[ 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
Password (For file deletion.)

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

| Catalog | Home


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
84 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Damn bulletproof gear is expensive, guess surviving shootings is only for porkies. How practical would it be to get a shield for home defense and shooting from the sides?


Damage to the spine is accumulative. If you don't feel it now you will feel it later.


Dude you can buy a IIIA vest for like $250 and it has the same protection as a shield while also being concealable and you can run with it.


Looks like they're all back, rejoice


File: 1654387007950.png (1.11 MB, 1127x1920, 1654370911332.png)

cant wait until wearing ballistic helmets in public becomes normalized


Feel free to make some extra larpy fluff while in it.

Yes, i shamelessly stole this idea from a /k/ thread i saw once. Sue me.
13 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.





You mean the embed?


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


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.
33 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>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.


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


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.


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


you need infantry to establish proper direct power over the enemy/achieving the goal of the war. just have them defending the artillery from any infantry ambushes and use them as scouts to find the positions to target for the artillery. tanks are a little more obsolete infantry vehicle, but still are more powerfull than the infantry. a proper would have both parties using their best available equipment to destroy the best equipment of the enemy.


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.
18 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1653594492749.jpg (1.98 MB, 2000x1429, slava class.jpg)

>>2008 (me)
The only major problems I can recall for the design of the Atlant is the hull lengthening and bow, but it's not a major operation issue. The draft is fairly decent and the raised bow had been a response to issues of frontal swamping for Blue Water operations. The hull-length made up for the increased tonnage and relatively slight imbalance in front-back heaviness of the design. The rather unique power-plant made up for the hull length and increased tonnage allowing it to have good maneuverability and high speeds, something that internalizing the P-500s could compromise as they'd force the width to increase and worsen hydrodynamics of the ship.


The fact that the P-500s being internalized would have compromised the stability and speed is proof that it was too small for its firepower and role, I don't understand why you're acting like that's a good reasoning for it. Decrease the number, decrease the speed and therefore the size of the powerplant, compromises have to be made, but instead the Soviets here wanted their cake and to eat it to. The firepower of a Kirov on a frame half the size with none of the drawbacks is bad enough as is, but then asking it to be cheaper is just nonsense. I mean the Kirovs themselves compromised by using the subsonic P-700s because space WAS an issue but they considered external tubes as too much of a hazard, and that's why they spent so much time on the nuclear powerplant in order to squeeze it down as much as possible to make room and compromising on P-700s.

And while you can blame a lot on the Russians it's still a fact that the Atlants came out of the yards with a command suite, the Russians didn't stick those on later. I see your image mentions them as insurance against the potential failure of the Kirovs which isn't something I've thought of before but it would explain a lot. Would explain the command suite despite being second line ships and why it takes up so much space. I'm guessing the image is from Modern Naval Combat or something other from the weird NATO perspective. I'm getting most of my info out of the 1984 and 85 version of Jane's.


>the P-500s being internalized would have compromised the stability and speed
No it isn't, they literally just used the deck for a better purpose than it had been used for, it's not a dreadnought battleship, it's a light rocket cruiser meant to hit heavy and and fast. It's rocket tubes being on the deck don't matter.
>Kirovs themselves compromised by using the subsonic P-700s
That got replaced using supersonic missiles once made available.
>considered external tubes as too much of a hazard
Because if you look at the design of said tubes they are far different to the Slava configuration and ARE an obvious hazard, the Slave embedded them into the deck in a reclined position. The initial Kirov plans that got discarded had them mounted over th deck on hinges similar to to the Moskva-clas Heli-carrier but rather than for 4 tubes, it had been for single tubes, 4 on each side, fully exposed and tall. There is a marked difference in this.
>Janes 1984-85
That explains it, you're using information that's out of date and/or based on the speculations that they had at the time.
My image is sourced from Modern Naval Combat by Chris and David Miller, but my information is largely from Russian naval sources.


you literally said
>something that internalizing the P-500s could compromise as they'd force the width to increase and worsen hydrodynamics of the ship.
Also the Kirovs haven't actually been equipped with any other missiles in place of the P-700s, only now is Russia planning on replacing them with the 3M22 and that's only because they're ASMs being retrofitted for naval usage, on the Kirovs they're going to be used with Sabots(Quite clever actually) to fit in the tubes of the P-700s. But that's also besides the point since I was trying to point out that the Kirovs were designed with the P-500s or more specifically the intended specifications of the P-500's prototype requirements but scaled back during the design process as a compromise to allow considerations for other parts of the ship. And also to simplify logistics with the 3rd generation SSGNs that ended up becoming the Oscars.

