[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

"War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." - Chairman Mao
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

| Catalog | Home
|

 No.1849[Reply]

Watching the latest NY shooter video got me thinking, how if at all possible could one survive a mass shooting? The first lady after he got out was doomed. The others seemed to be stuck with normalcy bias for a few seconds.

Is it better to run or to play dead, take cover?
Is normalcy bias bad, better to make a fool out of yourself overreacting to a nothingburger than to stand there in an actual shooting
Should one always walk behind some kind of cover in burgerstan? Seems like it is so common might as well
Daily body armor? Concealed carry without a permit?
Physical fitness is key, you should 100% be able to sprint fucking fast
72 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1991

File: 1653450128431.png (996.49 KB, 1000x1000, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1990
>doesn't even protect your full spine
>leaves the most important vertebrae unprotected.

 No.1992

>>1991
It's still about the same size as a plate carrier, proportionally. Can't be too bad.

 No.1993

File: 1653450801461-0.png (772.27 KB, 1024x768, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1653450801461-1.png (1.38 MB, 1024x773, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1992
Now that you mention it. Why don't vests or plate carriers protect the back of the neck? Only bomb suits do.

 No.1994

>>1993
It's a small and relatively unlikely target. That's usually what a helmet is for, anyway

 No.1997

>>1990
Seems like a scam honestly, wouldn't an actual bulletproof back be really heavy? Carrying that for extended periods might cause genuine long term issues.



 No.1345[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

What can we learn from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and this example of relatively modern warfare? Strategy, tactics, operations, geopolitical responses, information warfare, civilian pov and response. Anything related. Not the thread to talk about "who is in the right".
96 posts and 37 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1958

>>1951
Russian missiles are bombarding the Ukrainians every day, on the other hand, the Russian Air Force is active primarily East of the Dnieper, and hasn't been seen much in the West outside of the early weeks when a few were shot down. If they were I'm sure Kiev and Lvov would be getting pounded even harder.

Admittedly I don't have any hard proof, I just guessed that NATO EW from across the border is almost certainly helping the Ukrainian air defenses West of the Dnieper. The Ukrainians may not even need to turn on their radar.

 No.1960

>>1958
The Russians aren't operating there because its too risky given the dense civilian population and the fact that artillery does the same as any bomb. An airstrike is primarily for more priority missions.
> I'm sure Kiev and Lvov would be getting pounded even harder.
heh

 No.1980

File: 1653417960119.png (984.37 KB, 925x694, ClipboardImage.png)

The U.S. is shipping 200 Vietnam-era M113 armored personnel carriers to Ukraine as part of a larger $800 million aid package. The tracked-vehicle will help transport Ukrainian troops from the rear areas of the battlefield to the frontlines – mobility for infantry that is badly needed.
>https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/04/m113-armored-personnel-carriers-are-ready-to-fight-in-ukraine/

Tax write off of about $1.500.000 each (Ukraine will pay 3% interest per month on those) and of course AMC or GE will get contracts to replace them with Bradleys, at a bargain cost of $3.500.000 each.
Guess who owns millions in stocks in those companies?

 No.1995

>>1980
>US is reduced to supplying METAL BOXES
I imagine the Russian "Orks" capturing and turning them into Looted Metal Boxes.

 No.1996

>>1995
gondor sisters…



 No.1969[Reply]

Have you guys ever heard of the Littoral Combat Ships? Of course not, cause they're useless hunks of junk designed when the US decided they needed a wet F-35.

In all seriousness though, the LCSs are not only a failure in engineering of the individual ships and classes but also in initial concept. The LCS came about as a response to a need for small, fast, CHEAP ships to perform non-combat duties such as ASW and minesweeping. Almost every country in the 80s-90s had their fleet of support vessels nearing the end of their lifespan and so were busily working on next-generation replacements.

In both the East and West the form of this next generation of ships took two forms: Hydrofoils based on the design of the HMCS Bras d'Or which had perfected the design of hydrofoils as far as stability was concerned, and ground-effect vehicles. Ground effect vehicles are basically hovercrafts, OR Ekranoplans. The Ekranonplans planned to take over support roles were ironically larger versions of the Luna class since the weird thing about GEVs is that the bigger they are, the easier they are to control and are cheaper to maintain, so bigger=better in every way.

