• Coolest/Ugliest Weapons v7 - SHOTGUNS
    5,001 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sheepaay;49824278]"Fire in the hole"[/QUOTE] use more lube then
[QUOTE=Qaus;49824293]use more lube then[/QUOTE] but you're risking a double feed!
some guns are into that! [img]http://i.imgur.com/f8Cp4Cb.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Grim2o0o;49823524][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpmcmKwWzYo[/media] pretty slick[/QUOTE] that is so fucking cool it's Defensive Toast Explosives
[QUOTE=antianan;49823687]Honestly, the most scary military profession for me is submarine sailor. Burning in a tank sucks, but at least tank crews have a small chance of getting out of their vehicle, while all it's left for you if your sub gets hit is just slowly sinking or suffocating in that not even armored tincan somewhere deep underwater with virtually no chances of getting away from it alive. But anyway, I guess all these people just don't have time to be afraid while in combat, so it doesn't really matter in which tincan you're in.[/QUOTE] The good thing about subs, you are most likely going to survive a nuclear war The bad thing about subs. You are stuck in a big can that could be destroyed at any minute by the water, the enemy, or any one of a myrad of possible mechanical failures. Thankfully we have come a long long way since das boat
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49820983]I really have a great deal of respect for tank drivers. The idea that you are trapped in what is effectively a slightly up armored tincan, which can at any moment be wiped off the map by a simple rocket with a guidance system... It just doesn't sit right with me. Actually, just about any vehicle in war is like that. At least as infantry you have the ability to at least get away from most things, with a vehicle your chances of escape after substantial damage are pretty bad. [/QUOTE] I'd prefer to be in a tank than be an infantryman. Most, if not all of the weapons on a battlefield can kill an infantryman. Significantly fewer weapons can destroy or even really damage a tank. Not saying that tanks are unstoppable or invulnerable, but at least in a tank you're protected by a a shit ton of armor and you're not going to be killed by a single stray bullet. Modern tanks are relatively safe and your chances of escape are decent if you do get hit. Casualty rates among armored vehicle crews are vastly lower than those of infantry. At least, that's the case with western tanks. If you have to crew a Russian tank and you take a hit then you're pretty much fucked. Maybe the T-90 and T-14 will be better, but the older ones don't exactly have a great track record for crew survivability. [t]http://i.imgur.com/FhTRxA5.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/9tQrsSH.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/WCDJIUh.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;49827976]I'd prefer to be in a tank than be an infantryman. Most, if not all of the weapons on a battlefield can kill an infantryman. Significantly fewer weapons can destroy or even really damage a tank. Not saying that tanks are unstoppable or invulnerable, but at least in a tank you're protected by a a shit ton of armor and you're not going to be killed by a single stray bullet. Modern tanks are relatively safe and your chances of escape are decent if you do get hit. Casualty rates among armored vehicle crews are vastly lower than those of infantry. At least, that's the case with western tanks. If you have to crew a Russian tank and you take a hit then you're pretty much fucked. Maybe the T-90 and T-14 will be better, but the older ones don't exactly have a great track record for crew survivability. [t]http://i.imgur.com/FhTRxA5.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/9tQrsSH.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/WCDJIUh.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] You shittin' me? Those T72's right there have ejection seats, and functioned perfectly. Crew go home unharmed. All ejection seats function flawless, soviet engineering proven working and battle tested.
[QUOTE=Binladen34;49828090]You shittin' me? Those T72's right there have ejection seats, and functioned perfectly. Crew go home unharmed. All ejection seats function flawless, soviet engineering proven working and battle tested.[/QUOTE] Yes the turret is supposed to blow off the top of the tank, so remaining crew can escape quickly [editline]27th February 2016[/editline] What's funny is someday we will run out of t-72s to blow up, then what? Move on to tanks that aren't deathtraps?
[QUOTE=Sableye;49828353] What's funny is someday we will run out of t-72s to blow up, then what? Move on to tanks that aren't deathtraps?[/QUOTE] There will still be T-34s and T-55s left. [I]There will always be T-34s and T-55s left.[/I]
Don't forget the T-62
And the T80 and T64
To be fair, the bottom two of those T-72's are export versions, and the top seems to be an old T-72B1. These shouldn't be compared to modern western tanks but to western tanks from the 80s.
