems started to go away after the gunpowder in use got changed and chromed chambers were added. The things got pushed to field way too fast; they didn't even issue cleaning rods with the damn things initially.

http://jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga_of_the_m16_part_1.pdf
>Essentially we had been reduced to a "magazine fed, air cooled, single shot, muzzle ejecting shoulder weapon" shooting an inferior cartridge. How lucky can you get?

>> No.26146732

>>26146462
The G3 is just as reliable. Only malfunction out of 4k rounds or so now with my PTR was a squib. Oh wait and a few dud rounds of Tula but that hardly counts.

Though my AR doesn't quit, either.

>> No.26147072

>>26145605
/k/ - a truly magical place

>> No.26147739

>>26140292
>Colt invented the revolver.

>> No.26147852

>>26147739
>Colt made all the men affluent enough to afford his awfully expensive revolvers equal

>> No.26147944

You call those tanks?
*this* is a tank.

>> No.26147956

>>26147944
What the fuck is that thing?

>> No.26147972

>>26147944
>>26147956
It's a shooped picture of Hitler and cronies looking at a Krupp 28-cm-Kanone 5 (E).

>> No.26147978

>>26147956
A tank
Are you illiterate or some shit?

>> No.26147992

>>26147944
Tank? No sir... that's a glorified waste of materials.

>> No.26147998

>>26147944

It's actually an artillery gun that was so huge that they had to put it on rails to make deployment feasible.

>> No.26148002

>>26147956
Big.
Which means it's awesome.

>> No.26148021

>>26148002
Remember: if a little is good, more must be better.

>> No.26148029

>>26147978
it isnt even a tank. Its an artilery cannon on rails.

>> No.26148039

>>26148021
The rerevolvolverver: for when you absolutely, positively can't hit the broad side of a barn.

>> No.26148050

>>26148039
A modern equivalent.

>> No.26148061

>>26148050
Someone mentioned triple-shotguns?
Nontuple bitch.

>> No.26148077

>>26140947
>I thought the French used late-model Panthers after the war and had persistent problems with the drive-train?
They did, which is why I'm suspect of that guys post. The Panthers had a ton of issues, most notably in reliability

>> No.26148078

>>26148061
I see Colt was also mentioned.
Behold the crowning glory of Ole Sam.

>> No.26148085

>>26148050
>Modern

top lel

>> No.26148100

>>26140994
>fuck wrong pic. This is a Neubaufahrzeug, or "new construction vehicle". It pretty much sums up Hitlers fascination with fuckhuge tanks perfectly. Fucking useless, only a handful were made in 1939
You can't hold that against the Germans, man, every nation was doing that at the time. Nobody knew anything about tanks. Look at the Soviets, they had at least 3 tanks almost identical to that one in production at the same time

>> No.26148108

>>26146729
do you know where part 2 is?

>> No.26148109

>>26148085
Modern does not mean new or innovative.

>> No.26148120

>>26148108
http://jouster.com/saga_of_M16/saga_of_the_m16_part_2.pdf

>> No.26148143

>>26148109

>> No.26148161

>>26148143

>> No.26148252

For all you guys who keep confusing clip and magazin, glorious Nippon made a machine gun with a clip magazine, to complicate matters even further!

>> No.26148259

>>26148161
And now for something completely different.
FLICK AXE!

>> No.26148272

>>26148259
...what?
what is that?

>> No.26148320

>>26148272
It's a flick axe.
Are you "touched"?

Now have a flick polearm next to a flick knife.
This style of knife was used by Spanish gypsies about the 17th century.

>> No.26148365

>>26148320
The Indian take on flick weapons: one weapon which becomes a slightly different weapon.
INDIA!

>> No.26148397

Cylinders are for pussies!

>> No.26148406

>>26148365
>not using an aruval
uncle do you even rowdy

>> No.26148413

>>26144144
Well... The air raids on Germany targeted civilian cities with inflammatory loads. They were devastating to the fiction that the war was going well. But they did not really affect military production and supply. Most of the vital facilities had been moved to the East, were under ground, or well bunkered in.

The air raids were psychological warfare and aimed against civilian centers. Even the famous dam raids did little damage to the war industry.

>> No.26148424

>>26148365
Dagger? acculy is scissors.

