[QUOTE=Turing;50416949][video]https://youtu.be/sSlrB0zBfxs[/video]
It's also been done in eastern Ukraine[/QUOTE]
Biggest issue is the complete and total lack of accuracy and the ability to properly aim the projectile
[QUOTE=Turing;50416949][video]https://youtu.be/sSlrB0zBfxs[/video]
It's also been done in eastern Ukraine[/QUOTE]
"sergi, go out there and fire this rocket like stong man!"
"but sir, we have never fired mortar from rocket yet! cannot we use string and sand bags?"
"don't be silly! this is why we test these things"
[QUOTE=Riller;50415821]Mortar shells are fine, but why the red/black bad dragon dildos?[/QUOTE]
It looks like an indigenous take on the frag round for the RPG7.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50416972]Biggest issue is the complete and total lack of accuracy and the ability to properly aim the projectile[/QUOTE]
If they still got the rear section of the rocket attached to it, it would still have some form of accuracy due to deploying fins on launch which should provide at least a small degree of stability and level flight trajectory.
Are OG-7Vs actually used in real life? I only ever see them in video games.
[QUOTE=Tinter;50420168]Are OG-7Vs actually used in real life? I only ever see them in video games.[/QUOTE]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyFGB03o2GI[/media]
[QUOTE=Ilwrath;50420103]If they still got the rear section of the rocket attached to it, it would still have some form of accuracy due to deploying fins on launch which should provide at least a small degree of stability and level flight trajectory.[/QUOTE]
Even with the weight distribution being entirely screwed over by the most likely quite a bit heavier shell?
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/SKS_-_Ryssland_-_AM.045810.jpg[/t]
SKS, if only for the fact that it is a scaled down PTRS 14.5mm anti tank rifle.
[t]http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/atr/atr002/ptrs_1.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i42.tinypic.com/2woemvr.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=download;50420491][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyFGB03o2GI[/media][/QUOTE]
I guess I should rephrase that. I meant are they commonly used?
[QUOTE=Riller;50420832]Even with the weight distribution being entirely screwed over by the most likely quite a bit heavier shell?[/QUOTE]
Well, the fins drag stabilize the normal rocket, so the heavier weight of the mortar shell shouldn't really affect their original purpose. I mean, it probably won't be hugely accurate, but I'd wager it's still accurate enough to hit roughly the area you're aiming at, as long as it's close enough so you don't have to arc the shot because of the lack of the actual rocket engine part of the original rocket.
[QUOTE=StrykerE;50423347][media]https://twitter.com/AbraxasSpa/status/737259997004976128[/media][/QUOTE]
Well, that is actually a role that the PTRS is perfectly suited for.
However I did also see a video of some separatists firing a PTRS-41 at enemy armored vehicles from a rooftop. As far as I remember they stopped when the enemy returned fire with some heavier ordnance.
[QUOTE=Bonde;50423687]Well, that is actually a role that the PTRS is perfectly suited for.
However I did also see a video of some separatists firing a PTRS-41 at enemy armored vehicles from a rooftop. As far as I remember they stopped when the enemy returned fire with some heavier ordnance.[/QUOTE]
Considering its flaws and (I'm assuming) the fact that they've got more modern anti-materiel rifles available, I'd agree this is an excellent application for it. Save the new stuff for combat troops, and put the much older stock to work on something useful.
I love interwar tank designs.
