[ 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
|

File: 1643278527613.jpg (808.24 KB, 1193x1000, 1643087082788.jpg)

 No.1089[Reply]

Not much of a military fag but was the USSR not even a horde? You always see it portrait as such in the movies that the USSR was a horde of people while the nazis were elite and superior but outnumbered
1 post and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1091

Also see this great thread in edu >>>/edu/220

 No.1095

>>1090
> (for political reasons)
What are these political reasons?

 No.1096

le leftypol infographic

 No.1097

Obviously it wasn't a horde. Worth noting though that that info graphic was made by an actual schizo who thinks that the Germans lost 4 million men in 1941 because Stalin said so in a speech lmao. Vid related is an actually competent debunking of the "Red Asiatic Horde" myth.

 No.1099

>>1095
The Nazi ruling class were capitalist and anticommunist, the Soviet ruling class were communist and anti-capitalist. The "Western" ruling class is capitalist and anticommunist and sympathized much more with the Nazis than the Soviets, it even rescued and employed the Nazis after the war to help fight Communism. The west had a need to portray the nazis as stronger and superior but doing a naughty by invading Western Europe and all the heinous genocide and torture and shit that went public. This needed to portray the Soviet Union as having a twisted pipe dream that sounds seductive and maybe even some of you guys think what they're saying doesn't sound that bad but look what happened to the people when they trusted those commies, they had no weapons or technology or strategy, they just had to throw bodies at the naughty nazi ubermensch to defeat them because communists just treat their citizens like flesh sacks.
The western capitalists liked the nazis and fascists, they appreciated their work in putting down communists and worker's movements all across Europe. The people hated them because of how much pain and misery and death they caused, an entire generation of men or more wiped out in many countries. If the western people knew it was the Soviets that defeated the nazis almost single handedly that would cast communism in a much different light. Nor could the Western capitalists fawn over the nazis, for obvious reasons. So what ended up happening was that the achievements of the Soviet's was understated, their war effort twisted to make them look like savage barbarians and the nazis were cast as the sophisticated and powerful elite force of evil that was bad but also really strong and cool. The western capitalists used the actual barbarity of the nazis when it suited them and overshadowed it with shit like wehraboo fetishism in the media at other times. They also secretly supported and bankrolled underground neonazis and quietly installed the old nazis back into governments in West Germany, the EU, NATO, and several American Domestic agencies, even the intelligence agencies of Israel after the war, and this process applied to fascists all over Europe and Asia. Capital wants you to admire the Nazis and hate the Soviets but not know just how cozy they were.



File: 1636904375138.jpg (120.82 KB, 690x807, 20211111_182511.jpg)

 No.110[Reply]

>ammo prices still too fucking high
>try making nitrocellulose with nitric acid and ping pong balls
>buy 500 ping pong balls
>they're all made of plastic
>now I just have a bunch of nitric acid and ping pong balls
help a poor uyghur out
12 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.123

>>122
That a golden boy? I’ve been meaning to get a lever-action, how do you like it?

 No.124

>>110
>get attacked
>release the ping pong balls
>attacker trips over ping pong balls
>attacker breaks neck

 No.125

File: 1637402026025.jpg (33.87 KB, 566x540, 1552769233415.jpg)

speaking of chemistry: >>>/edu/5724

>>123
it's not my picture, I found it on /r/socialistra I think. also https://johnbrownprints.com/

 No.126

>>110
I am fairly certain you can do it with just plain cotton as well.
Nitrocellulose was developed from a cotton rag being used to clean up a nitric acid spill, no?

 No.1083

uygha



 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.



 No.1066[Reply]

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


File: 1640256579594.jpg (391.08 KB, 984x687, IMG_20211223_184602.jpg)

 No.405[Reply]

How are battleships made?
what would a country need for it to have domestic ship construction?
what does a nation need these days to be a naval power?

Anybody know where to start with learning about modern naval warfare production and tactics?
10 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.1002

File: 1641927184814.jpg (43.05 KB, 365x402, oRCwVOU (1).jpg)

Well explicitly battleships aren't made anymore, they existed from the mid-19th century until 1946, with the last one being built and launched being the HMS Vanguard in 1946, although she was a crappy 1930s treaty design using 1910s guns so most people consider the Iowa class from 1944 the last battleships, and even further still you have the Sovetsky Soyuz class by the Soviets which were partly completed after WW2, but kinda just sat as empty hulls and were scrapped in 1949.

As to how they were made, it was a very general process that has existed since ships have existed.

First the keel is laid; the keel is the central vertical beam that runs the entire length of the ship. This bears the entire weight of the ship and has to be reinforced, back with wooden ships usually this would be made from a single giant tree, so you can imagine how stuff like the 1st rate ships of the Napoleonic era used giant trees and Britain actually went to war with Denmark when they threatened to cut off their supply of tall trees from the Baltics that they made their ships' keels and masts out of.

So once the keel is laid then you have to lay the skeleton or frame structure, AKA the ribs, these are horizontal beams that frame the bottom of the ship and are also reinforced. These differ slightly from commercial ship beams in that all ships have their keels and beams reinforced as most of the time the biggest force pushing against it it the sea itself.

This is where Battleships start to differ, commercial ships just use structural steel for the rest of the construction, as in they slap steel in the shape they want and call it a day. Battleships do the same thing for the initial hull, but then begin bracing it and compartmentalizing the interior so as to limit damage, flooding and fires. Then once the initial hull is complete comes the armor. Now Battleships aren't armored how you normally think; their entire hull isn't covered in armor. Instead the 'modern' armor scheme of battleships came as a result of early ironclads being too heavy to armour everywhere and so they developed a system called the central battery; that is all the guns, engines and important bits were shoved into the centre of the ship and only that part was properly armored. This concept gave way eventually to the idea of the citadel; the most heavily armoured part of the ship. The citadel is usually the main belt, which is what most people quote as the armour thickness of a sPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.1022

>>1002
wtf is that ship real?

