• Coolest/Ugliest Weapons v7 - SHOTGUNS
    5,001 replies, posted
[QUOTE=$$>MUFFIN<$$;48991252]Spotting rifle is actually a 37mm gun that fired something similar to a small tracer mortar.[/QUOTE] yeah but you need to be able to see the fall of shot for a spotting rifle to actually work, which means having line of sight to the target, which means it was a direct fire weapon.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48991212]IIRC the Davey Crockett comes very very close to (or even contacts?) the ground before it goes off, otherwise it wouldn't be generating much of a cloud. The Davey Crockett is a pretty unique animal in that it is very low yield, which makes it very dirty radiation-wise. You cant really compare it to a normal air-bursted nuclear weapon which goes off hundreds if not thousands of meters above the surface, and if it is a thermonuclear device, will be a fairly clean after it goes off. as far as tactical nuclear weapons go, the Davey Crockett is significantly more dangerous to its users than other weapons because it had shit accuracy, poor range,was intended for direct fire, and produced a dirty-as-hell result. Plus the weapon's maximum range is orders of magnitude closer to the blast radius than ANY other tactical nuclear weapons system at the time. In fact I cant think of a tactical nuclear weapon that had less of a safety envelope than this thing.[/QUOTE] No? The could is caused by the shockwave knocking dirt loose followed by the heat of the explosion rising which sucks the dirt up. There is nothing there to suggest the Davy Crockett had to be a direct fire weapon. It was aimed at a reasonably high angle and fired by wire from a short distance (meaning it could be fired from cover). The W54 warhead was low yield and reportedly used a similar amount of weapons material as a much larger weapon. The low yield mean that little of the material fissions, meaning less neutrons, meaning less neutron activated dirt. Yes, that means a lot of plutonium was scattered, but the radioactivity of plutonium is low and long lived, rather than very high and short lived as is usually found in fallout. The accuracy of the weapon would have been in the range of 100 to 200m, which doesn't really matter when its lethal radius is 500m and the wounding radius is 800m. If that round falls short you still have a 1000m buffer with the small Davy Crockett and that is before using cover. That goes up to 300m with the larger version. Fuzing on the Davy Crockett was done by timer and a chart. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;48991264]yeah but you need to be able to see the fall of shot for a spotting rifle to actually work, which means having line of sight to the target, which means it was a direct fire weapon.[/QUOTE] If you didn't know the range. Normally though you would look at a map and figure it out.
[QUOTE=Araknid;48984617]These two are actually pretty good This one too considering it's a god damn T-34/85 dressed up as a leopard[/QUOTE] Some more things-masquerading-as-other-things [thumb]http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/65971115.jpg[/thumb] T-34 dressed up like a tiger (ironic) [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/mP7omxo.png[/IMG] Sav M/43 dressed up to look like a marder.
[QUOTE=download;48991168]He hardly posts any more because people got a hold of his work email.[/QUOTE] He hardly posts with his trip; but he still posts often in any nuke threads anonymously. And it become obvious which posts are his because of the experienced language he uses. He does this so he can claim deniability if people take his new posts to his work. I just love a wave of posts when people ask him "I live near x, how fucked am I/10?"
[QUOTE=download;48991271]No? The could is caused by the shockwave knocking dirt loose followed by the heat of the explosion rising which sucks the dirt up. The W54 warhead was low yield and reportedly used a similar amount of weapons material as a much larger weapon. The low yield mean that little of the material fissions, meaning less neutrons, meaning less neutron activated dirt. Yes, that means a lot of plutonium was scattered, but the radioactivity of plutonium is low and long lived, rather than very high and short lived as is usually found in fallout. [/quote] the physical scattering of the plutonium IS fallout dude. Fallout is [I]literally[/I] scattered nuclear material by definition. If the weapon scatters lots of nuclear material (as you note that it does) it is a high fallout weapon. All that dust and shit from the blast cloud is irradiated by the nuclear detonation as well as the actual nuclear material from the weapon itself. and if you think that exposure to plutonium dust is negligibly harmful, you might want to go to google scholar or something and look up the bazillions of studies that detail the nasty shit that exposure to respirable (and non-respirable) radioactive dusts can do to you [quote] The accuracy of the weapon would have been in the range of 100 to 200m, which doesn't really matter when its lethal radius is 500m and the wounding radius is 800m. If that round falls short you still have a [B]1000m buffer[/B] with the small Davy Crockett and that is before using cover. That goes up to 300m with the larger version. [/quote] you say that as though it is a lot, but compare that to ANY other tactical nuclear weapon of the era and you realize that 1km is an absurdly tiny margin of safe operation compared to other weapons, especially considering the weapon could theoretically be fused for as little as 1000m away. It is [B]objectively[/B] several times as dangerous as the next step up (like the Luna or Little John, for example) [quote]There is nothing there to suggest the Davy Crockett had to be a direct fire weapon. It was aimed at a reasonably high angle and fired by wire from a short distance (meaning it could be fired from cover).[/quote] [quote] If you didn't know the range. Normally though you would look at a map and figure it out.[/QUOTE] why would you include a spotting rifle on a weapon that was intended for indirect fire? is there another example of that being a thing ever?
