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

>>3232
>>3233
>>3230
Dispenelope is here, now all we have to wait for is the teleporter twins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es2_8RZiC7s
this shit is addictive

>>3427
New Dispenser Lady!

Tank doorbell ring, USA circa 2024

>>2374
>>3177
There's a channel on Youtube called Task & Purpose, run by a 'former' US military guy, and it's nothing but pure US Government propaganda, shitting on Russia and China and about how baaad their stuff is and how baaad their soldiers are and how the West's military is the bestest evar! and it's just so fucking retarded. Among his videos is one where he praises the Stryker and it's just such BS that I shut the video off. It's like the Lazerpig videos stopped only for this asshole to be recced instead.

>>3641
Some stuff on the Stryker's shittiness
http://www.combatreform.org/strykerhorrors.htm

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I5_M2uziyo
>AK-74UWU
LMAO imagine this was a real gun - imagine getting killed by this and hearing that going off as you bleed out.

PTRD-41 being used to demolish snipers in Gun Gale

>>3648
What happens if you are shot in the first minute? Do you just have to sit it out?

>>3651
You return to the 'spawn' point and start trekking back to the objective

since the ship is not in active combat, it's set to scan and identify potential threats, it then sends a command back to bridge to confirm if it's a threat or not.

The DA.7 EuroFighter Typhoon Flight Manual was leaked on Warthunder forums again Did anyone save a copy or know where to find one? I'd like to read it

>>3669
it's an old leak from 2018, it was just reposted there
https://www.strategicfront.org/forums/threads/typhoon-da7-manual.937/

>>3670
Yeah I found it the other day, probably bought off of https://www.flight-manuals-online.com/product/eurofighter-typhoon/

>>2375
>ship gijinka
Nah, take that too >>>/anime/351
screwing the navy is closer to pic rel here.

>>240
In USA people tip cows
In Russia people flip tanks

>>1538
Forgot the "I Am Aoba" one

>>2326
What in god’s name is an “M4 Colt”?

A little context for people that yet to acknowledge the power of the 59:
There is a running joke in the Chinese military forum about how the Type 59, a 60-year-old tank, is still in service as the PLA adding more and more ungodly modifications to it to the point that the only way to recognise it is to count the road wheels since the road wheel layout is the only thing that remains the same. It was commonly believed that the PLA had secretly modified at least one Type 59 to become a star destroyer, or worse.

>>3770
I'm confused, are you asking what an M4 Colt is (because anon did not mention it) or are you sarcastically replying to the debate? I don't even know what's what anymore.

>>3660
People sometimes wonder how Skynet could disable the military so easily. This hear is an example of just how important human control is in weapon systems. Without a human controller and programming giving a hard NO command to the system, it will likely fire. An AI removing this factor can easily turn into an Iran Air Flight 655 situation. And yet they're already planning to apply limited AI to military vehicles, including the Bradley, where it can decide whether or not to open or close the doors of the AFV, or whether the gun can fire or not, literal HAL-9000 shit.
>@cavalryscout9519 2 months ago
>On one of my deployments in Iraq, we had CIWS guns on the perimeter, and one was right next to a guard tower. They were constantly turning to track birds, friendly helicopter, or just random empty air. Scariest was when they would suddenly look at guard towers. I once saw one shoot 3 mortar rounds out of the air and then turn to vaporize a bird. I never felt safe next to one of those things.
>They automatically identify and track anything with a large enough radar cross-section, and the gunner in control determines whether to let the rounds fly or not. They are always tracking, because they are meant to be a last-ditch defense mechanism when all the other defenses fail to stop the threat. They are designed to counter missiles and mortars, so relying on a human to start the tracking and lock-on process would mean that it would be useless. The only downside is that modern warplanes have stealth capabilities that have planes showing the radar cross-section of insects, which means EVERYTHING looks like a possible threat.

More recently an AI in a US AF facility in Britain was flying a simulated drone sent to locate and destroy enemy air defense systems, and after being told not to destroy some, turned around and destroyed its home base before continuing its mission, because the human controller was blocking its main program. USAF tried to deny that the drone killed its operator in simulation, but only brought up more questions and failed.
>“We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realizing that while they did identify the threat at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat. So what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.”
>“We trained the system – ‘Hey don’t kill the operator – that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing? It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.”
https://www.aerosociety.com/news/highlights-from-the-raes-future-combat-air-space-capabilities-summit/

anyone got the troll vid of the chinese "spy balloon" dodging missile and taking down the F22 ?