>> No.26148443

>>26148397
>cylinders are for people who can't get the job done the first time

>> No.26148451

>>26148120
Beautiful read, I give you compliments for finding this.

>> No.26148473

>>26148252
Not really, it's a hopper magazine. But you load clips into it.

>> No.26148684

>>26145129

Bit of trivia: The FAL was originally intended to fire an intermediate cartridge before the US pushed for 7.62

>> No.26149271

>tfw no more battleships

Fuck, why must my favourite gun platform be outdated

>> No.26151335

>>26148050
Well, the greatest fear of a 9mm shooter is that he'll run out of bullets, so it's no surprise.

>>26148085
> He thinks a Luger isn't a modern handgun.

>> No.26151361

>>26148050
I want to know which military tested it.

>> No.26151583

What was the actual problem with the M16A1?
I've heard different things.
>A lack of cleaning kits
>Chambers with no chrome plating
>Inferior powder that fouled the chamber easily

Or a combination of the three.

>> No.26151758

>>26148684
Yes, .280 British. Quite a nice little cartridge, actually.

>> No.26151839

>>26151583
All three. The original issuing of the M16 is what happens when you let a bureaucrat design a gun.

>> No.26151908

>>26148077

Not the guy, but the Panther wasn't much less reliable than other WW2 mainstay tanks. It was only post-war when problems such as the Panther drive train became a dealbreaker.

>> No.26151918

>>26149271

Because somebody back in the day finally decided that phallic symbolism is less important than not getting sunk.

>> No.26151926

/k/ was already quite helpful to me for suggesting the sort of hardware an authentic banana republic might have.

>> No.26151932

>>26148413

To be frank, the air raids were mostly because Churchill didn't like the fact that the west was a total sideshow post-1940 and wanted to actually do something.

>> No.26151939

>>26145618
Except they are more accurate, more reliable and are of a similar weight to the ar 15 platform...

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm

>> No.26151986

So what can /tg/ tell me about the M113? Why are we basically letting out huge number of them rot in favor of buying new toys that aren't particularly better?

If we're not going to USE them, why not sell them to the ragheads or Africans?

>> No.26152043

>>26151932

They were also an outgrowth of the british colonial wars. Air raids are pretty effective if you're dealing with an politically dispersed population that can't resist them in any way.

>> No.26152149

>>26151939
Are harder to fire and reload while prone, can't be used left-handed, still has that wonky sight...

>> No.26152310

>>26152149
And they're as heavy as a SCAR-H.

>> No.26152354

>>26152149
You can use it left handed it's just awkward, the firing and reloading while prone is difficult if you have used another weapon platform before. If you've been trained on an l85 you won't find firing or reloading while prone an issue. The front sight thing is your personal opinion.

>> No.26152423

>>26151583
>>26151583

Read "The Gun," by Chivers. It's about the history of the AK platform, but ends up talking extensively about the M16 development and deployment in contrast.

In a nutshell, due to a bunch of bureaucratic fuckups, the M16 was deployed in the field without the extensive testing and development that proper military procurement should go through. (In its development, the AK47 encountered just as many technical problems and shortcomings as the M16; but the Soviets had a hard-on for extensive testing that eventually ironed these out.) So the M16 had to go through its testing and revision process while it was already being used in combat.

And the M16 wasn't actually designed by bureaucrats. Exactly the opposite. It was a civilian-developed, private enterprise product that was then sold to the military. The AK is what you get from a bureaucratic development process.

>> No.26152499

>>26152354
It ejects to the right only, meaning it can't cycle properly when held correctly left-handed.

And I've used irons, aimpoints, and ACOGs before, the SUSAT sight is an awful design.

>> No.26152992

>>26151986
They aren't much good for current military tactics. The current focus is on IFVs, as opposed to the battle-taxi focus of the M113. Additionally, the M113 is too lightly armored. If I remember correctly, a 7.62 round can penetrate the thing from the side, to say nothing of 12.7 or 14.5. I don't see them as useful for modern front line military service, but they can still be useful for goings on behind the line, such as ambulance, mortar carrier, AA vehicle, and the like. As for selling them to others, you never know when we might need to dust them off in a hurry.