So while the rest of the world was designing their next generation on cutting-edge technology that had been proven in the last generation, what did the US do? They out-sourced their shipbuilding programme to a fucking aircraft designer; Lockheed-Martin. Lockheed did exactly what every US military contractor does and essentially created this concept of a Littoral Combat Ship to be a shallow water frigate with a streamlined hull. As many of you are going to point out, that's just a regular frigate. Because that's exactly what it was. The LCS was just a rebranded frigate meant for shallow water operations in the Gulf near the Middle East, with special gimmicks such as modular combat systems, 2 engine types to propel the ships at 70 knots, and a low radar silhouette. The latter is absolute BS btw, since "low radar silhouette" has been disproven by the Zumwalt fiasco.

Anyways, the first class of the series, the Independents failed every single one of the mentioned requirements. The 2 different engine types, a gasoline AND diesel turbines, failed miserably because they forgot each engine type had different torque and as a result broke the ship's gearbox, so instead of 70 knots the top speed was a whopping 5 knots… you walk faster than that. The system modules? Turned out they builtPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1981

>>1979
The Atlant class is a budget Kirov, even during development it ran into problems with the hull form because it kept having to get smaller and trying to use them in an area that's smaller than the range of her P-500s where there aren't any other capital ships in a brown water environment is a stupid idea. It's the modern version of the Blucher in Norway.

 No.1982

>>1981
This is a very one sided understanding of the class. The current use of this ship class isn't the same as its actual capabilities.
>budget Kirov
Ok and?
>ran into problems with the hull form
That got solved.

 No.1983

File: 1653429745697.png (511.41 KB, 726x625, Join Duty.png)

>>1982
Because they expected the same out of the Atlants as a Kirov and even gave it the Flotilla leader designation despite being on the light side for a cruiser. It's essentially wanting the same for less, which put extreme pressure on how the ship actually handles. The hull form wasn't really ever fixed, they managed to make it stop flexing in heavy seas but not to the point of making it function as intented; that's why the P-500 tubes are above deck on the superstructure similar to Soviet patrol boats and escorts instead of imbedded in the hull which is the standard for Soviet cruisers since the hull was under enough stress already. The Atlants are the result of trying to pack a Kirov into a hull half the size, that's cheaper too rather than tempering expectations and making it a proper cheaper alternative.

Ironically I think it falls victim to the Battlecruiser curse. Battlecruisers were originally meant to only hunt cruisers, but because they had capital grade guns they got shoved into the capital ship role, the Atlants are the same. They're light cruisers, but because they're pocket Kirov's they're now flagships and Flotilla leaders, and this effected the class during the design process too. It's a class that given even a refit would perform well in another role, so saying that's just because of how they're used is a misnomer, since while technically true the ship's design and equipment is also at fault since it was rushed to fulfill its current role as a flagship for some of the smaller fleets. It's not an inherently bad design like the LCSs, just asking too much out of too small of a ship and that's stressing parts of the ship out way beyond the limit.

 No.1985

>>1983
>they expected the same out of the Atlants as a Kirov
Not really, it's meant to have similar fire-power on a smaller scale, but only as supplement to the Kirovs. The reason they're overstressed is because the Kirovs got mothballed and so did like half the Soviet fleet. If Russia could raise the Ukrainian ship of the same class (and the Moskva) they'd be able to more efficiently do this, so it's more a lingering fault of the Russian government from the 90s.
>gave it the Flotilla leader designation
Yes in areas not having Kirov's to lead and act as fleet centres, because they have the armament and defenses capable of doing so.
>that's why the P-500 tubes are above deck
<vertical launch tubes? What's that?
The hull is fine and the P-500 tubes are fine
>It's not an inherently bad design like the LCSs, just asking too much out of too small of a ship and that's stressing parts of the ship out way beyond the limit.
I'd argue that its fine as it had been and the Moskva is just a case of bad luck and sabotagae.