Those silly Italians and their flying barrels [t]https://a.pomf.cat/hcuddy.jpg[/t] Also speaking of Slavshit tanks [t]https://a.pomf.cat/lgqweh.jpg[/t] [i]Just a mobility kill[/i]
[QUOTE=McTbone;49829529]Also speaking of Slavshit tanks [t]https://a.pomf.cat/lgqweh.jpg[/t] [i]Just a mobility kill[/i][/QUOTE] What are you talking about 'mobility kill'? That tank can still easily run, the track isn't even thrown off!
[QUOTE=SuicideZ;49829524]To be fair, the bottom two of those T-72's are export versions, and the top seems to be an old T-72B1. These shouldn't be compared to modern western tanks but to western tanks from the 80s.[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm pretty sure those are just monkey models. Real Russian T-72s wouldn't have any problems with that whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Riller;49829565]What are you talking about 'mobility kill'? That tank can still easily run, the track isn't even thrown off![/QUOTE] The burden of proof is on you!
[QUOTE=Tinter;49829621]Yeah I'm pretty sure those are just monkey models. Real Russian T-72s wouldn't have any problems with that whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure a Russian T72 would still get its shit absolutely well and properly wrecked by a M1A1/2 or any sort of ATGM these days.
[QUOTE=SuicideZ;49829524]To be fair, the bottom two of those T-72's are export versions, and the top seems to be an old T-72B1. These shouldn't be compared to modern western tanks but to western tanks from the 80s.[/QUOTE] Export T-72s and the top one was at some point a T-64. The M1 Abrams was introduced in 1980, and that has a sealed ammo compartment with blowout panels so the crew don't get cremated the second they take a hit to the ammunition storage. To be fair, other western tanks from the period didn't have great survivability either. The M60 Patton was still in pretty prominent US service during the 80s. Even though it's my favorite tank, even I'll admit that it rightfully deserves the nickname "Self Propelled Coffin".
[QUOTE=Sableye;49827853]The good thing about subs, you are most likely going to survive a nuclear war[/QUOTE] Kind of a dubious advantage, to be honest. Imo the best thing you can do in an event of global nuclear war is just die as quickly and painfully as possible. At least that's true for most of Russia, Europe, the US, China and probably India. So the best strategy is to move to some distinct shithole right now.
[QUOTE=antianan;49830141]Kind of a dubious advantage, to be honest. Imo the best thing you can do in an event of global nuclear war is just die as quickly and painfully as possible. At least that's true for most of Russia, Europe, the US, China and probably India. So the best strategy is to move to some distinct shithole right now.[/QUOTE] First of all, you probably mean painless. And second of all, nuclear war isn't as devastating as everyone is lead to believe. It would be very devastating, but it's not like we couldn't recover from it if it happened.
[QUOTE=Tinter;49830147]First of all, you probably mean painless[/QUOTE] Hey, I mean it, dying as painfully as possible is my #1 priority. [sp]Yeah, i just mistyped the whole word. Sorry.[/sp] Anyway, it's not only about the bombs themselves, it's about the chaos and other neat things that will happen after.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg[/media]
[QUOTE=Riller;49829684]Pretty sure a Russian T72 would still get its shit absolutely well and properly wrecked by a M1A1/2 or any sort of ATGM these days.[/QUOTE] Or just a T-64 depending on who gets the initiative [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzqGCdZIcAAwb8C.jpg:large[/IMG]
[QUOTE=StrykerE;49831270]Or just a T-64 depending on who gets the initiative [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzqGCdZIcAAwb8C.jpg:large[/IMG][/QUOTE] Tank combat is still as it was concluded in WWII; "Whoever fires first generally wins".
[QUOTE=Qaus;49830220][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLhWzMOccTg[/media][/QUOTE] Where was this guy for the mad Max movie? They needed that on the war rig
:scream: [img]http://40.media.tumblr.com/250902abb8e54c5190ed576c4fd87c24/tumblr_o3abccDCai1t64uyfo1_1280.jpg[/img]
that's an absolutely disgusting welding job
[QUOTE=Riller;49831610]Tank combat is still as it was concluded in WWII; "Whoever fires first generally wins".[/QUOTE] do ricochets even happen anymore with modern tank shells? i feel like the odds are even worse for today's tanks without that slim chance of an enemy shell bouncing off your hull
[QUOTE=Schmaaa;49834821]that's an absolutely disgusting welding job[/QUOTE] That's not even a weld, that's JB Weld. Or possibly even bondo.
Yeah, that's some sort of epoxy or glue. [editline]29th February 2016[/editline] I could ahve done a better job jizzing over that rifle.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.