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

/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.30[Reply]

As is known, the earliest example of guns, your matchlocks and percussion cap rifles were not really the most accurate things in the world, so aiming was seen as more "point in the general direction and hope for the best" more than a tool to increase accuracy. This would carry over into WW1, while the rifles were indeed much more accurate, to the point of aiming allowing soldiers to hit targets from great distances with great, well, accuracy, the military high commands of that era were sluggish to realize just how industrialization had changed warfare - it was not until the interwar period that there was serious experimentation on how to perfect the new mode of war, and to discard the old Napoleonic era of tactics in favor of what we generally recognize as modern warfare.

This stance in pic 1 being used is an old school sport shooting stance. It's actually a very accurate stance, as it puts the fulcrum of the rifle in line with the shooters center or mass. But, it's an impractical position for warfare, as it requires to be both standing upright as well as fully still. Though, at the time nations started to field snipers, the majority of them were trained by or just were hunters and sport shooters - many of the USSR's snipers were just country boys who enjoyed hunting turning their skills into tools to destroy fascism.

Another adaptation of the era was pistols - though they had existed prior, their mass utilization by infantry was entirely new, and there was very little standardization of shooting stances for accuracy. What ended up getting adopted by most nations was largely their "officer's stances", which was a position that was once used for holding aloft officer's swords, before pistols became the status symbol of the office. Pic 2 is the American army, pic 3 the Germans, and pic 4 the English. The only concern of this stance is getting the shot on target, it was popular with dueling and target shooting. If you've seen videos of people shooting like this, you'll know there's very little recoil control - making it impractical for warfare due to difficulty of follow up shots. You can see an example of these kinds of hold-over firing positions in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP7J-JNSUu4
A lot of these old stances have no modern equivalents in warfare, but others are the ancestors to our modern forms.

 No.31

>>30
>This would carry over into WW1
t. doesn't know about the invention and use of the rifle

 No.311

very interesting thanks OP

 No.1079

>your matchlocks and percussion cap rifles were not really the most accurate things in the world, so aiming was seen as more "point in the general direction and hope for the best"

This isn't true. There were sorts of snipers in the 18th century and you would be expected to aim and hit a target from at least 100 metres away. People just didn't like actually killing each other.



File: 1642967488901.jpg (58.37 KB, 679x509, 297363.jpg)

 No.1068[Reply]

If AUKUS was tragedy, then this is farce

 No.1069

What the fuck LMAO



 No.1066[Reply]

https://youtu.be/KoYFE7dXdAk
>Soviet Sniper Describes Hunting Enemy on Eastern Front (1941) // Memoir of Yevgeni Nikolaev


 No.1053[Reply]

I’ve noticed a new movement recently with the revision of a lot of military equipment during WW2. Especially in regards to the T-34 tank. There’s probably hundreds of people half assed military enthusiasts that tried to do this as if equipment quality has that much matter in anyway if you cannot put it in production.
https://youtu.be/CIZ6PFYUM5o
Do these claims hold up to scrutiny or it’s another new wave of porky historiography like the last time they did this to play up lend lease to inflate the US egos?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1055

who cares. military equipment just does the job. hobbyists (fetishists) just need a distraction from their sad lives so they pick up stuff like this

 No.1059

Recently watched vidrel, but the dude couldn't even be bothered to list his sources so uhhhhhhhh

 No.1060

>>1059
Spookton is one of the worst US military shill out there. Most are sourced in a single book he read on certain subjects. Sometimes worse than even TIK when it comes to biases. Being a furry on top of that doesn’t help.

 No.1061

>>1060
Yep he's a massive freeaboo, he made a video against the guy who wrote Pentagon Wars, and while there are a ton of inaccuracies that he actually could have pointed out, all he did was ad hominems about the group he belongs to having some crazy people in it… because he can't actually argue that the points about the Bradley's development being utter shit, overpriced, and a Frankenstein monster from 3 decades in development are false, because the public records for the event exist and if anything are more absurd than both the book and movie(The Hotplates on the BTR-70 is actually true and it's even more hilarious in context since the missile's big schtick was being able to independently target vehicles with low thermal signatures)

 No.1062

>>1054
>T-34 was an adequate weapon that did it's job
This gets brought up a lot but it's really massive misconception. Let's take a look at the T-34's development. It was created as a side project by Koshkin and then decided to impress Stalin with it by driving all the way to Moscow… and then got told to drive it again to Kubinka all the way up by the Finnish border. And he did that without any spare parts or breakdowns, the T-34 was incredibly reliable but people keeping pointing out that it wasn't but keep forgetting that EVERY TANK IN EARLY WW2 WAS UNRELIABLE, having to the exhaust every 400km was nothing relatively at the time. This is also exacerbated by how the Soviets kept track of replacements and logistics, if a tank just had a faulty part that inconveniences the crew, it's written as a casualty in the logs so that the replacement parts can be brought up, because the Soviets had a very good supply chain for spare parts where they bring up the amount of parts according to the casualties. This means that numbers seem massively inflated compared to the Germans who were loath to ever write something down as breaking down or a casualty because of scarcity of parts and not wanting to admit they lost a tank. This bleeds over in statistics in general, as the Soviets counted partisan and civilian causalities as part of their war loss figures but the Germans didn't consider Volkssturm casualties as real casualties, hence the disparity.