 No.1986

>>1985
Similar firepower on a smaller scale is exactly the problem, the Kirov's weren't as big as they were just for kicks, on ships space is a big premium, and trying to fit that much firepower in a ship half the size means you're going to have to cut corners, which again is fine but the with the Atlants they couldn't compromise. That's what's causing them to be overstressed, I'm not talking about wear-and-tear kind of stressed I am talking about the actual hull of the ship not being the right size to accommodate the missiles, FCS, communication systems for a Flotilla leader etc. Which once again would have been fine if not for the fact that late into their design period they had to tack on all the FCS and communication equipment. It can be a cruise missile cruiser or a command ship for a ship its size, not both. That's not an issue with how Russia operates them since they came out of the yard like this due to a runaway design process. And no, the P-500 tubes are NOT fine like that. On cruiser hulls and above missile tubes are meant to be uniform with the hull, this is because during fighting the superstructure is considered non-primary (That's part of the reason why the Moskva was lost because the superstructure burned to the hull, which for ships is 100% OK but the untrained crew thought the ship was sunk along with modifications in the 2000s that made her even more top heavy for such a light ship but anyways the sinking is largely secondary to the issues I have with it), so the launch tubes not being part of that for cruisers is important. Patrol boats, destroyers etc can have it since they're not meant to be at the centre of fire anyways and need every ounce of weight savings they can get, the P-500s being as they are is a sign of compromise due to construction constraints. Which is not the good kind of compromise in terms of capability but more a compromise in terms of its stability and integrity. It's one of the few Soviet designs that fell down this hole, the only other one I can name off the top of my head was the Udaloy II and that was a Russian modification of the Udaloy.



File: 1639891092961-0.jpg (1.1 MB, 2048x1015, Ruger_PC4.jpg)

File: 1639891092961-1.jpeg (661.81 KB, 3648x2736, lf2gbHq.jpeg)

File: 1639891092961-3.jpg (240.56 KB, 1212x906, keltec_0.jpg)

 No.355[Reply]

These seem like the way to go for cheap, widely available personal rifles.

Share advice on models, ammo, magazines etc.
23 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1768

hamsics and ancom flag???
anyways they’re rocking PCCs

 No.1772

File: 1651102776904-0.jpg (1.55 MB, 4032x3024, 8qdpfknq4jk41.jpg)

If you possess Superior Floridian Genes then you're required to get a KelTec PCC. If not then I guess get whatever you want.

 No.1820

>>362
Some states ban particular weapons. In my jurisdiction the AR-15 is banned so your only way to get your hands on a 5.56 carbine is buying a Mini-14

 No.1879

File: 1652836238898-0.jpg (1.17 MB, 4160x2340, 111.jpg)

File: 1652836238898-3.jpg (29.31 KB, 640x295, sub2000old.jpg)

Most PCCs are overpriced range toys or aimed toward police departments that don't trust their pigs with real submachineguns or AR-15s. The exceptions are the Hi-Point carbines and the Kel-Tech Sub2000 which are worth consideration. You can get the former for like $270 and the latter for around $500. They occupy a niche in that are an economical substitute for an AR-15 for rifle problems and home defense/ fighting inside buildings like a pistol or shotgun. The higher end ones are pointless.

So 9mm is the best caliber for the PCC and the best kinda ammo is 9mm NATO, 124gr ~1250 fps. Hi-Point makes .380, 9mm, .40, .45 and 10mm carbines. Only the 9mm and 10mm are worth consideration because everything else has awful ballistics and fails to do the niche thing PCCs can do like quick accurate shots out to 100-150 yards. 10mm that's actually loaded beyond the energy of .40 S&W is like $1.40/rd and always out of stock. There is an ideal of a 10mm Carbine with like 1500 fps with a 180gr round and doing 1000+ ft/lbs energy from the barrel deadly 20-30-50 stendo round assault clips. You can modify any .45 hi-point mag to feed 10mm by pinching it's feed lips closer then it will hold capacity +10%. 44 Round 10mm drum mags.That's all cool but let's consider 9mm carbines to be the only real choice because the main draw of a Hi-Point carbine is being cheap and 9mm is the cheapest.

So for 9mm options, Kel-Tech takes 32rd Glock magazines is extremely lightweight and folds in half. Hi-point takes single-stack magazines of dubious quality ranging from 10 to 20. It's perfectly adequate. It's not a combat weapon unless you have to. Then donkey-dick 9mm stendo assault-clips, almost do it.