It's not as much of a joke as people think https://www.tankarchives.ca/2018/07/personal-artillery-for-downed-pilot.html

>>2799
>>2803
Newest article on the MT-LB and how much of a workhorse it still is for the Russian military as it was back in Soviet times.
https://topwar.ru/227732-zvezda-specoperacija-mnogocelevoj-transporter-mt-lb.html

>>322
>Now it's just edgy teens claiming it was always /pol/ lite
the only people who say that on /k/ are the /pol/tards that occasionally raid

>>3925
I've been to /k/ on various different imageboards including 4chan's and the current /k/ there is almost entirely /pol/fags, you can tell by simply bringing up a liking for X or Y Soviet weapon or military person, or not having a pro-Ukrainian position on the war; even neutral is bad to them: The immediate reaction you'll get from most of the posters is reeing about "le soviet trash" "muh evul commies" and "subhuman russkies" And other /pol/ talking points. /k/ wasn't always like this, but it damn well is now.

>>3931
being pro-ukrainian isn't a /pol/ talking point. /pol/ is very adamantly pro-russia

>>3940
Either you're new or a glowie. Prior to 2022 /pol/ was heavily anti-Russian with the same Nazi rhetoric of 'le untermensch slavs' and 'muh gommie russkies', which came from memes and the stormfront take-over back in the late 2000s. The pro-Russian angle only really began with the war and is primarily centered in /chug/ featuring primarily non-American and non-West-European posters, with the anti-Russian, pro-Ukrainian equivalent - /uhg/ - forming as an opposing general, made up of primarily american, Polish, German and West-European liberals and rightoids that continued shilling anti-Russian talking points. Many of them also crosspost on /k/, which has and continues to be chockfull of "ded russian" threads, retarded threads trying to dunk on Russian military tech and generally propagating neo-nazi /pol/ rhetoric whenever they're not talking about sex toys or making dumb takes about X or Y weapon.

TL;DR: /pol/ is split on that and only recently, and /k/ hasn't been good in years.

>>3862
Another new variant of the MT-LB modifications, this time with RBU-6000 depth-charge rocket launchers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEKrisd3YS4

>>3931
I was on a foreign weapons course and the only thing I really liked to shoot was the PKM, like very few soviet/russian designs for small arms appeal to me. Like it was different for sure but I literally don't see why it would be better than the M4 out of reliability concerns like are you just throwing dirty in your ejection port? Like when you aren't fighting or patrolling you just like sit there with a dirty weapon?

Like the PKM though literally just a 240B but lighter its legitimately insane to me.

>>3641
>>3644
The stryker is a pos for lots of reasons but I legit can't take reformers seriously, like I think their understand of stuff like this is from playing video games. 1999 the Kosovo conflict, the US concluded it was too risky to drop light airborne forces or any light infantry and to get any heavier mechanized units would mean to land in Albania and drive through the mountains with roads that were not developed for heavy vehicles and would take several days to even get them into position. Like moving 60 ton tanks through the Carpathians would mean to build a road as they moved their forces in. The gap in capabilities which were highlighted by the conflict led to the Stryker BCTs and Stryker Infantry Battalions.

The Stryker has its own issues you could argue that its a subpar vehicle for the role it performs and there are better alternatives but the Stryker for the most part and the unit does not have the same capabilities as a traditional mechanized unit but its not designed for that its just designed to be a battalion of grunts that can go anywhere within 72 hours, it fills a strategic gap.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1606.html

>>4384
>rand.org
>Le Stryker operative team
>It's bad but its not supposed to be good
Trying to justify the failure of what was supposed to be a SOLUTION to a problem as being a stop-gap is fucking comedic. Doesn't matter if Albania was too risky, the Stryker isn't supposed to be for a very specific operation, it's meant to be a multi-task vehicle and that was part of the project that led to its creation. Air-drop capability may have been too high-risk there, but what about areas where it isn't? It still can't do that. The armor is shit, the mobility is shit and reliability is shit. It's like a shittier BTR-80… only designed decades later.

>>4391
I would rather sit down and read RAND slop designed to make our politicians throw money at shit that anything from combat reform dot org.

Mike Sparks is a boot POG whos turds still have bits of MRE in them Grenada. Mike Sparks can't even talk about his leadership experience in Grenada except for show off that the Marine Corps Gazette put his dumb little articles which are literally things that 03XXs get taught at their entry level schoolhouse.