 No.1023

>>1022
No it's a joke about ridiculously tall the main superstructure on Japanese battleships.

 No.1024

>>1002
>Sovetsky Soyuz class by the Soviets which were partly completed after WW2, but kinda just sat as empty hulls and were scrapped in 1949.
What was stopping them from being converted into something else, like a carrier for example?

 No.1025

>>1022
What >>1023 said
>>1024
Number of reasons. Battleship hulls don't make good carrier hulls, they're too heavily armoured and don't have the right streamlining. It's a little known fact that a ship's hull shape depends on its designed speed, kind of like an aeroplane but with water, and carriers are actually designed to go really fast since they often need to outpace the wind for their planes to take off. Now the concept of carrier conversions comes from the 1920s conversions after the Washington Naval Treaty, but all of those were actually battlecruisers; the Lexingtons the Amagi and Akagi etc, which were designed to go fast and had less armour than battleships. Battlecruisers are essentially Battleships with armour stripped off to go really fast, and then slowly evolved into fast battleships and every battleship after 1930 was a fast battleship so they just became battleships. Other reasons include inferior steel, realizing that the age of big ships was over after WW2 and a shift to cruisers and submarines and a lot of the hulls were damaged during the German invasion and so in the end the cost/benefit factor just made the Soviets cut their losses and used the scrapped hulls to build the first missile cruisers in the world which on their own made practically all-gun ships obsolete.



 No.1016[Reply]

What in this world will ever be as powerful as a good old fashioned cannon? ARRRRRRRRRD!

 No.1018

this is genius

 No.1021

a modern building made in the past 50 years would be completely and instantaneously rendered to dust the moment a cannon ball would hit it



File: 1640819282624.png (355.1 KB, 500x378, 1455340634363.png)

 No.909[Reply]

>Can't do military service or join a militia because I'm deaf from one ear.
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.944

>>937
Lmao that didn't take long at all. I guess that description accurately describes many countries here.

 No.949

File: 1640960756875.png (56.63 KB, 255x162, ClipboardImage.png)

>>944
From one latamfag to another, camarada.

 No.950

>>927
probably a good idea, could you get connections from it for work as well?

 No.962

>>950
I would need to investigate more to know that, but honestly I'm only guessing here but probably not, I think for that I'd probably need a more extensive military career to get to that level.

 No.1019

>>920
During the vietnam war the US army had several battalions with lower qualifications from their standard, lower IQ requirements are the most infamous ones and the wikipedia article doesn't mention hearing difficulties but I bet they had some and that they also were part of the higher killed in action rate and the higher poverty and divorce rate veterans had.



File: 1640367058314.png (391.08 KB, 1400x1400, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.870[Reply]

8 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.945

>>878
Also, where is the FOSS robot dog with a gun?

 No.947

>>876
Just strapping it on to an already existing product. The only other commercial robot Ive seen uses two wheel legs and a balancing system but it would be too shaky for a gun.

 No.948

drones are much more effective for the police state than these

 No.954

I can't wait for the passive aggressive responses blaming the machine
>Ooopsie, it was an automatic response, you must have done something that indicated to the killbot that you were a threat. A team of experts has been assigned to investigate this incident. You may be prompted for additional information <citizen>. In the meantime you can review our killbot policies and terms of service in this page <link explaining how basically nobody is responsible for the robot's actions , under impossible standards of proof>.

Imagine social media algorithm/copyright/smear fuckery but it's bullets instead of bans lol. On the plus side "Dogged" or "Botted" sound more casual than than "Swatted".

 No.970

>>954
These battle dog bots are not realistic, because the opportunity cost, you can get a Toyota hilux that has a 50cal cannon mounted to it for the same money, or equip 10 guys with but loads of infantry weapons. If you buy 10 battledogs and your opponent buys 5 cars with light canons and equips 50 infantry guys, you're going to loose very badly.



 No.880[Reply]

A thread for the extremely versatile rifle, produced by Soviets/Russians (Tula/Izhevsk), Chinese (Norinco), Yugo/Serbs (Zastava) to this day and available as (relatively) cheap surplus pretty much anywhere.

Thinking of converting a Type 56 for hunting and range shooting.
18 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.931

>>930
>bruh just regularly clean it
I have heard some cheap 7.62 is considerably corrosive and the steel jacket damages softer barrels.
>bruh just add straps and keep it slung
Still less heavy than desirable. And if you are going to war or even just hiking and hunting you want the cheapest equipment possible.

 No.932

>>931
yeah, the older and military surplus ones should be more corrosive, and i wouldn't put it past norinco to put them in with the fresh retail ones just to meet supply, but again, you can just clean regularly. the barrel is strong, it should be fine

 No.934

>>931
>cheapest equipment possible
*lightest
>>932
>the barrel is strong, it should be fine
Yes, depends on the rifle, a chrome lined SKS would probably be fine.

 No.935

>>924
Polymer is also more resistant to temperature and moisture changes than wood. It also does not require treating with oil and polish.

 No.939

>>902
>not wanting to scare your enemy shitless and destroy his morale by emitting deafening gun fire sounds
bleh



 No.848[Reply]

how much of BUD/S is pointless masturbation?
how were spetsnaz chosen and trained?

 No.896

most special forces shit is pointless masturbation as well as careerism

 No.897

>>896

It's designed to be passable it's it's truly to hard were it pushes people to ultimate breaking point then no-one will pass enough to make it viable.



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