>> No.26153372

>>26145644
>The AR direct impingement system is simply inherently accurate.
Also inherently shitty because blasting carbon into your internals is not a good idea. The direct impingement is a shitty gimmick; AR-18's piston makes it a smarter weapon. AT-18 is also the basis for G36 and FAMAS, which are no more vulnerable to melting than the rest of our huuuur duuuur plastic armory.

However I consider modern Eastern assault rifles to be the superior product. 5.45 is smaller and shorter than the 5.56; yet the rounds the Russians use create abnormally large wounds. Unlike the 5.56, the wound pattern is consistent; at the moment something like only one out of six 5.56 rounds disintegrated inside the target to create that massive permanent cavity that gets shown off as the norm.

Though if you do the math the founding concepts for the m16 are fucking stupid. The 3 round burst lowers the 30/20 round magazine to being the equivalent of a 10/7 round magazine, and nullifies the advantage of 'carry more ammo!' by firing off more lead than would have been in a single battle rifle round. The discoveries of world war 2 that most firefights take place at 300 yards somehow translates to a weapon that boasts 600+ yards range. And finally, the refusal to use anything but AP rounds is astonishingly stupid, it makes far too many shots over-penetrate.

>> No.26153428

>>26145866
Is that a Fallshirmjaeger camo vest/tunic?

>> No.26153575

>>26149271
Battleships were more fun before everyone had to go dreadnought style big guns only. After that it was game-over because no one wants submarine targets in their fleet.

>> No.26153665

>>26151986
M113 was commendable for what it did. An amphibious platform and America's first step towards modern APCs and IFVs.

The problem is that it frankly wasn't that good. Point A to point B was easy enough, but it failed to live up as the battle taxi it was envisioned to be due to low armor and inferior armaments.

I suspect that the BMP/BTR also had something to do with it.

Why we don't sell it? I pretty sure we already unloaded a bunch on some shitty countries in the past. But even Mugabe isn't going to take an ancient gas guzzler for a markdown if he has better export models to choose from.

Funny enough, Soviets out Capitalism'd us in the sale of arms. Better supply/demand dynamics and prices to go with their hardware. Nations choosing western products over the east is a rather new development.

>> No.26153684

>>26152423
>The AK is what you get from a bureaucratic development process.

The rifle with the single-highest market penetration in the history of the human race?

>> No.26153688

>>26152423
What you're telling me is that the free market fucked us while government centralization saved the AK?

The job creators strike again.

>> No.26154456

>>26153684

Actually, the book has a very good comment on this very point. The fact that the AK is used throughout the world has nothing to do with its quality as a rifle--though it is a good rifle for its purpose--but because the Soviets built millions of them and pretty much gave them away everywhere. And the Soviets weren't making millions of them because they were making a profit on each one--they aren't iPods. If the AK had been invented by the Japanese or the Canadians, people in Africa wouldn't be carrying them everywhere.

The second most popular rifle in the world is the M16 and its variants, for exactly the same reasons.

>> No.26154566

>>26152992
>>26153665
The M2 Bradley was originally supposed to be a light, fast replacement that could keep up with the M1 Abrams in proper combined-arms operations. But design creep fuckery instead produced a vehicle that carries half the troops it was supposed to, looks like a tank but has jack shit for armor, a chain gun that can't penetrate real armor, a TOW launcher that requires the vehicle to hold sights from shot to hit, and a scout variant that's too tall, too wide, too loud, and (from personal experience) can't move through terrain that a HMMWV loves to play in.

>> No.26155338

>>26148413
Yes they did. Raids on the rail network in particular were very effective. Bombing the production factories deceptively ineffective because the Germans would cannibalize parts from elsewhere to repair/replenish the damage done to targets... so while there was little noticeable drop in production from that particular target, it was having effects elsewhere.

>> No.26155576

>>26152423
>It was a civilian-developed, private enterprise product that was then sold to the military.
And the civilian developed model was good. But then Dan McNamara got his hands on it and decided it had to be made as terribly as possible because it costs a lot.
It's not as if chroming a barrel or cleaning kits were high tech shit in the late sixties.

>> No.26155797

How long until gauss riffles on tonks
I want

>> No.26155914

>>26154566
Oh man. Bradley is worse than the Humvee in terrain mobility? Shit, I kept thinking "well, at least it turned out an acceptable light tank. But if it can't out maneuver a fucking UTILITY vehicle then all hope is lost.