>>383
Most pistol calibers reach max velocity at about 12". There's no real reason to get a barrel longer than 16".

 No.1970

>>1879
hi-point 995 seems like a great economical urban carbine for when you can’t get an AR or whatever



File: 1653249323059-0.png (1.05 MB, 1280x720, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1653249323059-1.png (183.98 KB, 360x555, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1952[Reply]

Obscure gruella political literature
I'm sure everyone here has Che and Mao's guerilla warfare books downloaded at this point, but I'm curious about similar literature written by people in conflicts that were less famous
The Nepalese civil war, Western Sahara conflict, The Baloch conflict, Sri-Lankan communist insurgency


File: 1637919879845.jpg (92.02 KB, 740x1110, 740full-glowie.jpg)

 No.132[Reply]

Please dump all your guerilla warfare/ resistance/weapon manuals/psyop tactics PDFs you have. Im finally making a collection. If therers already a collection somewhere on the site point me to it. It can be CIA stay behind shit, homemade weapons shiut, vietnam shit,guerilla warfare from brazil whatever is practically useful and can be printed and disseminated among people in a revolutionary situation. things that give you some rudimentary education
48 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1647

>>1613
What are you looking for specifically, and what system?

 No.1648

>>1613
>>1647
don't fedpost here or post anything illegal

 No.1649

>>1648
I'm sure that anon was only looking for it for research and pentesting purposes.

 No.1949

Oi, OP probably asking for INSPIRing Magazines and other fun things.

 No.1950




File: 1644811404623.jpg (52.61 KB, 802x467, Artillery.JPG)

 No.1227[Reply]

All other forms of war is gay when you have those two weapons, you don’t even have to move or deploy soldiers and equipment, just stand around and rain missiles and bullets on the target until troops move into seize the targets and you win.
32 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1898

>>1897
Research it. LASERS are trivial to destroy missiles with. No recoil, near instantaneous trajectory to target, no weight to the armature, etc. Of course this will lead to missiles being armored against LASERs but current missiles will be shit on by LASERs. Which will develop faster, LASERs or LASER armor will remain to be seen.

 No.1899

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/5/18530089/us-air-force-research-laboratory-shield-laser-weapons-system-test

>The US Air Force announced that it has successfully used a laser weapons system to shoot down multiple missiles while in flight. The system is designed to eventually be mounted on aircraft to be used to protect the vehicle from attacks.

 No.1904

>>1899
The US military announces this shit all the time, then it gets shelved.

 No.1944

>>1227
You need still needs boots to secure and hold terrain, this is an unchangeable fact of war.

That said, the proliferation of drones and real-time targeting is such that gun artillery is increasingly almost like a long-range, ultra heavy sniper rifle.

Not sure about rocket artillery though, their usage still seems very spammy.

 No.1946

>>1896
Then don't use a missile, shoot down the gunship with a laser.



File: 1652840485370-0.png (400.42 KB, 586x750, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1652840485370-1.png (261.13 KB, 547x649, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1883[Reply]

Thought we should have a caliber discussion since we keep having it in different threads.
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1939

>>1938
It isn't that hard to manufacture or reload bullets. If there is only one calibre available and no manufacturing ability then use that one, otherwise it's worth considering what bullet you or your squad are gonna carry.

 No.1940

>>1933
I don't know anything about this but just looks like something inbetween a 5.56 and 7.62x51 NATO.

 No.1941

>>1940
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/introducing-armys-new-m5-rifle-or-what-it-should-look-39197
>24 round standard mags
Yup looks like a heavier and more bulky cartridge with the associated problems. Probably more recoil than 5.56 too which is already much worse than 5.45x39

 No.1942

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/soldiers-get-next-generation-squad-weapon-when-there-is-ammo/
>Gen. Mark Milley, then Army chief of staff, told Congress in May 2017 that body armor as cheap as $250 could stop the 5.56 mm rounds fired by the M4 and M249.
More like 100 dollars homebrewed not to mention the thousands the army pays for a set of plates
>>38

 No.1943

>>1941
I think the idea is to gear up for a war against China and Russia who use body armor against which 5.56 is non ideal



File: 1652557465416.jpg (83.05 KB, 992x744, ar-15s.jpg)

 No.1824[Reply]

Is an AR-15 the best rifle to get if you're looking to arm yourself? I know it's incredibly popular in the US, but I'm not sure how much of that is just people trying to operator larp.