But anyways, for its time the T-34 was far above average, the early problems were inconveniences that are exaggerated to make it look like the tank was useless, again ignoring that all contemporary tanks had similar problems because that was just the limit of technology at the time, and were fixed easily. The real big draw of the T-34 was that it was better than anything else at the time while being simpler and cheaper to make, as in even with a 76mm gun and 45mm with an effective thickness of 80mm+(most tanks at the time had 30-50mm full stop) it was cheaper than the alternative T-50 which only had a 47mm gun, by all accounts it was an improvement over anything at the time in all aspects. And then the Germans invaded while they were jigging the factories so there were only handfuls in the field, and again people keep pointing to the rushed out units of proof of being "inferior quality".Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



File: 1637003870881-0.jpg (89.24 KB, 640x400, fa_ar_as_m01.jpg)

File: 1637003870881-1.jpg (36.48 KB, 900x486, bjmdmnqd-900.jpg)

File: 1637003870881-2.jpg (116.95 KB, 615x936, image.jpg)

 No.253[Reply]

You read the title. Post guns that look awesome.
56 posts and 38 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.863

File: 1640576004682.jpg (10.61 KB, 600x171, AR-18.jpg)


 No.864

File: 1640576127134.png (2.24 MB, 1920x1080, AR18.png)


 No.1042

File: 1642630225103.jpg (98.35 KB, 800x328, mp5a3.jpg)


 No.1048

>>422
>Australians modified their FALs to make thm louder
For what purpose?

 No.1057

File: 1642816499349-0.jpg (184.74 KB, 960x960, hezbolchad.jpg)

File: 1642816499349-1.jfif (763.13 KB, 2048x2048, EpCwcWhXUAALo3G.jfif)

File: 1642816499349-2.jpg (297.36 KB, 1200x900, DISBblZV4AAG_oc.jpg)

I think most bullpups look disgusting af, however a bullpupized PKM is lowkey kinda sexy imo



File: 1637034343846-0.jpg (877.05 KB, 2472x1612, rpg infographic.jpg)

File: 1637034343846-2.jpg (173.48 KB, 1200x800, EaFd-AlXQAEG5EO.jpg)

File: 1637034343846-3.jpg (161.9 KB, 1242x1230, qaaojhdgd1q61.jpg)

 No.147[Reply]

Post pics related to war and the military - outfits, equipment, weapons, vehicles, doesn't necessarily have to be leftist
17 posts and 61 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.165

>>162
That is very clearly a chinese SKS, going by the bayonet attached to it, likely a type56.
>>163
hoping the gun made sure she won't get whipped again

 No.166

>>161
Digital camo is not MARPAT (short for "Marine Pattern")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_O%27Neill_(camoufleur)
I'm not 100% sure where digital camo came from but I'm sure I saw if in COD: MW2 first.
I'm sure if "digital" camo is more effective than "splotch" camo, but it's been adopted all over the world, in the end it's probably for ease of production, and the recruitment bonus is just a plus.

 No.167

>>166
>I'm sure if
I'm not sure if

 No.1044

Slovenian rebels in 1991.

 No.1046




 No.426[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

Just don't talk about gun control
419 posts and 127 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1027

Joerg Sprave presents two new crossbows, which are even more powerful than his extremely popular Adder seriers. Just thought, people in gun-cucked countries might be interested in this.

 No.1031

>>1027
this seems like a fun hobby. This particular crossbow seems very impressive and might actually provide enough protection against wildlife to obviate the need for a rifle for forestry work. But as a weapon for fighting ? lets be realistic.

 No.1033

Anyone here see the videos floating around the internet of people and their cheek pistol gun builds? Seems pretty interesting and more importantly pretty reasonable for someone to throw together to get all the benefits of a lower profile firearm (home defense, urban CQB, vehicle work, etc) without spending hundreds of extra dollars on a gucci SBR set-up or a decent pistol brace.

Basic concept is getting a good cheek weld on the side of the pistol, having an optic with a riser tall enough to allow your hand to grip around the top of the receiver to push downwards with, and then using your primary hand on the pistol grip to push forward and absorb as much recoil as you can. Looks pretty legit and can be pulled off with a variety of platforms, recoil looks surprisingly manageable even with larger calibers if you shoot right.

