Coolest/Ugliest Weapons V5 - Bullpup AKs are the best - General

[QUOTE=MoralSupport;45850649][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JcrmEK2.jpg[/IMG] Norwegian Home Guards, 1987[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Riller;45855665]Yep, looks guidance-related. Like the fruit basket on a Stinger. [IMG]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080301045527/metalgear/images/9/9b/Stinger.jpg[/IMG] However, looking it up, it turns out it's the battery. Of course. The guidance is in the missile itself.[/QUOTE] The hell? A fruit basket? "Shit, ran outta rockets. Gotta use the heat-seeking oranges and flechette cherries."

The Vipers from the BSG Re-imagined series are my jam. I pretend that the Mk. III from BAC doesnt exist. Because of continuity errors. [thumb]http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/8/8c/Bsg-viper-1.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/thumb/7/7f/ViperMK7grey.jpg/640px-ViperMK7grey.jpg[/thumb] The Mk.II is like the F-86 of the BSG world, while the Mk.VII is the F-16. The Mk.II has this gorgeous, classic air to it, while the Mk.VII has a hyper-advanced feel that makes me gush. They're of the same family, and they look similar, launch from the same tubes, but they are so completely different. The Mk.II has 2 wing-mounted MEC-A6 30mm cannons, and internal bays for air to air, air to ground, or up to 50 megatons of nuclear ordinance, basically a total of 4 missiles. The Mk. VII has 2 wing-mounted MEC-A6's and one MEC-A6 on the vertical stabilizer, and has 4 wing hardpoints and 2 internal missiles bays, 2 missiles per bay. The Mk.VII is superior in electronic capabilities and aerospace computers, as well as replacing all analog gauges with electronic monitors, moved the stick to the side(like an F-16), and greater maneuverability, not to mention far superior in terms of DRADIS range and layout. The Mk.VII is much smaller overall then the Mk.II, it's engines are closer grouped and are smaller, but are more powerful overall.

[QUOTE=Zakkin;45855874]The hell? A fruit basket? "Shit, ran outta rockets. Gotta use the heat-seeking oranges and flechette cherries."[/QUOTE] ya except its the tow wire

Except it's not because it's not a TOW missile and it's guidance related like Riller said in the first place. It's an IFF antenna. [t]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-01-11/fig3-1.gif[/t]

[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;45857663]Except it's not because it's not a TOW missile and it's guidance related like Riller said in the first place. It's an IFF antenna. [t]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-01-11/fig3-1.gif[/t][/QUOTE] i thought stingers had some sort of guide wire between the missile and the launcher [editline]31st August 2014[/editline] kinda guessed that those were antennas though

The Stinger isn't guided by wire, it's infrared guided. I don't think there are any SAMs that are wire-guided, you'd need a hell of a lot of wire to reach any high-flying aircraft.

[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;45855539]Does anyone have any idea what the hell the things in front of the trigger unit of the Strela-2 and Strela-3 launchers are? [t]http://www.jedsite.info/missiles-sierra/sierra/strela-03_series/9k34/9k34_001.jpg[/t] [t]http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-14-img006.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/userpics/10486/strela2m1.jpg[/t] I think it's something to do with the guidance system, but i'm not sure.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Riller;45855665]Yep, looks guidance-related. Like the fruit basket on a Stinger. [IMG]http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080301045527/metalgear/images/9/9b/Stinger.jpg[/IMG] However, looking it up, it turns out it's the battery. Of course. The guidance is in the missile itself.[/QUOTE] Except the fruit basket has nothing to do with guidance [editline]1st September 2014[/editline] Damn, beat me to it.