Pros:
- Cheap ammo
- Ample parts
- Easy to use

Cons:
- Complex
- Low powered round
- High-profile sights
16 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1880

>>1871
>>1875
My bad I wasn't clear enough, I was referring to the 7.62×54mmR because of the references to full sized rifle calibre semiautos, which made the SVT-40 spring to mind. The armor penetration on that one is good isn't it?

 No.1881

>>1873
>5.56 and 5.45 both have just as much wounding and lethality potential as .308
Nah I agree with you. I would do 5.56 as my main rifle. Another plus is it's cheaper than .308 I think. .308 is good because it can double as a hunting rifle for large game. But for a human sized target 5.56 is more than enough.

 No.1882

>>1880
People here confuse broad logistics based military decisions of generals vs what you have can work with.

.308 isn't good at penetration of armor it has mediocre velocity and sectional density. It won't defeat level III steel plates that say, .220 Swift which will blow right through with a 47gr bullet.

What all the battle-rifle armed latam armies have in abundance that you don't is SLAP ammo because it's banned.

 No.1905

File: 1652932910825.gif (397.5 KB, 245x138, 1414754459582.gif)

>5.56 and 5.45 both have just as much wounding and lethality potential as .308

 No.1915

>>1905
5.56x45 NATO has perhaps slightly less wounding power than 7.62x51 NATO rounds of similar properties, like fmj to fmj. They both will reliably incapacitate and kill with a well placed shot at this range. 7.62x51 is perhaps significantly more lethal after 300 metres when many 5.56 rounds lose enough energy to not expand or fragment properly. Modern 5.45x39 Soviet/Russian is more lethal than comparable 5.56 rounds (fmj-fmj etc.). 5.45x39 also retains more energy at greater ranges than 5.56x45. 5.45x39 would carry sufficient energy and accuracy at the ranges you would normally use a 7.62x51 rifle, e.g. 800 metres.



File: 1652923299868.png (1.67 MB, 1200x630, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.1901[Reply]

How will LASERs change the face of warfare. I personally feel like they will render missiles obsolete. A lot of publications seem to be talking up the idea of laser defense against ICBMs. I don't know about LASERs defending an entire area against missiles, but they certainly will be able to defend a target the missiles are heading towards like a tank or a plane. Frankly LASERs should be able to burn up enemy planes no problem, so then the equation becomes which plane can mount the better LASER so I think in the future fighter jets will become obsolete and high power gunships will become the dominant type of aircraft.

 No.1903

See >>1076 anon.

 No.1908

File: 1652959838353.png (909.81 KB, 1080x609, ClipboardImage.png)

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-touts-new-generation-blinding-laser-weapons-2022-05-18/?taid=6284dfd68664e8000198592d&

>Russia on Wednesday said it was using a new generation of powerful lasers in Ukraine to burn up drones, deploying some of Moscow's secret weapons to counter a flood of Western arms.


>Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2018 unveiled an intercontinental ballistic missile, underwater nuclear drones, a supersonic weapon and a laser weapon.


>Little is known about the specifics of the new laser. Putin mentioned one called Peresvet, named after a medieval Orthodox warrior monk Alexander Peresvet who perished in mortal combat.


>Yury Borisov, the deputy prime minister in charge of military development, told a conference in Moscow that Peresvet was already being widely deployed and it could blind satellites up to 1,500 km above Earth.


>He said there were already more powerful systems than Peresvet that could burn up drones and other equipment. Borisov cited a test on Tuesday which he said had burned up a drone 5 km away within five seconds.


>"If Peresvet blinds, then the new generation of laser weapons lead to the physical destruction of the target - thermal destruction, they burn up," he told Russian state television.


>Asked if such weapons were being used in Ukraine, Borisov said: "Yes. The first prototypes are already being used there." He said the weapon was called "Zadira".



Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]
Previous [ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 ]
| Catalog | Home