Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



C.M. Kruger posted:

Actually the Obrez was a Russian Civil War creation by bandits and partisans who needed more concealable weapons, because handguns weren't common in Russia.

For close-range firepower in WW2, the Russians had the PPSh-41. Sometimes they equipped entire platoons or companies with it, instead of rifles.







The PPS, which augmented and later replaced it, was even simpler, and was even produced inside Leningrad while the city was under siege.


You should also note that it was such a good gun, the Germans had a production run rechambering captured PPSh's for 9x19 parabellum.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



Pound_Coin posted:

it also came in airbourne varieties :shepface:



Two posts above yours.

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



blunt's post reminded me of Jingals, or large caliber wall guns used by India and china from the 18th to nearly the mid 20th century. They were mounted on rampart swivels, had barrels of 5 or more feet, and were used as a type of precision artillery or sniper rifle.


The above picture is a .60 caliber single shot bolt action example, produced in 1896. .75 bolt action guns were also produced during the period.


.60 cartridge fired by the above gun, next to a .50 BGM and a 7.6254mmR cartridge.

Guns following a similar philosophy were produced in the west as well up until about the mid 19th century. Here is a French .90 caliber paper cartridge rampart gun from 1836.

Tiberius Thyben has a new favorite as of 09:31 on Apr 15, 2015

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



3 posted:

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

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

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



Fat Loser posted:

I don't know about you, but a hovering/flying Voltron of tanks sounds pretty good to me.

And when it inevitably comes crashing to the ground, it'll probably kill all the Marines inside. A win-win!

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



blunt for century posted:

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

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

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing




I want to imagine how civilians felt seeing that thing trundling down the street, thinking that this was what they were hoping would hold back the Japanese.

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



Chas McGill posted:

They should've just updated the Harrier, always thought that was a pretty cool design.

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

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



Son of Thunderbeast posted:

The A-10 is the closest thing the world has to a flying tank. If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll make an effortpost later about the A-10 because I could go on forever about that thing.

How about the original Flying Tank, the Il-2.

It had up to half an inch thick armor in a tub all around the engine and cockpit, though the gunner was left unprotected with the logic that a dead pilot would kill both of them. This was enough to block almost any projectiles under 20mm. As for weapons, in addition to twin 23mm cannons and 7.62mm machine guns, it, had, well, according to wikipedia...

quote:

To compensate for the poor accuracy of the Il-2's bombsight, in 1943 the Soviet Command decided to use shaped-charge armor-piercing projectiles against enemy armored vehicles, and the PTAB-2.5-1.5 SCAP aircraft bomb was put into production. These small-calibre bombs were loaded directly into the bomb bays and were dropped onto enemy vehicles from altitudes up to 100 meters (328 ft). As each Il-2 could carry up to 192 bombs, a fire carpet 70 meters (229 ft.) long and 15 meters (49 ft) wide covered the enemy tanks, giving a high "kill" probability.[21] Pilots of 291st ShAP were the first to use the PTAB-2.5-1.5 bombs. During one sortie on 5 June 1943, six attack aircraft led by Lt. Col. A. Vitrook destroyed 15 enemy tanks in one attack, and during five days of the enemy advance the 291st Division claimed to have destroyed or damaged 422 enemy tanks

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



Jonathan Yeah! posted:

DU is amour-piercing, so it's generally used to penetrate MBT/ thicker armour, so it would probably just go right though a lesser-armoured vehicle (creating a very big hole). For more efficient blue-on-blue killing action, they should probably use HEAT or HE, which'll explode/ spray molten metal on impact.

DU is actually a bit worse than that...

quote:

Depleted uranium is favored for the penetrator because it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric.[29] On impact with a hard target, such as an armored vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp. The impact and subsequent release of heat energy causes it to disintegrate to dust and burn when it reaches air because of its pyrophoric properties.[29] When a DU penetrator reaches the interior of an armored vehicle it catches fire, often igniting ammunition and fuel, killing the crew and possibly causing the vehicle to explode.

Can't remember where, but I remember some soldier referring to the charred bodies in a tank hit by them as 'crispy critters'.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tiberius Thyben
Feb 7, 2013

Gone Phishing



DumbparameciuM posted:

Turns out the Naval AWS/Laser weapons don't loving work: http://thebulletin.org/navys-new-laser-weapon-hype-or-reality8326

Well, they haven't managed to almost sink the ship they are mounted on, so they are still better than the f-35 :D

  • Locked thread