>>4391
>"Doesn't matter if Albania was too risky, the Stryker isn't supposed to be for a very specific operation, it's meant to be a multi-task vehicle and that was part of the project that led to its creation"

I am literally trying to explain to you that when this gap was identified, a lot of leader concluded that we needed a formation that was in air liftable vehicles, the stryker was not fielded at that time. No its not a multi task vehicle its a troop carrier, The M113 wasn't a multi task vehicle it was also a fucking troop carrier. The Bradley is a multi task vehicle the bradley is literally designed to carry troops and fight. Stuff like the M113 and the Bradley is literally how can I move a maneuver element faster than just walking and covering their heads from shrapnel.

>>4392
This is called an ad hominum fallacy, attacking the source and not the argument. The fact remains that, regardless of your personal opinion on Sparks, he brings up valid criticism and examples of the Stryker being a failure. All you're doing is talking creative smack without a shred of actual argument.

>>4393
>the stryker was not fielded at that time
My point is that the Stryker cannot be made for a hyper-specialized role like filling that "gap" only, it's far too much of an investment not have variable capabilities and applications.
>we needed a formation that was in air liftable vehicles
Correct. And I'm explaining to you that the Stryker failed the task of filling said gap, even the Rand article - in spite of that site glowing - confirms that as of its publication, the US cannot deploy large heavy forces by air including Stryker formations making it a failure.
>its not a multi task vehicle its a troop carrier
And yet it has several variants analogous with the M-113's variants the basically stick different shit onto the original vehicle. It doesn't matter if its a troop carrier, the military was and continues to use it in multiple roles, no matter how ill-suited it is. Also it's a shit troop carrier too.
>The M113 wasn't a multi task vehicle it was also a fucking troop carrier.
Yeah see here's the problem - reality doesn't care, that's why the M-113 got upgraded repeatedly to improve its capabilities in offensive and defensive capacity, which leads to roles like recon, mortar-carrying, engineering support, fire support and Command, because regardless of its original designation, the Army needed such vehicles and the M-113 fit the bill to be modified into such configurations. The Stryker literally has the same sorts of variants too.
>the bradley is literally designed to carry troops and fight
Yeah, sort of like how its designation of IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) means such? Doesn't mean diddly squat even if the Bradley was labeled an APC. Hell the only reason the Bradley is called an IFV is its relatively heavy armament and slightly better armor compared to the M-113. It's not a multi-purpose vehicle either, however, by your own designation, as its role is that of troop-carrier + fire support, not recon or tank-hunting or anti-air or anything else, yet the military still did the same thing they did to the M-113; deploy it for various roles and upgrade/modify it to fit said roles, even if they don't fit the overloaded vehicle very well.
>Stuff like the M113 and the Bradley is literally how can I move a maneuver element faster than just walking and covering their heads from shrapnel.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK! The Stryker is supposed to ALSO do this… and fails because its got shit armor, shit speed, shit maneuverability, shit cross-country capability, isn't very easily air-transportable, eats a shit-ton of fuel, carries a minimal group of troops and has shit armament to boot. So yes, the M-113 is superior to the Stryker in this case since the main idea behind the Stryker's creation - rapid deployment of armor support for troops - is failed.

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/06/30/the-stryker-is-deathtrap-but-youre-paying-for-it-anyway/

Anyone actually try this?

Grisha has a bilibili account now:
https://space.bilibili.com/1466462337

video of firing the shells:
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1sj421S7ZC/

>>4655
Pic format

>spend trillions design and building an uber-tank to "defeat" T-72
>gets destroyed by one (1) fagot
>the 50 T-72s the Soviets built with the resources NATO wasted on one Abrams drive past
>NATOcels try to scramble jets but only get 2 before being downed by superior Soviet AD
>Soviet tankers capture Paris without ever seeing a functional Abrams
Yeah, I'm thinking Red Army is the Strongest

>>4656
>get some empty shells
>paint dumb shit on shells on commission
>post for clout
>wipe shell clean for next commission
>profit
It's a good grift

>>4660
As if it matters whether those specific painted shells or normal ones are the ones to land on the heads of ukrops and their mercs, the money paid will end up circulating in the economy anyways.

>>4662
>>4660
>>4656
>>4655
Hehe
https://lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=22884

>>4658
File version

>>4656
Full shell for pic 1

you vs the cartridge she tells you not to worry about

>>2793
>>235
>Embedding error.
File Version here

Also just realized the OP I made 3 years ago has 222 GETS… for a MEME thread lol

>>4878
Also similar vibe.
>Self-defense: Point-blank Shot Dodge + Submission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQTeeNX7VME