[ 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
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.


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

 No.371

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.

 No.372

War has changed from a labour intensive industry into a capital intensive one. The labour "productivity" of the average soldier has increased thousand fold compared to the pre-firearm era.

 No.374

>>371
most of the changes you describe were a result of artillery
guns had been around for centuries even among regular infantry and didn't change anything fundamental

 No.378

>>374
Well yeah but there were multiple major changes that happened
>artillery massively increased killing power
>muskets dramatically reduced the need for physical conditioning and training to be able to shoot lethal ammo at the enemy
>rifles allowed pinpoint accuracy at a great distance
>automatic weapons and industrialization reduced the need for accuracy and made gun combat more about area denial since you can afford to expend rounds on suppressing fire

 No.379

>>378
>>muskets dramatically reduced the need for physical conditioning and training to be able to shoot lethal ammo at the enemy
eh, you still need physical conditioning/training to handle firearms properly
>>rifles allowed pinpoint accuracy at a great distance
yeah, the development of rifles were kind of a coup, i guess, and really gave primacy to european armies

 No.380

>>374
>guns had been around for centuries even among regular infantry and didn't change anything fundamental
Early pistols were really shit, they had to be muzzel loaded, add a little gunpowder from a small bag with a snout, then add a bullet and jam it down with a little metal rod. The rate of fire was like 5 bullets a minute, and if it rains they probably don't work because the powder or the flint (used for igniting the powder) got wet. Barrels and bullets weren't matched in size, so the bullet bounced around in the barrel adding randomness to where the bullet would go. Also a lack of barrel-riffling (that makes bullets spin) made bullets tumble in the air. Effective range was maybe 20m(65feet) but probably less.

 No.421

>>379
>eh, you still need physical conditioning/training to handle firearms properly
It's nothing compared to the draw weight of bows and the ability to aim with accuracy under that level of weight.
>the development of rifles were kind of a coup
Rifles came much later though.

 No.972

Drones are the next big leap
Air support is pretty much spammed in modern wars since you risk effectively nothing by just having a drone in the sky pick out infantry and heavy machinery from a distance that’s impossible to spot with the human eye

 No.1004

>>421
>It's nothing compared to the draw weight of bows and the ability to aim with accuracy under that level of weight.
But comparable with what you need to use a crossbow. And you can aim with crossbow much like can with a gun.

 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.


Unique IPs: 12

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
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 ]