It's most amazing how far AP ammo has come. These days you can put a hole through 18mm RHA at 100m with the M993 5.56mm cartridge. No need for a 20kg+ rifle. Of course, tank armour these days is rated to ~1500mm RHA.
That thing kicks like a fucking mule. You'd think after the first shot they'd realise that the tripod was way too flimsy. He's lucky it didn't bash his nose in.
[QUOTE=loopoo;52193622]That thing kicks like a fucking mule. You'd think after the first shot they'd realise that the tripod was way too flimsy. He's lucky it didn't bash his nose in.[/QUOTE]
Tripod was the only thing they had, and the shooter would probably break his collarbone if he tried to shoot from prone with the rifle
Could a Zippy really take out a Mike Tyson?
Even after playing with the thing in BF1, the sheer simplicity in design of the gun hasn't sinked-in until I watched him reload it in the video. It's really as straightforward as it gets, doesn't it?
Forgotten Weapons reminds me of when the History Channel was actually good.
[QUOTE=loopoo;52193622]That thing kicks like a fucking mule. You'd think after the first shot they'd realise that the tripod was way too flimsy. He's lucky it didn't bash his nose in.[/QUOTE]
I wish they'd gotten a slomo shot of the recoil too, it was cool seeing the way the 4-bore rifle destroyed Ian's shoulder and this would've been even more awesome.
Could a Tankgewehr really gewehr a tank?
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52194160]Forgotten Weapons reminds me of when the History Channel was actually good.[/QUOTE]
Fuck yea dude. Watching videos like these really brings me back to that Mail Call show with R. Lee Ermey
[QUOTE=archival;52195514]Could a Tankgewehr really gewehr a tank?[/QUOTE]
Would Dodge dodge a Ram? Or a Ram ram a Dodge?
It's a question I ask similarity at car shows. I'm sure you could email Forgotten Weapons your question though.
Reminds me of those old elephant guns:
[video=youtube;CLxMlL333_Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLxMlL333_Y[/video]
[QUOTE=download;52193550]It's most amazing how far AP ammo has come. These days you can put a hole through 18mm RHA at 100m with the M993 5.56mm cartridge. No need for a 20kg+ rifle. Of course, tank armour these days is rated to ~1500mm RHA.[/QUOTE]
Would someone kindly explain why this is rated dumb? I don't know anything about ammo, caliber, or ballistics, so I'd like to know if it's because of inaccurate info, or dumb for some other reason.
[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;52196309]Would someone kindly explain why this is rated dumb? I don't know anything about ammo, caliber, or ballistics, so I'd like to know if it's because of inaccurate info, or dumb for some other reason.[/QUOTE]
Did you understand anything he said? Probably not. He could have actually been useful and informative by giving an explanation but he decided to just use a bunch of obscure terms and acronyms that most of us won't probably understand without context.
RHA stands for [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_homogeneous_armour"]Rolled Homogenous Armor[/URL], which is what most tanks up until World War 2 were covered with. Afterwards, composite armor of various (often unknown) materials were used. To create a sort of standard regarding armor penetration (or protection), RHA is used.
[editline]7th May 2017[/editline]
I like the part where it shows how effective sloping the armor is.
[QUOTE=Taepodong-2;52194160]Forgotten Weapons reminds me of when the History Channel was actually good.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the good old days where it wasn't filled with shitty trucker and bidding war shows. These shows are faker than Kim K's whole body.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52196834]Did you understand anything he said? Probably not. He could have actually been useful and informative by giving an explanation but he decided to just use a bunch of obscure terms and acronyms that most of us won't probably understand without context.[/QUOTE]
That bastard! Posting using armor piercing weapon related terminology in a thread about armor piercing weapons! Why, I should give him a piece of my mind!