 No.1040

>>1033
Can't listen with sound rn. How is the sound dampened? Suppressor with subsonics? Otherwise motherfucker is going to go deaf so fast. Just get a pistol or whatever that fuckery is with pistol carbines available in some American states as long as they use a pistol brace instead of a stock. Or just get a fucking SBR that you can use in the car and on foot. You are going to die anyways if you can't even get out of the car or drive away without being shot. You may want to get something like a short profile bullpup rifle. Hell get a .300 blackout AR15 pattern carbine with a decent suppressor. You can probably use it okay in the car if you need something bigger than a pistol, and it will work great like a normal fucking gun within standard combat ranges, even with subsonics.

 No.1041

>>1040
That being said a pistol would be just as fucking loud without a suppressor. Shorter barrel length=louder in most situations with supersonics



File: 1636627841491-0.jpg (218.75 KB, 1728x1296, AKM English.jpg)

File: 1636627841491-1.jpg (33.21 KB, 450x300, AK47 Russian.jpg)

 No.279[Reply]

Got any questions about guns, equipment or combat? Have some knowledge you can share? Ask and answer away
30 posts and 16 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.993

are there any studies comparing manual action and self-loading rifles in any way

 No.994

>>993
I don't know but the only thing I hear is that on a bolt-action the bolt is more predictable whereas in a semi-auto you get more variance between shots.

 No.1036

>>846
self-defense? gonna get both just to be safe though

 No.1037

I think we should create a thread dedicated to rioting and crowd control

 No.1038

>>1037
you can make one



File: 1642437648859-2.jpeg (95.25 KB, 723x605, image60.jpeg)

File: 1642437648859-3.jpg (488.4 KB, 2184x1313, romans entrenching.jpg)

 No.1028[Reply]

excavating tunnels, trenches, ditches, ramparts, moats, holes, any kind of defensive earthwork where industrial machinery isn't viable

you can get most stuff off of amazon or any hardware or milsurp store

 No.1029

What's the point of this? Legitimately curious. I also think shovels are cool.

 No.1030


 No.1032

>>1029
t. european armies before WWI

 No.1034

Did the USSR really build a defensive line around Kursk that was the equivalent to the distance between Moscow and Madrid?



File: 1639977226552.png (4.12 KB, 259x194, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.371[Reply]

The design of guns isn’t what matters but the idea of long distance combat with the potential to kill an enemy soldier in a matter of a single to few hits in the right areas.

This revolution of war to be centered around staying as far away as possible from enemy troops made large scale battles pretty much obsolete in most wars today as being seen can often come with worse consequences than simply being executed with the potential for entire squads and bases to become doxed, along with the fact that more troops and weapons != to more success in combat especially when both or more armed groups in modern wars possess weapons that pretty much instakill with dozens to hundreds of these weapons like armour piercing bullets available per troop.

Coupled with the introduction of the radar briefly during the pacific battles against imperial Japan really began to amplify the importance of staying away from conflict in order to spare the lives of soldiers, equipment and weapons and to this day most of the real combat in wars is done via trying to collect as much information on what a states security threats have and are planning.
8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1005

>>378
artillery can be used by litteral children,and it also has the massive advantage of not making the one shooting it see the ennemy,so he is less likely to fuck around instead of shooting it,which is a massive problem in armies that even have guns,unwillingness to actually fight.

 No.1006

>>972
>Drones are the next big leap
only against opponents that lack air power, pretty much any air-force would be able to shredder drones in masses.

>>1004
This is only tangentially related , but crossbows might make a comeback with advanced materials. Not actually as a bow, but as a rifle with a spring in it. Material-science advances suggest that two or three orders of magnitude in spring tension is possible. That's enough for a low power rifle suitable for wildlife protection and hobby shooting. The spring made from speculative future-science-material is compressed with manual labor input and released by a heavy trigger. And the result will be a powder-less rifle that makes a loud clicking and clanking noise but no exploding powder bang, that will be safer to operate.

 No.1008

>>1006
>pretty much any air-force would be able to shredder drones in masses.
How's anti-drone technology/strategy/doctrine being developed? Genuinely curious as drones seem (to me) as the be-all and end-all of modern asymmetric warfare, specially after Nagorno-Karabakh.

Hell, i remember hearing that even advanced countries such as China and Russia had trouble problems with it.

 No.1017

>>1008
It’s hard to build anti drone tech because
They’re made from reflective material that can’t be detected with most radars
They’re small as shit intentionally to be hard to hit
They’re fast as fuck and hit their targets with absolute precision

These factors make trying to battle against drone an uphill conflict

 No.1026

>This revolution of war to be centered around staying as far away as possible from enemy troops made large scale battles pretty much obsolete

Lol just look at Stalingrad and compare the losses on the eastern front to the total size of Napoleon's army.



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 ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 ]
| Catalog | Home