|
I don't know a lot about guns, but that doesn't seem like the fairest test. Like, he put a cover over all of the mechanisms and then carefully applied a small amount of mud to just the cover, making sure none got on the gun. That was a truly homeopathic amount of mud.
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I don't know a lot about guns, but that doesn't seem like the fairest test. He did it again - there's a "take two" video where he pours the mud on. The rifle gets a few shots off, then jams completely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
I apologise for this blatant self promotion but i have started the process of putting my posts from the old thread up on a website for easy browsing for anyone who would like to peruse them, im trying to put up a couple a day until i get through them all. https://www.gearsofhistory.com/
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:The LeMat is not that weird. Really want to see both this and the lemat in Fistful of Frags
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
If anyone is interested I found a great little photo album of someone (not me)'s photos of their time in the US Army in the mid-70s. The sateen-green uniforms and 70's mustaches are amazing. Link to the album. There are some really interesting photos of AFVs in that distinctive "MASSTER" camouflage I mentioned above, and some great pics of 70's Germany. Edit: Okay, 1970s Germany... Cessna fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Cessna posted:There are some really interesting photos of AFVs in that distinctive "MASSTER" camouflage I mentioned above, and some great pics of 70's Germany. i didn't mean the 1670s, i meant the other germany. east germany. i go west of the Grenze very infrequently, only during reenactments. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:ok i like black powder and most of those come down to "is also a club" I don't understand what I'm looking at here. Was there some sort of stigma against having three triggers? Or is this just to show off how cool your gunsmith is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
From that article on the Columbia disaster, after some dudes went through back channels to try and get USAF photos of the orbiter to check for damage:quote:On the seventh day of the flight, January 22, just as the Air Force began to move on the Kennedy engineers’ back-channel request for photographs, Linda Ham heard to her surprise that this approach (which according to front-channel procedures would have required her approval) had been made. She immediately telephoned other high-level managers in Houston to see if any of them wanted to issue a formal “requirement” for imagery, and when they informed her that they did not, rather than exploring the question with the Kennedy engineers she simply terminated their request with the Department of Defense. This appears to have been a purely bureaucratic reaction. A NASA liaison officer then e-mailed an apology to Air Force personnel, assuring them that the shuttle was in “excellent shape,” and explaining that a foam strike was “something that has happened before and is not considered to be a major problem.” The officer continued, “The one problem that this has identified is the need for some additional coordination within NASA to assure that when a request is made it is done through the official channels.” Goddamn I need to go drink a beer or pet a kitten or something now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:Can we have a couple pages of everyone's favorite most complicated piece of weaponry? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantern_shield
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:Depends on the Army. Depends on the tank, even. (Tanks are designed to army spec, granted.) This is very noticeable if you compare the West German Leopard 1 with the US-built M48A2C in West German service. In the M48A2C, the commander selects a target from his cupola, directs the turret onto the target, climbs into the turret to use the rangefinder, estimates range, and tells the gunner to engage, then climbs back up into their cupola to observe, direct, and find new targets. The gunner, after being told to engage, lays the gun on target and fires. In the Leopard 1, the commander selects a target from their cupola, directs the turret onto target, and tells the gunner to engage. Then they continue to direct the battle from their cupola/hatch and find new targets. The gunner, meanwhile, operates the rangefinder, estimates range, and engages. Same army, same number of crewmembers, in operation at the same time, essentially the same technology, but the tanks are designed for very different workflows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
p. sure this won't work irl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kier4jokeYk it's still a 15cm gun tho
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Depends on the tank, even. (Tanks are designed to army spec, granted.) This is very noticeable if you compare the West German Leopard 1 with the US-built M48A2C in West German service. In the M48A2C, the commander selects a target from his cupola, directs the turret onto the target, climbs into the turret to use the rangefinder, estimates range, and tells the gunner to engage, then climbs back up into their cupola to observe, direct, and find new targets. The gunner, after being told to engage, lays the gun on target and fires. Which was better?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:22
|
|
|
