Meme thread for /AK/
Post memes, stories, funny shit and /k/ screencaps.
>>226This looks like the Beslan school siege, where literally any fucker
with a gun was turning up and getting involved. Total bloodbath.
>>227Yes, looks like it.
Why are the Russian security forces so fucking incompetent at sieges? I know this isn't solely a Russian problem (MOVE bombing, Ruby Ridge, Waco), but they always to fuck up the hardest.
>>227>>228Beslan isn't just incompetence, the situation had no real solution and the special forces didn't get any proper orders from the higher-ups. Israel had the exact same kind of failure in 1974, decades earlier and prior anti-terrorist action by the Spetsnaz in the USЫК demonstrated some of the best results in the world, such as storming a hijacked Yak-40 in 4 minutes and having no civilian or military/militia losses.
Here the field commander talks about Beslan
https://archive.ph/ZMbuW Maalot
https://archive.ph/y6b4T Yak-40
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Угон_самолёта_Як-40_(1973) >>229 Heh
Embedding error.
>>222Testing the Altay helmet in 19 seconds
>>238Horseshit. Even after the TT-33 got produced it remained in production and remains in service even today. It's ammunition is the Russian equivalent of the S&W .38 Magnum in term of power and caliber and is unique. One of the very few revolvers that can be fitted with a sound suppressor and used effectively due to the gas sealing system, that also helps decrease noise and increase power of the round.
>>237Heck of a lot simpler a test for a non-military standard, and all other youtube testers don't do military standard either.
>>250Just found this which is pretty cool, how to paint plastic to look like wood which seems very obvious now that we've started talking about it lol
https://www.recoilweb.com/fake-bakelite-the-best-fakelite-recipe-165615.html>but there's no fuggin wood grain!Turns out you can get a wood graining tool to use on a second layer of wet paint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwROpn4I3pU High-Tech Isis Technology.
"Who needs a plane, when you can just have a AIM-54! This brand new, revolutionary design, hand crafted at Isilco. Will change your experience on taking down fighter jets! For 127 Easy payments of 129.99, this new and logic-breaking AIM-54 could be your's. BUT WAIT! Call now, and recieve the bonus Blowselfup Kit. Comes in handy when you need to break down a wall, or two. Thats right, you get our brand new AIM-54, and the Blowselfup Kit. But call right now, and we'll DOUBLE the offer! TWO AIM-54's, and TWO Blowselfup Kits, one to share with a friend!" - The following has been sponsored by Obama Bin Laden, Oxi Clean, and Hasbro.
https://www.noseartguy.net/Lists/Photos/Aircraft-Art/F-14-Tomcat-Anytime-Baby-Nose-Art/Done%21-Day-7.jpgSo for a week people memed about the MT-LB having a naval AAA turret (2M-3 25-mm) jury rigged on it (pic 1 rel). mp4 related just takes it to new levels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGWCitiwtI pic 2/3: The MT-LB is such a multiversal platform that it can be used A LOT of things, & jury-rigging it using various parts from other machines has been a common on-the-ground practice by Soviet troops since it got introduced, Ukraine & Russia alike. Similarly US troops did the same with the M113 or M4 Sherman.
https://archive.ph/Cuegk https://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/3636257.html>>2374Man I knew this meme would come in handy
70% OF US-MADE STRYKER APCS SUPPLIED TO UKRAINE ARE OUT OF SERVICE
https://southfront.org/up-to-70-of-us-made-stryker-apcs-supplied-to-ukraine-are-out-of-service-report/ BlackTailDefense's Stryker videos are proven right all over again!
>>1218How do you aim it
though?
>>2375>ship gijinkaNah, take that too
>>>/anime/351 screwing the navy is closer to pic rel here.
>>240In USA people tip cows
In Russia people flip tanks
>>1538 Forgot the "I Am Aoba" one
>>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/ >>3798https://archive.ph/Hgm0d>A USAF official who was quoted saying the Air Force conducted a simulated test where an AI drone killed its human operator is now saying he “misspoke” and that the Air Force never ran this kind of test, in a computer simulation or otherwise. >Initially, Hamilton said that an AI-enabled drone "killed" its human operator in a simulation conducted by the U.S. Air Force in order to override a possible "no" order stopping it from completing its mission. Before Hamilton admitted he misspoke, the Royal Aeronautical Society said Hamilton was describing a "simulated test" that involved an AI-controlled drone getting "points" for killing simulated targets, not a live test in the physical world. >At the Future Combat Air and Space Capabilities Summit held in London between May 23 and 24, Hamilton held a presentation that shared the pros and cons of an autonomous weapon system with a human in the loop giving the final "yes/no" order on an attack. … Hamilton said that AI created “highly unexpected strategies to achieve its goal,” including attacking U.S. personnel and infrastructure.>“We were training it in simulation to identify and target a Surface-to-air missile (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,” Hamilton said, according to the blog post. >>3940Either 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.
>>3931I 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>>3644The 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 >>4391I 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.
>>4392This 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 timeMy 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 fightYeah, 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/ >>4658File version
>>4656Full shell for pic 1
>>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
Unique IPs: 53