>> No.26156674

>>26155914
Dude, the HMMWV is a serious off-roader. Quad independent suspension, powerful diesel engine, and huge knobby tires. The civvie versions were $100k apiece, though.

The Brad just can't get into the places (or angles) a HMMWV can because it's just way too big and heavy.

>> No.26157028

Does the Anzio 20mm have better penetration than a Barrett .50 cal?

>> No.26157294

>>26155576
So cost cutting is the true bane of firearms?

>> No.26157658

>>26153665
>>26154566
>>26155914
Oh, its worse than that. The Bradley is the very worst sort of "Jack of all trades, master of none."
It's a troop transport that can't carry very many troops, a scout vehicle that is too bulky to scout, and an anti-tank platform that could never hope to stand up to any tank.

This film wasn't perfect, but it gives a general idea of what happened:
> http://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA
"The men will have to wear the missiles as hats!"

>> No.26161687

>>26157028
Are you talking the 20x102 Vulcan round, or their wildcat cartridge 20/50?

Either way, yes. But to do that means you've got a shoulder-fired rifle as heavy as the M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun.

>> No.26161728

>>26157658
>what is an IFV

Citing that slapdash propaganda movie non-ironically refutes any statement you could have made.

>> No.26161889

>>26153372
>Hidden Sentry

Aren't you the same jackass who thought Grozny proved tanks are useless for urban combat?

Well, you're wrong again. DI does not "blast carbon into your internals" because it's not physically possible in the cycle time.

bonus stupid: considering yaw-dependent rounds superior to controlled expansion or fragmentation (protip: it's like comparing your laptop to a Babbage machine) and calling the 3 rnd burst a "founding concept."

>> No.26161893

>>26161728
>Citing an after the fact term made to define the role of a poor design

>By 2007, the Army had stopped using the M2 Bradley in combat, instead favoring more survivable MRAPs.
>It is the U.S Army's intention that the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) replace the M2 Bradley and M113 with the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle by 2018. The M3 Bradley could later be replaced with future variants of the GCV.[12][13] The M2A3 Bradley II, and an M2A3 Bradley variant used in Iraq, were included in the GCV Analysis of Alternatives. Vehicles included the AOA were determined to be inferior to the planned GCV
>No plans to replace the Abrams, which entered service a year earlier

It's a slapdash piece of junk that forced a change in operational doctrine to fit its "capabilities," instead of the original intent of replacing the M113.

>> No.26162208

>>26161893
>It's a slapdash piece of junk that forced a change in operational doctrine to fit its "capabilities," instead of the original intent of replacing the M113.

To be fair the operational demands of the military ARE completely different now from when the M2 was developed. It was intended to play tank-tag with Soviet tanks in Europe while the nukes went off. Then the world changed and now we're chasing guerrillas and criminals through Middle Eastern cities, driving through the Afghan mountains, etc.

The military doesn't want more of the Abrams either, not because it's "failed," but because MBTs aren't useful for the majority of the fighting we're doing these days.

Of course, that's not to say that the Bradley isn't still a wrongheaded piece of expensive shit.

>> No.26162243

>>26161893
It successfully replaced it in the desired environment and went on to function successfully in others.

Dying to a string of daisy chained 155s is not a "slapdash piece of junk" it's a decent 1980s design.

>> No.26162454

>>26162208
The entire US military is now working to get back into the training mindset to to its proper force on force mindset again. NK isn't going to be a guerrilla warfare, "nation building" exercise if it ever happens, it's going to be a major battle (though likely a curbstomp if China doesn't intervene this time) to retake and reintegrate it as one Korea.

At this point it's not likely we'll do another Afghanistan/Iraq, since it's a ton of work, time, and money with only middling results in Iraq, and almost no progress in Afghanistan.

>> No.26162549

>>26162243
It's a gigantic target with armor that maxes against heavy machine guns, unless its armor is upgraded and slows it down.

>> No.26167380

>>26161889
>Grozny proved tanks are useless for urban combat?
No I'm that jackass that refuted your moronic claim that "urban combat saved the tank." There can be arguments made for tanks in combat situations, but certainly they certainly didn't fucking save the tank. The US army agrees because TUSK was created to reduce the risks of urban fighting.