Also the Atlant's tubes in a reclined position is a known hazard as it wasn't novel at the time, it was standard on both missile patrol boats, SSGN and smaller destroyers like the Sarychs, all of which used it due to weight saving and that they weren't going to be the focus of fire, and this was known as for the 3rd gen SSGNs after the Papa they wanted to make all cruise missile launch tubes imbedded but decided against it due to the absurd cost the Papa was already racking up although they did test with a couple with the Echo II testbeds for the P-500 but ultimately due to time and price constraints decided against it for the Oscars. Anyways the point is the external P-500s is a sign of refusal to compromise on firepower despite growing concerns on this placement at the time, and while it's a compromise, it's done at the expense of other departments of the ship rather than the firepower, which is what they should have done. Heck scaling back to the P-700s might have done the trick and also kept the firepower of a Kirov although I guess at that point the Kirov's hadn't switched to the P-700s on the drawing board.

Also actually I believe you have it mixed up, Modern Naval Combat is known for being a bit of a NATO shill, almost everything in it writes from the NATO perspective on such stuff even post-1991. Whereas Jane's is while I wPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1653769790288.jpg (57.87 KB, 680x413, kursk interior.jpg)

>they'd force the width to increase and worsen hydrodynamics of the ship
Yes, as in make it slower due to drag, not unstable, if anything it'd have made it MORE stable due to the increased horizontal draft.
>he Atlant's tubes in a reclined position is a known hazard
>it wasn't novel at the time
And? It got used repeatedly for a reason. If it had been such a hazard the USSR'd not have used them, the costs would outweigh the benefits.
>it was standard on both missile patrol boats
No, those are different configurations as they had not been embedded into the deck and sat on mounts on the deck.
Not the same thing even remotely. The impact of water pressure at vertical angles is important in regards to missile launch and unless you're looking to create a system similar to Ballistic Missiles as is on Ohio class SSGNs, it's better to have the missiles angled slightly to aid in launch.
>ultimately due to time and price constraints decided against it for the Oscars
EXCEPT THE OSCARS DO HAVE EMBEDDED LAUNCH TUBES. And the Charlie class literally took the launch systems from the Papa class, just downgraded and simplified to cut costs. The Papa class's cost is due to the automation, experimental nuclear reactors and titanium hull among other reasons, not the cruise missile systems.
>it's done at the expense of other departments of the ship rather than the firepower, which is what they should have done
The Slava is not intended to be as complex as the Kirov and cutting back its firepower makes it pointless, it's not meant to have high-command capabilities, just act as a back up in case something happens. It is a problem today due to the Russian Navy pushing it into a leadership role even though it isn't meant to be, I never denied that, but that's not a ship design problem, that's a post-Soviet doctrine and corruption problem.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

File: 1653676820947.jpg (66.99 KB, 750x574, BOATGUNS1.jpg)


Is it time to stock up and have a series of boating accidents?


It is always time for that. Just don't forget ammo, probably more important.

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

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


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
15 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Don't forget that those Soviet MPL-50s can be used as a weapon in a last ditch situation.


File: 1649458894980-0.png (70.92 KB, 800x600, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1649458894980-1.png (338.68 KB, 500x375, ClipboardImage.png)

DPRK is full of massive tunnel networks, they get brought up quite a bit when the Americans are whining about nukes.
Kek I just searched it and there are a bunch of articles on it, but this wikipedia article is even better:
>A total of four tunnels have been discovered so far, but there are believed to be up to twenty more.[7] The South Korean Armed Forces still devotes specialist resources to finding infiltration tunnels, though tunnels are much less significant now that North Korean long-range artillery and missiles have become more effective.[8]
They're living the moleman dream.


what Hezbollah does in their stretch of territory is even more impressive, they have veritable fucking fortresses built underground across the entirety of Southern Lebanon. i think more and more people are gonna realize that 2006 Lebanon war was the first conflict that would indicate how 21st century conventional shit might play out, even though it was extremely limited in scope. It´s very similar to the Viet Cong underground battle tunnels.


What is the viability of using shorthandle shovels from the hardware store to dig a fighting position? I've used one to dig fire pits and the like but it seems a little bulky to carry around on a pack
/k/ really sucks now, but it's fun to troll on there


File: 1653612790051-0.png (138.11 KB, 748x1791, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1653612790051-1.png (191.61 KB, 1177x1153, ClipboardImage.png)

Throw this into Desmos to calculate Tunnel Size.

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)


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.


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


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.


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


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.

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


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)


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)


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.


What are you looking for specifically, and what system?


don't fedpost here or post anything illegal


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


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


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


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.


See >>1076 anon.


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


>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 ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 ]
| Catalog | Home