[IMG]http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111102015724/starwars/images/3/39/Z6RotaryBlasterCannon-SWE.jpg[/IMG] the Z-6 rotary blaster cannon its a plasma minigun

Time for a big one. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon"][IMG]http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/url-17.jpeg[/IMG][/URL] a REALLY big one. That is a famous image of the M65 Atomic Cannon, nicknamed "[I]Atomic Annie[/I]" because hey, it was the early 50s. It was used throughout the 50s after the Grable tests at the Nevada Test Site in 1953 (where the image above was taken), and it took two trucks just to move. It was occasionally fielded in Europe and Korea, but there are little to no records of the M65 being actually used in combat, and it was mostly moved around to avoid being blown up by enemy forces. You can still see the original Atomic Annie that fired the Grable shots at the US Army Artillery Museum in Fort Sill, though there are 7 other Atomic Annies preserved. [URL="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Nuclear_Nellie"]Oh, and it almost got featured in a video game in 2003.[/URL] Also, bonus Davy Crockett, also called the M65. [IMG]http://37.media.tumblr.com/cb3d8aa3973ca429c208300984271c5b/tumblr_n3f4fnZVih1swr3bvo1_1280.jpg[/IMG]

I bet if you used a more modern propellant on the davy crocket it could go over 2 miles and be of use.

[QUOTE=Pigbear;45859723]I bet if you used a more modern propellant on the davy crocket it could go over 2 miles and be of use.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if something of the sort is being researched today

[QUOTE=ossumsauce;45856962]The Vipers from the BSG Re-imagined series are my jam. I pretend that the Mk. III from BAC doesnt exist. Because of continuity errors. [thumb]http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/8/8c/Bsg-viper-1.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://media.battlestarwiki.org/images/thumb/7/7f/ViperMK7grey.jpg/640px-ViperMK7grey.jpg[/thumb] The Mk.II is like the F-86 of the BSG world, while the Mk.VII is the F-16. The Mk.II has this gorgeous, classic air to it, while the Mk.VII has a hyper-advanced feel that makes me gush. They're of the same family, and they look similar, launch from the same tubes, but they are so completely different. The Mk.II has 2 wing-mounted MEC-A6 30mm cannons, and internal bays for air to air, air to ground, or up to 50 megatons of nuclear ordinance, basically a total of 4 missiles. The Mk. VII has 2 wing-mounted MEC-A6's and one MEC-A6 on the vertical stabilizer, and has 4 wing hardpoints and 2 internal missiles bays, 2 missiles per bay. The Mk.VII is superior in electronic capabilities and aerospace computers, as well as replacing all analog gauges with electronic monitors, moved the stick to the side(like an F-16), and greater maneuverability, not to mention far superior in terms of DRADIS range and layout. The Mk.VII is much smaller overall then the Mk.II, it's engines are closer grouped and are smaller, but are more powerful overall.[/QUOTE] I have no idea what the hell those are, except that they're from BSG, but I had one of these Vyper Jetbikes. It's also similar. [IMG]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7025/6676451901_050ec316c0.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Crash155;45859763]I wouldn't be surprised if something of the sort is being researched today[/QUOTE] Why would they research it when we have modern and cheap missiles?

MSBS-5.56K and MSBS-5.56B [t]http://jesusfuck.me/di/QBM0/1409482704437.jpg[/t][t]http://jesusfuck.me/di/S39T/1409497095281.jpg[/t] Comes in bullpup and regular flavours. Plus they've got a 7.62 NATO variant coming out soon. Polish wizards. [QUOTE][video=youtube;R-4G1Bo_jgA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-4G1Bo_jgA[/video][video=youtube;iOrNL3v9VHw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOrNL3v9VHw[/video][/QUOTE]

Fun fact both versions (K and B, conventional-layout and bullpup, respectively) are made from the same upper receiver and handguard; all that differentiates the two is the lower receiver and various accessories (rail covers, the stock, buttplate). [editline]1st September 2014[/editline] Oh and they also designed a cool 40mm launcher for it [t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/msbs_demo_20120814_04-tfb.jpg[/t] It also has a standalone chassis: [t]http://www.militis.pl/images/stories/thumbnails/images-stories-uzbrojenie-Bron_palna-msbs-7-450x230.jpg[/t] [editline]1st September 2014[/editline] Yay Poland