[QUOTE=download;48991168]He hardly posts any more because people got a hold of his work email.[/QUOTE] He posts just as often really. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=richard9311;48991322]He hardly posts with his trip; but he still posts often in any nuke threads anonymously. And it become obvious which posts are his because of the experienced language he uses. He does this so he can claim deniability if people take his new posts to his work. I just love a wave of posts when people ask him "I live near x, how fucked am I/10?"[/QUOTE] And I still see him post on his trip all the time.
[QUOTE=Tinter;48991601]He posts just as often really. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] And I still see him post on his trip all the time.[/QUOTE] Who is this guy??
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;48991364]the physical scattering of the plutonium IS fallout dude. Fallout is [I]literally[/I] scattered nuclear material by definition. If the weapon scatters lots of nuclear material (as you note that it does) it is a high fallout weapon. All that dust and shit from the blast cloud is irradiated by the nuclear detonation as well as the actual nuclear material from the weapon itself.[/quote] Yes, scattered nuclear materiel is fallout, no shit Sherlock. The question though is "Will this harm you?" [I]The primary[/I] source of nuclear fallout in a nuclear explosion is [I]neutron activated soil[/I]. This makes up the largest component of fallout in nearly every nuclear explosion unless you're talking about enormous fission-fusion-fission weapons like Ivy Mike (which was also a ground-burst) or a full yield Tsar Bomba. Compared to the very short lived isotopes (days and months) created by neutron activation during a ground-burst, an equivalent mass of plutonium is positively benign with a half-life of more than 20k years. In this case the phrase "a candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long" applies; a kilo of material with a short half-life of only a few days will emit [I]hundreds of thousands[/I] of times more radiation over the same time period as the same mass of plutonium. [quote]nd if you think that exposure to plutonium dust is negligibly harmful, you might want to go to google scholar or something and look up the bazillions of studies that detail the nasty shit that exposure to respirable (and non-respirable) radioactive dusts can do to you[/quote] When a few kilos are scattered over tens of square kilometres it is. 10kg/10km^2 = 0.001g/m^2 That's nothing, especially for an alpha emitter which is only harmful if breathed. It's all about dose. [quote]you say that as though it is a lot, but compare that to ANY other tactical nuclear weapon of the era and you realize that 1km is an absurdly tiny margin of safe operation compared to other weapons, especially considering the weapon could theoretically be fused for as little as 1000m away. It is [B]objectively[/B] several times as dangerous as the next step up (like the Luna or Little John, for example)[/quote] So what? If you want to compare it to other weapons, sure, but in the realm of its CEP and very predictable explosion radius it's perfectly fine for a weapon that would only be used in an all out nuclear war. And if you chose to select a range of only 1000m your either and idiot or don't mind throwing your life away. It's no different that choosing to throw a grenade short or point your mortar tube straight upwards and dropping rounds on yourself. [quote] why would you include a spotting rifle on a weapon that was intended for indirect fire? is there another example of that being a thing ever?[/QUOTE] Are you being deliberately asinine or are you stupid? It should be obvious it's for when you don't have time to range it properly and need a quick fix. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] Christ, I'm out, I don't have this much tolerance for stupidity.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ArflgRec7o[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1MCvEkBHVI[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWC_fcr6V-0[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3PZdjWKoO0[/media] these kinds of videos make my dick hard
There's something about seeing armor and infantry advancing across open fields with aircraft flying overhead. I know it's just a show of power and not a great idea in a real war, but it just looks so good. Here's two of my favorites: [video=youtube;HCHblu3FONk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCHblu3FONk[/video] [video=youtube;gCifCnCZ_CA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCifCnCZ_CA[/video]
Playing Red alert and war in conflict gave me a hard on for soviet equipment and tactics. And I can always zerg rush with tons of soviet tanks and hinds onto allied forces.
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;48991624]Who is this guy??[/QUOTE] OPpenheimer, a certain poster on /k/. As I understand it, he used to work as a senior nuclear security adviser in the government; before moving onto private sector work where he does something similar. He's a living repository of knowledge anything nuclear, and knows some pretty neat shit. [URL="http://4chandata.org/k/Good-morning--k--I-finished-my-primer-on-nuclear-weapon-targeting-for-you-Not-sure-if-anyone-on-is-interested-but-I039ll-post-it-a-a683460"]Runs scenarios sometimes. [/URL]He claims he doesn't post anything classified, and that anything he posts you can find publicly out there, but that he just make it easier by being able to ask him. His credentials were confirmed semi-recently when he accidentally doxxed himself; and that scared him off for a bit. He's back, though. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] A shame archive.moe is dead; I can't find another good archive to search for his older posts. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] [URL="http://desustorage.org/k/thread/23982677/#23982677"]A good example of one of his nuke threads[/URL]
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;48992799]Playing Red alert and war in conflict gave me a hard on for soviet equipment and tactics. And I can always zerg rush with tons of soviet tanks and hinds onto allied forces.[/QUOTE] Try the Wargame series
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;48992799]Playing Red alert and war in conflict gave me a hard on for soviet equipment and tactics. And I can always zerg rush with tons of soviet tanks and hinds onto allied forces.[/QUOTE] Try the "rise of the reds" mod for command and conquer generals. Its Russian federation but its heavily influenced by the red alert 2 soviets + it has ww1 style+allies from red alert 2+exosuits+nano tech european union, drone/special forces USA, power in numbers + nuclear + napalm china and the chemical weapon guerilla fighter GLA. Really really great mod for a great game.