[video=youtube;XO4iduI5XyU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4iduI5XyU[/video]
Its such a weird design that. But if the soviets had a dozen of those for the battle at stalingrad, maybe they could have proven to be useful machines.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;50432888]Its such a weird design that. But if the soviets had a dozen of those for the battle at stalingrad, maybe they could have proven to be useful machines.[/QUOTE]
I think the fact that they are using steel at all is what would make the difference, there wasn't a whole lot an infantryman could do back then to stop an armored vehicle, especially in a deprived hell like Stalingrad where weapons were scarce and people were fighting house to house
The Soviet armored bulldozers were probably way more effective than this would have been
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/DPUdm.jpg[/t][t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/WxqHS.jpg[/t]
Kalashnikov Concern's new DMR, the SK-16
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2031645_original.jpg[/t][t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/0ZtRj.jpg[/t][t]
It is actually chambered in 7.62 NATO, so it maybe it was designed for export. It could also be that they wanted an indigenous design that could fulfill the same role as the HK417 that some Interior Ministry troops were using. A shorter, modular "battle carbine" that is still accurate
The Chinese also made their own 7.62 NATO DMR, the CS/LR14
[t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Chinese-CS-LR14-rifle.jpg[/t][t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/csrl14.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Destroyox;50432687]I love interwar tank designs.
[video=youtube;XO4iduI5XyU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO4iduI5XyU[/video][/QUOTE]
Not sure where you got interwar from, this was a design from 1943
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TryYpVS.jpg[/IMG]
some estonian bloke made a Browning copy in a garage.
The Davy Crockett Weapons System, a recoiless gun that fired the M-388 nuclear device.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=StrykerE;50434936][t]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/0ZtRj.jpg[/t]
[/QUOTE]
I think they've been playing too much ARMA 3.
[t]http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/epochmod.gamepedia.com/9/9f/Weapon_mx_f.png?version=4143553edfb74c4ee83dc43e458a4c9b[/t]
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;50435806]I think they've been playing too much ARMA 3.
[t]http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/epochmod.gamepedia.com/9/9f/Weapon_mx_f.png?version=4143553edfb74c4ee83dc43e458a4c9b[/t][/QUOTE]
What are the advantages of those slanted foregrips over the straight ones? It looks like it'd be kinda awkward to hold in a shouldered firing position.
[QUOTE=Saber15;50436096]What are the advantages of those slanted foregrips over the straight ones? It looks like it'd be kinda awkward to hold in a shouldered firing position.[/QUOTE]
it's pretty similar to holding by the magwell but you can adjust the position
[QUOTE=Saber15;50436096]What are the advantages of those slanted foregrips over the straight ones? It looks like it'd be kinda awkward to hold in a shouldered firing position.[/QUOTE]
From my experience slanted grips feel nice and stable whether you are standing, crouching or prone.
[QUOTE=Mallow234;50435070]Not sure where you got interwar from, this was a design from 1943[/QUOTE]
It was probably designed before ww2, but it's interwar in the sense that the designer had no clue how tanks were being used or going to be used and came up with ridiculous niche tank when everybody had moved towards general purpose tanks
[QUOTE=Sableye;50436821]It was probably designed before ww2, but it's interwar in the sense that the designer had no clue how tanks were being used or going to be used and came up with ridiculous niche tank when everybody had moved towards general purpose tanks[/QUOTE]
First off, no, it wasn't designed before WWII. Second, it's not a tank, it's an universal carrier. Third, it was made directly in response to combat experiences during the war related to walls and Normandy's infamous hedgerows.
How was it made in response to Normandy's hedgerows when it begun design in 1937 and the first prototype was done in 43? :huh:
Those Russian and Chinese DMRs are dope af, I want them both
[QUOTE=Destroyox;50437894]How was it made in response to Normandy's hedgerows when it begun design in 1937 and the first prototype was done in 43? :huh:[/QUOTE]
Because it was [I]entirely unthinkable[/I] that you'd need to fight a war in northern France when you share a continent with expansionist Germany that by that time had already reoccupied the Rheinlands along the French border.
[editline]1st June 2016[/editline]
That, and the design was [I]patented[/I] in 1937, redone in 1943 and rejected in 1944. By 43-44, it was very well known amongst everyone that you'd need to drop a shitload of dudes off somewhere along Northern France, and they would obviously be seeking designs to solve the problems they might face there.
Weren't the plans for fighting in Normandy super top secret? Also I don't think they really realized the potential hedgerow hazards considering it turned out to be a huge problem on the first day of Overlord that wasn't accounted for in any of the planning and required impromptu designs like the Rhino Sherman.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.