[QUOTE=download;45860255]Why would they research it when we have modern and cheap missiles?[/QUOTE] because helfire missiles can't level an entire city and deny an advancing army territory through the ultimate form of scorched earth warfare

[QUOTE=Sableye;45866128]because helfire missiles can't level an entire city and deny an advancing army territory through the ultimate form of scorched earth warfare[/QUOTE] Also, why bother with Davy Crockets when you have cruise missiles with larger nuclear payloads?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but anything that can launch a nuclear-tipped cruise missile presents a far bigger target than a bunch of guys in a light vehicle with a Davy Crockett. Of course the bigger targets are far better defended and the cruise missiles likely have a far bigger and more precisely aimed payload and a lot more range, so they're probably still better than anything like a Davy Crockett.

Yeah if I'm launching nukes I'm gonna use something more than a glorified mortar

[I]To be fair[/I], it arguably has a use in being hard to detect and near-impossible to intercept compared to an ICBM or MRBM.

lol [t]http://i.imgur.com/917sK72.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Riller;45872892][I]To be fair[/I], it arguably has a use in being hard to detect and near-impossible to intercept compared to an ICBM or MRBM.[/QUOTE] really the best use the davy crocket would have would be to set a bunch of them up infront of an advancing army and just remotely detonate them, but then there's the whole "don't leave a nuclear weapon unattended" problem [editline]2nd September 2014[/editline] it was developed at a time when the best cruise missile was the snark, so ya a tomahawk pretty much does exactly what it was supposed to do, better, safer, and is able to be kept track of

But if you're doing that, you may as well just use suitcase nukes or something designed for that purpose. I don't think the Davy Crockett's projectile was really designed to be remotely detonated, and ghetto-rigging nuclear weapons to do things they weren't designed to do is probably a very very very very very bad idea.

[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;45873557]But if you're doing that, you may as well just use suitcase nukes or something designed for that purpose. I don't think the Davy Crockett's projectile was really designed to be remotely detonated, and ghetto-rigging nuclear weapons to do things they weren't designed to do is probably a very very very very very bad idea.[/QUOTE] well it was probably designed with some sort of proximitry/altitude fuse so its probably wasnt too hard to trip it into being a regular bomb, also while strategic nuclear weapons have shitloads of safeguards, tactical nuclear weapons (especially in the early days) had only in the case of the davy crocket, a 5 digit combination lock keeping them from being armed and the combination wasn't kept in some safe or anything in some high command, nope the commanders in possession of the weapons had them

[QUOTE=Sableye;45878018]tactical nuclear weapons (especially in the early days) had only in the case of the davy crocket, a 5 digit combination lock keeping them from being armed and the combination wasn't kept in some safe or anything in some high command, nope the commanders in possession of the weapons had them[/QUOTE] source? genuinely curious

actually its probably not such an ineffective weapon afterall [quote]Both recoilless guns proved to have poor accuracy in testing, so the shell's greatest effect would have been its extreme radiation hazard. The M-388 would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m).[3] The warhead was tested on July 7, 1962 in the Little Feller II weapons effects test shot, and again in an actual firing of the Davy Crockett from a distance of 1.7 miles (2.72 km) in the Little Feller I test shot on July 17. This was the last atmospheric test detonation at the Nevada Test Site.[/quote] ~1/4th a mile for fatal radiation with a range of 1.7 miles from the mortar, granted its stupidly inaccurate at max range, and its warhead itself was less than a kiloton

Here, since I haven't posted in a while and have nothing valuable to contribute to the current topic of discussion, have [url=http://i.imgur.com/bEuTSfY.png]a polandball about tanks.[/url] I laughed way too hard at Russia's line when it sees Nazi Germany.

From the first couple frames I thought it was about the KV-1 and it's performance in early war engagements. That is, magic bullet sponge, in one case receiving 135 hits from German tanks and still kicking ass.

[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/T-70_in_Velikiy_Novgorod.JPG[/t] the qt3.14est tank in history, the T-70