In Wargame: Red Dragon I tried to move over 400 T-34s and BTR-152s with hundreds more ppsh-wielding conscripts across a single small bridge. Two squads of Leo 2s killed every single one of them.
[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;48996336]In Wargame: Red Dragon I tried to move over 400 T-34s and BTR-152s with hundreds more ppsh-wielding conscripts across a single small bridge. Two squads of Leo 2s killed every single one of them.[/QUOTE] Very-low point tanks in wargame are pretty useless, because they don't have the AP power to do anything except light vehicles, and those light vehicles are often armed with weapons that kill those tanks pretty quickly
I just recently learned of this thing: [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/jpvGgSe.jpg[/img_thumb] It's a QF 1-pounder, as wiki puts it [quote]a 37 mm British autocannon, the first of its type in the world. It was used by several countries initially as an infantry gun and later as a light anti-aircraft gun.[/quote] That thing must've been terrifying if it was pointed at troops. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] What other WW1 era weapons are there that aren't commonly mentioned?
[QUOTE=OvB;48996905]I just recently learned of this thing: [img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/jpvGgSe.jpg[/img_thumb] It's a QF 1-pounder, as wiki puts it That thing must've been terrifying if it was pointed at troops. [editline]27th October 2015[/editline] What other WW1 era weapons are there that aren't commonly mentioned?[/QUOTE] [img]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/44/36/89/4436894e2c5e58c633bb82a9cf514b22.jpg[/img] Le Prieur rockets. Used to shoot down balloons, it's just a cardboard tube with a wooden tip filled with a crap-ton of black powder.
Early air warfare is fucking scary.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;48999381]Early air warfare is fucking scary.[/QUOTE] Shooting bottle-rockets from paper planes at balloons full of boomy-gas.
[QUOTE=Rudevinny;48999429]How did they fire the rockets? Did they just get some guy to hold onto the wing and lit the fuses as necessary?[/QUOTE] If you look at the picture you can clearly see a wire connected to each one.
[QUOTE=Riller;48999438]Shooting bottle-rockets from paper planes at balloons full of boomy-gas.[/QUOTE] And that's a [I]successor[/I] to the Ranken dart: [IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/18/article-1358227-0D3FE239000005DC-834_634x250.jpg[/IMG] It's literally a dart that you chuck at a Zeppelin and hope it hits. Also available is the average over-wing gun mount, which you reload by pulling down in front of your face and reloading [I]with both hands[/I]. [img]http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/foster.jpg[/img] The idea of Schraege Musik was born because pilots used to pull the gun down while it was loaded and use it to shoot straight up into things. And then there's the standard technique for dropping bombs before bomb racks were invented: [IMG]https://av8rblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/handbomb.jpg?w=300[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;48999701] [IMG]https://av8rblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/handbomb.jpg?w=300[/IMG][/QUOTE] Wonder how low you had to fly to have any hopes of accuracy.
I still wanna know the reaction when some dude suggested that they should strap several bombs to racks.
[QUOTE=OvB;49000175]Wonder how low you had to fly to have any hopes of accuracy.[/QUOTE] There was some story where the brits bombed the ottoman supply caravans with success. That might have been after the bombing racks were used though. Vs infantry you'd drop lil dart type thing en masse, quantity over quality or accuracy.
Still think the story of a pilot who decided to bring a rifle with him because some guy threw a rock at him in an earlier engagement is the best one of all the stories/fun ideas of early aviation warfare history.
One interesting story i heard, that once two pilots who met in the air had emptied their pistols at one another, they still had the courtesy to wave each other goodbye. Interesting times.
[QUOTE=Rudevinny;48999429]How did they fire the rockets? Did they just get some guy to hold onto the wing and lit the fuses as necessary?[/QUOTE] Electronically, which probably just means the button in the cockpit for them just set off a spark. Another stupid/amazing WW1 thing: [img]http://i958.photobucket.com/albums/ae65/ajv00987k/DavisGun.jpg[/img] 57mm Davis Gun, the allies had some trouble attacking ships and subs with aircraft, so they decide to shove a big-ass recoilless rifle on the nose ring of some bombers. I don't even know if this was used in combat or not, but I'm guessing no because having a recoilless rifle pointed downward on a wood and fabric plane doesn't sound like it will go too well.
Why don't you think it'd go too well?
Yeah. Recoil aint a problem. It's recoilless.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.