Cessna posted:He did it again - there's a "take two" video where he pours the mud on. The rifle gets a few shots off, then jams completely. Yeah, they were just loving with Wehraboos. Every bolt-action rifle they've ever tested failed badly (often after just one shot, maybe two)....except the Arisaka with the dust cover on. That one still had an issue with mud getting into the burst case vent holes and jamming the bolt, but as long as that remained clear the dust cover protected the rifle very well. Despite all the rumors, the AK has consistently failed the test in the same way every single time no matter which country they're testing. The only guns with a flawless or nearly flawless record: * AR-15 * CETME-L * Luger * Winchester Model 1895 * SCAR-H They're all designed with the inside of the gun fully sealed when not cycling, which prevents mud from getting in when it's applied, and making the gaps when cycling only as large as is necessary. Even the Winchester, which basically vomits its guts out the bottom when you cycle the lever, is incredibly durable against thick mud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Yeah, they were just loving with Wehraboos. Every bolt-action rifle they've ever tested failed badly (often after just one shot, maybe two)....except the Arisaka with the dust cover on. That one still had an issue with mud getting into the burst case vent holes and jamming the bolt, but as long as that remained clear the dust cover protected the rifle very well. Kind of curious how a G43 would fare. It's got a similarly sealed up when non-firing design.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Which was better? M48A2C Commander: - Selects a target from his cupola - Directs the turret onto the target - Climbs into the turret to use the rangefinder - Estimates range - Tells the gunner to engage and at what range to do it - Climbs back up into their cupola - Observes, directs, and find new targets Gunner: - Rotates the turret - Lays the gun on target - Fires Leopard 1 Commander: - Selects a target from their cupola - Directs the turret onto target - Tells the gunner to engage - Continues to direct the battle from their cupola/hatch and find new targets Gunner: - Rotates the turret - Operates the rangefinder - Lays the gun on target - Fires See how in the M48 the commander is bustling around and up and down while the gunner spends most of the engagement with his thumb in his arse waiting to be told to do something? See how in the Leopard the commander has less to do, which affords them the mental capacity to do any of it properly, and the gunner handles the entire back half of the engagement while the commander can be setting up the front half of the next engagement? Leopard system rules. It's not unique to the Leopard but it's as good an example of it as any.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Which was better? I'm slightly intimidated by all the real scholars in this thread, and I want to be cool like them and have high standards, so the honest and rigorous answer is that I've not found a report that evaluates the merit of either method. Nor can I speak from experience, as I've not had the opportunity to compare the two in person. That said, when I read that the commander operated the rangefinder in the M48A2C, not the gunner, I almost screamed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
yeah i thought it quite strange how the commander has to climb up and down like a drat santa
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
TheFluff also mentioned that at ranges less than 2000 m stadimetric scopes are as good as or better than the stereoscopic/coincidence rangefinder, so if you're only engaging at ranges less than 2000 m you might not have this issue at all. Do you know how this works in the M60A3? From what I can gather from Stefan Kotsch's excellent website the commander operates the laser rangefinder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:17
|
|
|
I used to have the Steel Beasts simulator, which is an ultra-grognardy modern tank sim. After dealing with the hassle of a T-72's laser rangefinder (which only adjusts the reticle up or down for the range and does nothing to adjust for wind or leading a moving target), the Abrams was literally as easy as a video game. As long as you don't need to dial in the range yourself with the computer, the gunner just lases the target and the crosshair automatically compensates for the elevation, motion, and all other environmental conditions so all you do is put the target in the reticle and pull the trigger. It's easy to see now why Desert Storm's tank battles went the way they did. Even if both sides have equivalent vision, the T-72 gunner is constantly having to make visual corrections to their aim based on the target's movement while the Abrams gunner just points and shoots. Imagine that the T-72 is a sniper trying to compensate for wind and range while the Abrams is walking up behind him and putting a pistol to his head.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Kind of curious how a G43 would fare. It's got a similarly sealed up when non-firing design. I know why the do their mud tests the way they do, but I think it would interesting to see if fine dry sand/dust had a different impact. I suspect that the most likely outcome is that some rifles that do well with mud will do less well with dry particulates, but that rifles that did poorly with mud won't do any better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:I know why the do their mud tests the way they do, but I think it would interesting to see if fine dry sand/dust had a different impact. They did one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrPjlcJ3rtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYfGq1yk66Q Not much different results from the mud. If anything, the AR-15 did better. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I'm slightly intimidated by all the real scholars in this thread, and I want to be cool like them and have high standards, so the honest and rigorous answer is that I've not found a report that evaluates the merit of either method. Nor can I speak from experience, as I've not had the opportunity to compare the two in person. M48 is a very old tank, and could be claimed to predate Leo 1 by half a generation of FCS development. Comparing M60 with Leo 1 is more even. Most modern tank FCSes give TC their own fully stabilized sight that they can use to scan and designate targets or to just use to shoot themselves If they feel like cowboying. Usual setup gives TC the option to all or most of the following: -press a switch/button/toggle and slave the gun to his sight. This gets gunner immediately on a target and allows him to engage or TV can take the shot. -press a switch/toggle/butan to immediately slew his optic to where gunners main sight is looking to see What gunner is yelling about -press/switch/toggle to get the gunners view straight to his station or to his sight without moving either sight. Note Also that because both main gun sight and the TCs viewer are on top of the turret both can