Those new bullpup AKs are the first decent looking ones of its type in my opinion.
I wouldn't know the first thing about how well they operate, though.
Also those new AK-12s just look mean. I can't really place it but it looks more intimidating than the older model. I really like it.
While those destiny guns do look good, they have a bit much greeble in my opinion
[QUOTE=Skyward;41977602]Destiny's got some nice guns.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/bIVB4Z1.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
Introducing the new Black&Decker Turbo drill
powered by fusion ion plasma capacitors
those destiny guns have a massive "nerf-or-nothing" factor
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;41976763]Hallo Komerade, ich habe einen idea! Let's take the (arguably) most effective dive bomber in the world
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Junkers_Ju_87Ds_in_flight_Oct_1943.jpg/300px-Junkers_Ju_87Ds_in_flight_Oct_1943.jpg[/IMG]
And strap a pair of motherfucking Flak 18 guns to the wings.
[IMG]http://www.lonesentry.com/panzer/may/pics/ju-87-g-stuka.jpg[/IMG]
Surprisingly these worked out very well, or so it was reported. Hans-Ulrich Rudel, the most decorated German soldier in WWII, was able to fuck up some Soviet shit with this fucked-up flipper baby of a Stuka and an AT gun. It was actually his crazy idea in the first place.[/QUOTE]
That's not even close to a Flak 18. They're not even anti-air guns like the Flak 18 was designed for. They're BK 37s, 3.7cm anti-armor guns meant for...blowing up tanks.
[B]THIS[/B] is a Flak 18/36:
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Flak18-36.jpg[/t]
8.8cm of fuck-you-up, whether you're flying or rolling around in a metal box.
Emergency pageking content:
Some crazy-ass Nazi ramjet interceptor, the Lippisch P.13a.
[t]http://www.luft46models.com/manufacturers/li/lip13/lip13n.jpg[/t]
Sexy, sexy He-162. This is actually a damn fine looking airplane.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Heinkel_He_162_Freeman_Field_IN_1945.jpg[/t]
And lastly, the Go-229, a pretty fine-looking flying wing.
[t]http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/germany/horten_ho-9.gif[/t]
[QUOTE=AxisKiller;41978908]Flak discussion[/QUOTE]
Flak 18s came in two flavors, 37mm and 88mm. Both were in fact designed for AA usage, and because of German doctrine, both were also used for AT roles. Sure, yours is more famous, but mine is still a Flak 18/26/27/43, just like yours.
[QUOTE=AxisKiller;41978908]Sexy, sexy He-162. This is actually a damn fine looking airplane.
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Heinkel_He_162_Freeman_Field_IN_1945.jpg[/t]
[/QUOTE]
Wasn't that the jet with the wood frame that was meant to be flown by children?
[editline]26th August 2013[/editline]
Yup, it was.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41979002]Wasn't that the jet with the wood frame that was meant to be flown by children?[/QUOTE]
was wood, meant to be flown by the volkssturm though, not children
[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;41978983]Flak 18s came in two flavors, 37mm and 88mm. Both were in fact designed for AA usage, and because of German doctrine, both were also used for AT roles. Sure, yours is more famous, but mine is still a Flak 18/26/27/43, just like yours.[/QUOTE]
Alright, you're right, sorry about that. I concede defeat as I just checked the Wiki page. I never knew that as I had always seen them designated as BK37s. Learn something new every day I suppose.
[quote=Wikipedia]The Bordkanone BK 3,7 ((on-)board cannon 37) was a 37mm anti-tank/bomber autocannon based on the earlier 37 mm Flak 18 made by Rheinmetall.[/quote]
[editline]26th August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=butre;41979017]was wood, meant to be flown by the volkssturm though, not children[/QUOTE]
Apparently it was supposed to be for the Hitler Youth to fly, so "children" may be a bit of an overstatement but not that far from the truth.
[QUOTE=AxisKiller;41979030]Apparently it was supposed to be for the Hitler Youth to fly, so "children" may be a bit of an overstatement but not that far from the truth.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I suppose teens or teenagers would be a bit more accurate. Still pretty crazy to put highschool age kids in a wooden-frame jet fighter.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41979052]Yeah, I suppose teens or teenagers would be a bit more accurate. Still pretty crazy to put highschool age kids in a wooden-frame jet fighter.[/QUOTE]
Aircraft weren't as complex back then as they were now. You could easily get a teenager to pilot one after some training.
I would say that being in one of those would be safer than being on the ground, but Fritz didn't put a throttle-governor on those jet engines, so if you accelerated to quickly your engines would burst into flames. Burning jet engine+jet fuel+wood frame=??
Here's another question that's been nagging me for a while: on, I'd say anyway, the majority of gas-operated weapons the gas system is located above the barrel:
[img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/7/71/AKMRifle.jpg[/img]
Eg, an AKM, the gas system is visible on top of the barrel.
But then on some rilfes I've seen it in other places:
[img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/1/10/M1_Garand.jpg[/img]
Eg, the M1 Garand, the gas system is located both below and on the right side.
Is there any major practical difference created by this? Only thing that I can really see is that the sights can be mounted lower to the barrel on the M1.
Also, I don't just meant the usual difference between short/long stroke or DI, just any differences created by position.