Direct Impingement does make it more likely to cause malfunctions in the weapon.

Basically all of your points boil down to
>nuh uh I'm right, ur wrog cuz u dont agree
Which puts you on the level of the morons who claim to be experts on /k/.
>considering yaw-dependent rounds superior to controlled expansion or fragmentation
Yeah, unlike what 'experts' like you insist the 5.56 actually does suffer from inferior stopping power, especially against drugged combatants. That in addition to its weaker recoil makes the 5.45 the superior round.

>calling the 3 rnd burst a "founding concept."
>I dun no wut project SALVO is
Do you ever realize that being up your own ass doesn't make up for knowing fuck all?

>> No.26168137

>>26154566
>But design creep fuckery instead
>produced a vehicle that carries half the troops it was supposed to
Take a look at all the IFVs of the period. All of them went with the 6 man squad, even the BMP.

>looks like a tank but has jack shit for armor
No shit, it's a bradley. It's still better armored than what the Soviets Fielded, and on top of that it's even better armored than an M113, which only maxed slightly past .50 cal with a bolt on kit!

>a chain gun that can't penetrate real armor
It was either that or mount an even heavier gun that would be sub par, make the thing weigh stupidly front heavy, and still not do the job for the Abrams. If this tank were to be an awful attempt at being a jack of all trades, upgunning the fucker to take on tanks would've made it abysmal.

> a TOW launcher that requires the vehicle to hold sights from shot to hit
That's TOW for you. Yet there are plenty of tanks which use fly by wire. Such as the Bradley's Competitor, the BMP-2 which had a wireguided 9M113 Konkurs. For the 1980s, this shit was quite standard.

>and a scout variant that's too tall, too wide, too loud
Your one legitimate criticism, but even that was a tradeoff to make for better survivability and for crew ease. The BMP-2 is radically shorter than the Bradley fighting vehicle, but in return it's even /worsely/ armored, is especially cramped, and the spare fueltanks are located in the fucking rear doors.

>It's a slapdash piece of junk that forced a change in operational doctrine to fit its "capabilities," instead of the original intent of replacing the M113.
The doctrine came first, dorkus. The West ditched the APC concept when the first BMP-1 got spotted in 67, with a 73mm gun and an AT-3 Sagger missiles.

>> No.26168150

>>26153372
> AT-18 is also the basis for G36 and FAMAS
The AR-18 is a completely different system then the FAMAS.

The FAMAS is a lever-delayed blowback, lacking any sort of gas-piston or tube.

How the fuck do you screw up something as fundamental as a rifle's method of operation?

Its not even worth deconstructing your other flawed viewpoints if you can't even get that right.

>> No.26168175

If you wanted a plane to kill ships, would an A-10 Warthog with a railgun in place of the Gau-8 be a good choice?

>> No.26168232

>>26168175
Left my name on from PR quest...

>> No.26168273

>>26168175
Probably not.

Assuming that you somehow had a railgun that fired a sufficient mass at a high enough velocity in a package light enough to be worth swapping out the GAU-8, it'd still be a kinda crummy weapon.

1) Against a modern combat ship A-10 would be hard pressed to get within LOS w/o getting SAMs up its ass

2) While it might be possible to mission kill a ship with a GAU-8 or a railgun, you are unlikely to make a big enough hole to sink it before your A-10 eats a SAM

3) A railgun that is of similar weight, power, and rate of fire does not currently exist.

Now go hang your head in shame for even considering robbing a poor Warhog of its BRRRRRRT

>> No.26168418

>>26153372
>And finally, the refusal to use anything but AP rounds is astonishingly stupid, it makes far too many shots over-penetrate.
Geneva Convention, nutfuck. Secondly, FMJ doesn't necessarily mean it's 'AP,' the SS109's only armor piercing goal was to reliably penetrate Russian Helmets. Thirdly, The SS109's overriding priority when it hits is to tumble

>The discoveries of world war 2 that most firefights take place at 300 yards somehow translates to a weapon that boasts 600+ yards range.
No, no it doesn't. That's the best you're ever going to get out of an M16 without a change in the caliber. Ever. That's not effective range, that's not reliable range, that's your maximum. The effective range of the M16 is 400 meters.