be used (in theory) totally from defilade. In practice m1a2s CROWS remote .50 is a 4-feet tall trash can towering above the tanks own silhouette so If the gunner can scan targets then the entire horizon can see your fiftycal. I cannot say as user experience but If there are any french or british tankers here they would propably confirm that leclerc and CR2 can do the exact same thing or some of them. Old FDF T72M1s had a ”sort” of designator for the TC according to one of our instructors who had used them (we phased them out 2005, two years before my time) but it was ”lovely” Also remember that all of this is Late-cold war. Leo 1, Centurion, m48, chieftain and AMX- 30 only got them later in life as the systems matured and laser rangefinders and thermal viewers became a thing. Most of the tanks dating to 1940-1960 started with either a ranging gun (chieftain) or optical rangefinders (m48) and anyone who has worked with tanks can tell you that retrofitting a poo poo ton of new gizmos to a compact, analog war machine is anything but elegant solutions most of the time- looking at you m1a2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Valtonen posted:M48 is a very old tank, and could be claimed to predate Leo 1 by half a generation of FCS development. Comparing M60 with Leo 1 is more even. I chose the M48A2C and Leopard 1 because they were in service with the same army, so I could talk about crew workflows being affected by the design of the tank, resulting in two different workflows in two otherwise fairly similar tanks operated by the same army. The M60 is more contemporary with the Leopard 1, but changes nothing about the comparison: the M60 and M60A1 used the same fire control system as the M48A2C.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I'm slightly intimidated by all the real scholars in this thread, and I want to be cool like them and have high standards, so the honest and rigorous answer is that I've not found a report that evaluates the merit of either method. Nor can I speak from experience, as I've not had the opportunity to compare the two in person. I only know small arms / man-portable crew-served weapons, and infantry tactics; so I'm just as intimidated with all these armor and airpower experts around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 03:15
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Despite all the rumors, the AK has consistently failed the test in the same way every single time no matter which country they're testing. The only guns with a flawless or nearly flawless record: And the Owen gun  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23M6H_rec6Y Note the globs of mud still falling off the gun while it's being fired at 0:45 Obligatory Ian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmAigxjQbtE
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:I'm slightly intimidated by all the real scholars in this thread, and I want to be cool like them and have high standards, so the honest and rigorous answer is... Humbug Scoolbus posted:I only know small arms / man-portable crew-served weapons, and infantry tactics; so I'm just as intimidated with all these armor and airpower experts around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 12:21
|
|
|
Polyakov posted:I apologise for this blatant self promotion but i have started the process of putting my posts from the old thread up on a website for easy browsing for anyone who would like to peruse them, im trying to put up a couple a day until i get through them all. sweeeeeeeeet the mines series is a nice read
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 13:19
|
|
|
GotLag posted:And the Owen gun I bet Ian would be dying to mud test that Owen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 15:28
|
|
|
in the context of the ACW, what is "case shot" and what was its uses relative to round and canister shot?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:in the context of the ACW, what is "case shot" and what was its uses relative to round and canister shot? Case shot = canister shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Canister is the buckshot one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:Canister is the buckshot one? Yep. The idea is to shoot a lot of smaller projectiles:
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
I imagine that a projectile even that small compared to the diameter of the barrel still probably has enough energy to whiz through a few ranks. I don't know the scale. I always imagined they'd be musketball sized but those look about like an inch or so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:48
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:Cess you could probably do a mini effortposts on tank anatomy. What do you want to know? As it is, I feel like the other folks in this thread - Army tankers - have this covered. Maybe I could talk about stuff like the USMC or AAVs that other people don't know as much about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Milo and POTUS posted:I imagine that a projectile even that small compared to the diameter of the barrel still probably has enough energy to whiz through a few ranks. I don't know the scale. I always imagined they'd be musketball sized but those look about like an inch or so. If i've understood correctly, the canisters with musket balls were called canister shots, and the ones with bigger balls were called grape shots. The grape shots were used mostly by naval guns. I'm not sure if the musket balls went through many ranks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Grape shot is an older term. It refers to smaller projectiles fired from a cannon. These were often packed in bags to make loading easier. Eventually they started pre-packing the shot into metal cans, thus "canister" or "case" shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Cessna posted:What do you want to know? I was an Army 11B, so I know jack poo poo about the AAVs. What the gently caress was the development process of the USMC's amphibious armed buildings?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
GotLag posted:And the Owen gun I know this is inconsequential but it always annoys me that they didn't give the TF2 Sniper this beauty for his SMG.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 19:34
|
|