Think about how the gas system works, then look at the placement in comparison to the magazine well on modern assault rifles.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;41986752]Think about how the gas system works, then look at the placement in comparison to the magazine well on modern assault rifles.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah, there is that, but the Garand (along with other M1 patterns such as the M14 and Mini-14 series) was able to get around this by going to the side at the back. I'm also wondering how much of a difference it would make to just have it side mounted from the start.
[editline]27th August 2013[/editline]
Come to think of it, didn't the Charlton automatic rifle have a side-mounted gas system as well?
I'm just wondering if there's any major downside to have the gas system positioned elsewhere.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;41986616]Here's another question that's been nagging me for a while: on, I'd say anyway, the majority of gas-operated weapons the gas system is located above the barrel:
[img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/7/71/AKMRifle.jpg[/img]
Eg, an AKM, the gas system is visible on top of the barrel.
But then on some rilfes I've seen it in other places:
[img]http://www.imfdb.org/images/1/10/M1_Garand.jpg[/img]
Eg, the M1 Garand, the gas system is located both below and on the right side.
Is there any major practical difference created by this? Only thing that I can really see is that the sights can be mounted lower to the barrel on the M1. And now that I think about it, I actually don't think I've seen any weapon with its gas system like that other than an M1 pattern.
Also, I don't just meant the usual difference between short/long stroke or DI, just any differences created by position.[/QUOTE]
The downside to the M1 series action is the oprod; it is an extra moving part that affects accuracy and is in contact with the barrel. It is also sensitive to ammunition in that if your ammunition is too hot, you can bend the oprod. Ideally, the less moving parts and the less complicated the parts, the better.
It really depends on the type of action, but that isn't the defining factor. Take a look at most GMPGs, the gas system is below the barrel. AN-94's gas system is below the barrel because of the type of action.
B.A.R. is another good example.
Edit: I almost forgot the Johnson M1941 Rifle and FG-42.
The Stoner 63 platform illustrates this quite well; compare the rifle version to the LMG version and you'll notice the swapped position of the gas tube.
[img]http://i39.tinypic.com/16ib1tt.jpg[/img]
[img]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/machine/mg41/Stoner63lmg-2.jpg[/img]
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Army_Heritage_Museum_B.A.R..jpg[/img]
Heres some of the FSA's hilariously improvised weapons and artillery
[img]http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/79VLRZWgqSutz.BEWun8kw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTEwNDQ7cHlvZmY9MDtxPTg1O3c9MTU2OA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2013-08-27/dbaa0d8a-01f3-48d3-80c2-ed6d048715df_RTR3EZ2A.jpg[/img]
Smart car towing a god damn mortar
[img]http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/xq4qf4Cphw.WH3buznf6HQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTEwNTk7cHlvZmY9MDtxPTg1O3c9MTU2OA--/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2013-08-27/d5e03e88-174c-498a-aaa2-0025d0172aa1_RTR3A97N.jpg[/img]
[img]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/9X_4RzCLwEudJaMOMOj2BQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTg1MTtweW9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz0xMjQ4/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2013-08-27/608cca9f-ae77-4b5b-b1cc-23ed0aa17973_RTX12X9F.jpg[/img]
Mortal shells being made
[img]http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/LjoqfK0WcyAuYQPSbby73g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTgzMTtweW9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz0xMjQ4/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2013-08-27/306d7df3-8998-4f38-9256-d9f5952cc2be_RTR3DYJ0.jpg[/img]
[img]http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/1haoZxnqTEhL9.N9kt1cQg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTkyMjtweW9mZj0wO3E9ODU7dz0xMjQ4/http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/news/2013-08-27/03986f72-f298-4659-ab27-d3bf3350a0aa_RTR3DJ9Q.jpg[/img]
"grenade" launcher "attachment"
[t]http://gyazo.com/3ff810245e8b6e0ee9b4f02d4295ef2f.png[/t]
"Jesus fuck Ahmed, are you sure this is gonna work?"
Are they launching those mortar shells without any additional charges? They must have a pretty short range.
[QUOTE=MAC21500;41988033]Are they launching those mortar shells without any additional charges? They must have a pretty short range.[/QUOTE]
No clue, I got those from a yahoo article which basically said "they dont got no cruise missiles or JDAMs, so they made these things, we dont know what they do though". considering most of their battles are CQC, they don't need that much range to be effective.
i like it when syrian mortars blow up on drop.
I've always liked the Stielhandgranate.
It's a stick. But you'd never play fetch with it.
[QUOTE=The Jack;41989123]I've always liked the Stielhandgranate.
It's a stick. But you'd never play fetch with it.[/QUOTE]
You mash potatoes with it...
In all seriousness the shape wouldn't be good for mashing potatoes.
"colt 45" refers to like 3 different things btw, my favorite of which is the liquor.
[img]http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/billydeesign.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Cabbage;41989172][t]http://i.imgur.com/Kph3W0J.jpg[/t]
gold-plated colt .45 :v:[/QUOTE]
[thumb]http://imgkk.com/i/j6cx.jpg[/thumb]
actual colt .45, the 1911 was never referred to as a colt .45
sorry! I didn't want to call it a 1911 because it says 1978 on the plaque :v: But yeah, I guess you're right
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