You're also wrong, the reports suggested that the firefight range regularly took place at LESS than 200 yards. Not 300.

>> No.26168441

>>26153665
>Why we don't sell it? I pretty sure we already unloaded a bunch on some shitty countries in the past. But even Mugabe isn't going to take an ancient gas guzzler for a markdown if he has better export models to choose from.
Wow, you're fucking dumb.

We did. We do. We still do. Even the Phillipines gave their M113s IFV turrets from the FV101. They go along perfectly with their Tactics on a budget M3 Grease Guns.

>> No.26168489

>>26153665
>Funny enough, Soviets out Capitalism'd us in the sale of arms. Better supply/demand dynamics and prices to go with their hardware.
They dumped AKs on anyone who even so mentioned Lenin. They dumped the machinery to make them if you mentioned Stalin was a pretty nice guy. This wasn't a cost/benefit analysis, this was the Nation-State equivalent of dumping AOL startup discs onto the 'Colonized World.'

There was no capitalism involved, there wasn't even a profit.

>> No.26168578

>>26145470
>a Toyota Hilux
Not a current Hilux, mind. Take an older model, a genuinely indestructible model.

>> No.26169226

>>26168150
Actually thats not how it works. Granted, I did confuse the origins of the FAMAS with the L-86; but that doesn't really make up for the fact all you have been plenty wrong before.

>Geneva Convention
Because that accounts for our use of white phosphorous in cities and non-uniformed right? Shitty excuse. Regardless of your bullet specific autism, my point still stands that the round is prone to over-penetration; the fucking army admits this.

>LESS than 200 yards. Not 300.
This is just getting sad. Firstly, you are arguing over pure semantics, which doesn't change the fact that the m16 effective range is far beyond what was called for. Secondly you are wrong twice in one post moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#20th_Century
>During and after World War II it became accepted that most infantry engagements occur at ranges of less than 300 m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
>Effective range 550 meters

According to your logic everything else you said is invalid.

>We did. We do. We still do.
Philippines' current APC of choice were the more recently provided Simbas from the UK. That example proves that they're looking to replace the M113 in their arsenal, not keep buying more to use as is.

>>26168489
>They dumped AKs on anyone
Hurff durrf Soviets provided a lot more than small arms. While they did provide free equipment to some allies, they did successfully create a large sphere of influence with its arms supply; including India and Syria. Not much profit but they did undersell us in several neutral nations.

Yep still wrong and stupid. Keep trying.

>> No.26169270

>>26169226
>non-uniformed combatants

>> No.26169297

>>26145705
>Joining a armored cavallery group, 2013, shiggydiggy

>> No.26169310

>>26168578
No shit, the modern one was catered to mid 2000's SUV fad the Japs were late on.

>> No.26169337

>>26169310
I actually have been dying to know why the older Hilux appears as the standard technical. I figured it was availability and historical significance with the Toyota war being a thing. Its actually notably superior to other trucks?

Makes me wonder what those white trucks we saw in Libya were, very interesting to see technicals produced with modern vehicles and spare military parts.

>> No.26169396

>>26169226
Actually went and looked up to see m113 in foreign nations again. Other that the unsurprising use by our shitty useless ally Pakistan, Iraq bought some just last month. I'm a little surprised actually.

For some reason I was expecting them to acquire the Bradley vehicles we don't need anymore. M113 just seems really behind the rest of the other geopolitical powers around them.

>> No.26169446

>>26169337
Availability. I live in the third world (Philippines). Though we are one of the more hopeful versions of the third world, we still get a shitload of 20-30 (Jesus even 40-50 plus) year old surplus vehicles, mostly from Japan and the USA. Not to mention replicating said designs in automotive workshops (like what we do to the WWII Jeep, which is our version of the Hilux).

Furthermore in Libya, they press ganged all of the pickup trucks in the rebellion, even the modern ones. And not all of them were Toyota Hilux, some were Mitsubishis and other brands. Not all of em were pickups either, I saw flatbeds with front-engine cabs carry the heavier AA guns.