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52196834]Did you understand anything he said? Probably not. He could have actually been useful and informative by giving an explanation but he decided to just use a bunch of obscure terms and acronyms that most of us won't probably understand without context.[/QUOTE]
i'm astounded and kind of proud that somehow you managed to contribute far less than the post you're criticizing
the M993 5.56mm cartridge is for M60 machine guns and M24 sniper rifles (not to be confused with the M995 for the M16, M4 and SAW); that's honestly pretty impressive how powerful it is now that I did a little googlin
Somehow it irritates me that this guy uses guns left handed in his videos. Seems extremely awkward for me.
[QUOTE=Mining Bill;52206280]That bastard! Posting using armor piercing weapon related terminology in a thread about armor piercing weapons! Why, I should give him a piece of my mind![/QUOTE]
But what's the point of spitting out facts about armor piercing technology if you do in a manner where savvy posters won't learn anything new and uninformed posters won't understand anything?
The video itself is entertaining and informative even if you don't understand a thing about weaponry or military history.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52210076]But what's the point of spitting out facts about armor piercing technology if you do in a manner where savvy posters won't learn anything new and uninformed posters won't understand anything?
The video itself is entertaining and informative even if you don't understand a thing about weaponry or military history.[/QUOTE]
It's literally one google away, no need to get your panties in a twist over it
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52210076]But what's the point of spitting out facts about armor piercing technology if you do in a manner where savvy posters won't learn anything new and uninformed posters won't understand anything?
The video itself is entertaining and informative even if you don't understand a thing about weaponry or military history.[/QUOTE]
Honestly I find it extremely difficult to imagine that you can't even get a basic gist of what he's saying through context clues. It's a matter of simple reading comprehension skills.
[quote]"These days you can put a hole through [B]18mm RHA[/B] at [B]100m[/B] with the [B]M993 5.56mm[/B] cartridge."[/quote]
Let's break that down:
[quote]"These days you can put a hole through [B](thickness) (some material)[/B] at [B](distance)[/B] with the [B](cartridge model) (cartridge size)[/B] cartridge."[/quote]
What's so hard to understand? You don't have to know the specifics of what he's talking about to get what he's saying. The post can be summarized as, "armored piercing ammunition is much more effective now and can be fired from smaller weapons". I find it a lot more likely that you're just the sort of person who is easily annoyed by people talking about weapons affectionately since you might find interest in such things socially repulsive.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52210076]But what's the point of spitting out facts about armor piercing technology if you do in a manner where savvy posters won't learn anything new and uninformed posters won't understand anything?
The video itself is entertaining and informative even if you don't understand a thing about weaponry or military history.[/QUOTE]
Yeah! If only we had this thing where we could put things into it and it'd give us a list of potential answers to our entry. Some kind of knowledge index.. maybe even like an encyclopedia, but on the computer.. Guess we'll never know what he was talking about.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52210076]But what's the point of spitting out facts about armor piercing technology if you do in a manner where savvy posters won't learn anything new and uninformed posters won't understand anything?
The video itself is entertaining and informative even if you don't understand a thing about weaponry or military history.[/QUOTE]
To add to this point: I own two AR-15s (rifles that fire the aforementioned 5.56mm cartridge). I've fired thousands of rounds of 5.56. I still was not familiar with the M993 round or its capabilities, since it's not a cartridge you'll typically find on the civilian market which is largely dominated by two other cartridge models, the M193 and M855. From my quick googling it's actually rather rare. So, I would be a classic example of an "informed poster" who still learned something new.
I have to ask, did you ignore the parts of the video where Ian was talking about types of steel, brinell hardness, steel hardening, spalling, oblique angles, etc? Did you just watch the video to see a big gun put a tiny hole in a metal plate? Because that is 100%, honest to God, genuinely fine! But don't you think with all that extra information, there might be a not-insignificant number of people who watched this video and got something more out of it than you did?
[QUOTE=mastermaul;52211818]I find it a lot more likely that you're just the sort of person who is easily annoyed by people talking about weapons affectionately since you might find interest in such things socially repulsive.[/QUOTE]
I like guns. I think I just have an irrational dislike for posts that dive into more complex/specific concepts with the assumption we'll understand it when the thread itself is part of a subforum that addresses a broad audience. It's an issue with me as a poster specifically.
