Gun Porn!

That XM 8 Fishgun POS kept melting Charlatan, plastic parts = no good. The SCAR is a really reliable heavy duty weapon. The whole interchangeable parts thing wouldn't have been a huge advantage.

Ahh the moist nugget... The cheap as dirt big 5 special.

@Barkey: Ahh, I see.

...

Doesn't the SCAR use plastic bits, though?

Also...Still needs Moar Dakka.

I don't really know all that much about guns. I just like the Mosin-Nagant because it's what The End used.

More Dakka doesn't quite work IRL unfortunately. We learned that in Vietnam.

The Mosin was a good rifle for it's time. Hell, it's a decent rifle now, but like all weapons of the time it's notoriously heavy, though it's also notoriously cheap since the russkies made so damn many.

We also learned it in Predator.

The More Dakka gun in question is an autoshotgun, though.

"Brand new weapon" my ass. The Koreans made one a good few years earlier, the Daewoo USAS-12 - granted, it was based on the same design, just American industry wasn't interested, so...

I still don't see any practical applications for an automatic shotgun. Expends ammo too quickly, heavier, overkill from hell where other weapons are more efficient etc..

I mean, if you're on target and let off a burst, your target is beyond dead and into the realm of fucking dead, but that's not really the line of thinking that most international militaries go by with small arms.

Now missiles and bombs on the other hand? The USA loves it's overkill in that department.

And NSBAL, why do you always seem so angry?

edited 27th Feb '10 12:44:13 PM by Barkey

I think the point of AA-12 being used in full auto, is the grenade rounds. Nothing says "fuck you" like grenade spam. If you've got money and time Charlatan, I could design you a gatling shot gun.

edited 27th Feb '10 2:42:42 PM by Deboss

That's what we have the Mk19 for though. Greater range, power, and ammunition capacity. Even as a fully automatic grenade launcher it's completely impractical to have it as a hand-carried small arm. It's a blasphemous waste of good explosives to use more than one grenade in the same place inside a building.

Not to mention the Mk-19 Fires HEDP rounds. DP is for Dual purpose. These nasty little buggers are still 40mm grenades but are heavier and have more kick. The warhead produces a larger blast pattern and has a small self forging armor penetrator that can pierce 1" of rolled steel armor at 0 degree impact.

The idea is the hose an area is with explosives to guarantee a kill of a group target, soft vehicle, even medium armored tanks can be killed. The crazy shit, in the first gulf war a pair of humvees with MK-19's took out some t-72's by hammering their top sides till the grenades chewed through.

The autoshotgun is older then Daewoo's own design the USA had a designe as far back as 1972, Daewoos came out nearly a a decade later. Hell before that in Vietnam some nutter modified a Remington to hold a box magazine and fire on full auto. So its even older then that, and there basic design specs of it floating around.

The purose of the auto-shotgun is for intense ubrban combat. House down hallways, allies, and multiple opening building faces. The combat loads would increase the chances of a hit in suppressing fire.

The slug load would be for heavily armored personnel or light and medium vehicles, the new micro grenades well thats just replacing the slug ammo with something more effective against multiple target types. As for ammo they use drums or long magazines that hold aprox 20 rounds and the rate of fire while automatic is not blistering fast like an assault rifle.

In fact its better then humping around a MK-19 :P those buggers are damn heavy.

edited 27th Feb '10 3:47:13 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Is self forging armor penetrator the same thing as an explosively formed projectile? It sounds like it to me but I want to make sure.

Pretty much, its a small copper cone embedded in a shaped charge.

Picture Here◊

edited 27th Feb '10 5:30:16 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Okay, just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing.

The idea is the hose an area is with explosives to guarantee a kill of a group target, soft vehicle, even medium armored tanks can be killed. The crazy shit, in the first gulf war a pair of humvees with MK-19's took out some t-72's by hammering their top sides till the grenades chewed through.

Why is it the mental image of such a thing comes across as an analog to Gauss Warthogs beating the shit out of Wraiths?

Same maneuvers as in the games and all that.

edited 27th Feb '10 6:07:45 PM by MajorTom

Some Truth In Television

Tank armor is the weakest from below (why mines are dangerous), the top, and the rear. The armor is thinnest at the top. This has been the way even the most advanced tank is made since WWII, it also makes tanks vunerable to infantry, artillery, and air craft. Infantry can surround a tank or climb on it, Artillery, and aircraft come in from above to strike the tanks weakest point.

Is that why the Javelin missile flies skyward and then down?

Yes.

To defeat a main battle tank like a T-72 or M1 Abrams from the front or sides at the infantry level would require a much larger weapon than the Javelin.

Attacking from the top also brings For Massive Damage into play as it ensures more enemy crew casualties and less chance the tank can be salvaged.

Tueful: I am referring to maneuvers not where they shot. I find it a little strange at the thought of two Humvees merely standing still against even a single T-72 and hoping to win without keeping on the move.

edited 27th Feb '10 6:28:03 PM by MajorTom

I thought Javelins could be set for direct or arc flight. If the first rounds took out the rotation system of the turret, I could see the Hummers just pounding away on them.

Javelins do have a direct fire mode (mostly for killing buildings and low flying things like helis).

As for the Mk 19 killing the rotation of the turret, I don't know. Those rounds aren't that effective at piercing MBT armor.

There's a quote somewhere on this site that a Marine(?) was saying that if they came across an Iraqi T-72 armed only with their M2 Brownings and their Mk 19s, that it would be a pretty ineffective fight. Or in his words: "Would do just about jack-diddly".

Considering the M2 Browning like the Mk 19 can defeat IFVs and lower, that says a lot.

edited 27th Feb '10 8:49:16 PM by MajorTom

I meant direct flight, where it flies almost parallel to the ground, rather than a high arc.

You've got to remember though, those Iraqi tanks were old and horribly maintained. I wouldn't be surprised if Mk19's could disable them. Put some fire into the treads for a mobility kill, and after that the hummer could run circles around the tank quicker than the turret can traverse, assuming the terrain allowed for that. This would let the Mk19 gunner pretty much pound away with impunity for the most part.(Including the vulnerable rear of the tank, where you could score hits between the main body and the turret.

And that's what Tom meant Deboss, it's got the vertical arc fire, as well as traditional guidance where it goes straight from the launcher to the target.

edited 28th Feb '10 2:00:58 AM by Barkey

I remember the tale of an M1 Abrams defeating two Iraqi tanks in one shot.

I believe it, the Abrams is one hell of a tank, and like I mentioned, those Iraqi tanks were not only outdated, but in a sad state of disrepair.

I'd believe it as well. A DU kinetic energy penetrator is known to go in one side of a T-55 and Asad Babil and out the other. It wouldn't surprise me if it still had enough kinetic force afterward to take out another T-55.

I thought that happened multiple times? Ah, APFSDS the silver bullet. The Other Wiki says they're designing a new better one that supposed to have even more penetration capability.