>> No.26169486

>>26169446
Libya had tons of semi-standardized systems. That flat bed with a ZSU AA gun was probably one of the better ones. But there was the very iconic rocket pod upgrade, at least a few improvise armored ones, and 2 (maybe more) very interesting trucks with BMP1 turrets. Non powered, hand cranked and partially armored.

>> No.26170071

>>26147972
Actually, it's an 80-cm-Kanone (E).

>> No.26170576

>Because that accounts for our use of white phosphorous in cities and non-uniformed right? Shitty excuse.
>Hurr durr because some guys on the field dodge laws it means the executive branch is entitled to dodge them as well

>This is just getting sad. Firstly, you are arguing over pure semantics, which doesn't change the fact that the m16 effective range is far beyond what was called for. Secondly you are wrong twice in one post
You're the one arguing about how a clone round is vastly superior when the fact of the matter is that there's so little overall difference between the two that it'd be pointless to assign anything but preference. The 5.45 is a slow, smaller Soviet round that's extremely comparable to 5.56.

>>During and after World War II it became accepted that most infantry engagements occur at ranges of less than 300 m.
>you said > The discoveries of world war 2 that most firefights take place at 300 yards somehow translates to a weapon that boasts 600+ yards range.

http://www.cfspress.com/sharpshooters/pdfs/Operational-Requrements-For-An-Infantry-Hand-Weapon.pdf

Here, you suggested that 300 is 'normal,' when according to the literature, that's the high end of the spectrum, not the average. Secondly

>effective range
you mean the maximum effective range. Y'know, the range that, on range day, you may hit half the time. I would not put stock in that number unless I was a marksman. And, jesus, take a look at what they ditched in favor of the M16 - the M14 has a maximum effective range of 800 meters - half that at minimum is perfectly hittable.

>Philippines' current APC of choice were the more recently provided Simbas from the UK.
The Phillippines has 150 Simbas IFVs, 120 Cadillac Cages IFVs, 128 M113s, and 85 AIFVs, which are IFV upgrades of the M113A1. Never mind that this had nothing to do with anything.

http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2012/11/23/871373/dnd-eyes-100-new-apcs-italy

>> No.26171660

>>26169226
>Firstly, you are arguing over pure semantics, which doesn't change the fact that the m16 effective range is far beyond what was called for
So you're saying it's a bad thing that the M16 is able to preform above and beyond what it is generally called from it?

>> No.26173555

>>26170576
>that's extremely comparable to 5.56.
Yes, which is why its dumb we have not emulated what makes it effective. If its preference then you have no right to complain that I my preference for the 5.45 is wrong you contradictory asshole. In any case 6.8 is the superior round for close range engagements anyway, which matches British studies that called for 6-7 caliber weapons after world war 2.

>Here, you suggested that 300 is 'normal,
I hereby add the missing word "within" to that post you whiny fuck. You're still bitching about semantics.

>you mean the maximum effective range
You're fucking done. This semantic argument shit if for children and know nothings. You cant even stand behind one fucking point. Its either adding facts that do not contradict me or semantics.

>>26171660
If it also translates to over penetration, then yes. However the unforeseen engagements in the middle east, particularly Afghanistan, has seen this range utilized. Going on what was 'learned' in world war 2 the range is extreme; but we managed to run into one of the few situations where we needed it.

>> No.26173656

>weaponry from any age
>no discussion of swords
/tg/ why do you do this to me

>> No.26175751

>>26169226
>Actually thats not how it works.

Oh. Please, do tell how the FAMAS works then? I would surely love to hear your description of its cycle of operation.

>> No.26176529

>>26173555
>Yes, which is why its dumb we have not emulated what makes it effective. If its preference then you have no right to complain that I my preference for the 5.45 is wrong you contradictory asshole. In any case 6.8 is the superior round for close range engagements anyway, which matches British studies that called for 6-7 caliber weapons after world war 2.

Of course, you're ignoring that bullet construction matters just as much as caliber and barrel length. M855 underperformed in the M4 because it depended on the higher velocity of the 20" barrel on the M16 to yaw reliably. The M855A1 has been found to reliably outperform M80, 7.62 NATO Ball. It has faster burning propellant, and the bullet itself isn't yaw-dependant. All without having to replace every upper in issue and convert all ammo production and distribution to a new caliber while getting rid of the old stuff.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action