The more rational approach for me would have simply be to suck up my pride and just ask for clarifications. I'm sorry.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52229817]I like guns. I think I just have an irrational dislike for posts that dive into more complex/specific concepts with the assumption we'll understand it when the thread itself is part of a subforum that addresses a broad audience. It's an issue with me as a poster specifically.
The more rational approach for me would have simply be to suck up my pride and just ask for clarifications. I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't bash people for not understanding what RHA stands for, but it's kinda bog-standard if you're remotely into armored warfare or even really understanding military ammuntion in the first place. It was a bit of a google search away.
I'll agree the wording could've been made more simple by just saying 18mm of armor with a standard AP rifle round at 100m instead of the terms used, but it also might've opened it up to scrutiny anyways. He saved himself that at the cost of confusing others. :v:
Without bothering to look into the ammo type he mentioned, the general concept is accurate. Modern ammo is ludicrously more penetrative at even small calibers now when it needs to be (materials and velocity, chiefly), but armor values on vehicles actually emphasizing armor have fucktoupled out of orbit and there's basically way you're getting through an actual tanky-tank with a conventional solid projectile fired by a person. Innovations in chemical penetrators (HEAT) mean it's a helluva lot more feasible to drop a rocket launcher in Johnny Jim's hands instead, and that goes right back to a little past the outbreak of World War II.
There's still and always will be a battle for this kind of stuff, and in the case of conventional small arms, that's more on protecting light vehicles (transports, infantry-fighting vehicles, and what not) versus various calibers of man portable weapons. They're usually designed around "can we make this thing 7.62/12.7mm resistant" at the bare minimum, which means the armor needs to be around 30mm "effective", or more, for most conventional ammo. Due to how powerful and inexpensive rocket launchers can be versus how devastatingly penetrative they are, and combined with the wonky ways you can defeat them unconventionally such as cage armor, explosive-reactive armor, and "shooting the fuckin' thing outta the sky BLAP" - armoring vehicles has gotten a lot more complicated than it was back in the World Wars.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52229817]I like guns. I think I just have an irrational dislike for posts that dive into more complex/specific concepts with the assumption we'll understand it when the thread itself is part of a subforum that addresses a broad audience. It's an issue with me as a poster specifically.
The more rational approach for me would have simply be to suck up my pride and just ask for clarifications. I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]
"I like guns but not when they're in depth, I like to keep it simplified because I can't be bothered to read up on them; I don't like that others are more knowledgeable on them either so fuck them."
[QUOTE=GHOST!!!!;52230002]"I like guns but not when they're in depth, I like to keep it simplified because I can't be bothered to read up on them; I don't like that others are more knowledgeable on them either so fuck them."[/QUOTE]
I think there's this misunderstanding that I don't want people to go in detail. It's the opposite, I think people should go more in details but not be afraid also explaining acronyms and specific concepts since some of us might not be familiar with it. Usually people on FP are great at breaking things down for us less savvy (like in the news subforum whenever an article about a scientific breakthrough comes out, for instance). They don't just say "google it" but in retrospect my irritation was still unwarranted. I should have simply asked for an explanation instead of complaining about someone else's posting style. Again, I apologise.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;52229817]I like guns. I think I just have an irrational dislike for posts that dive into more complex/specific concepts with the assumption we'll understand it when the thread itself is part of a subforum that addresses a broad audience. It's an issue with me as a poster specifically.
The more rational approach for me would have simply be to suck up my pride and just ask for clarifications. I'm sorry.[/QUOTE]
I apologize for making assumptions as well. It's an attitude I've seen a great deal on these forums but that doesn't make it right for me to paint sweeping pictures of you as an individual.
I can understand where you're coming from to a degree. I have a friend who seems to be extremely knowledgeable about the minutia of every little thing he brings up, even if he's never mentioned it before, and it can be rather odd at times. You just have to treat it as a learning experience, even if it's knowledge you didn't really have any particular interest in obtaining. There's no such thing as knowing too little.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
