Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.


Khand-e
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

   The well-known weapons factory Molot-Oruzhie LLC (formerly OJSC Vyatsko-Polyansky Machine-Building Plant Molot, Vyatskiye Polyany, Kirov Region) reported that it had developed a new 7.62-mm machine gun in its initiative.

   The text on the company's page in social networks reads: "Molot-Weapon initiative development. A 7.62 mm machine gun with a combined feed - belt, magazine, box (pictured). Not a Kalashoid. Younger brother of VPO-214. Automatics based on short recoil of the barrel. Interchangeable barrels. "

6661908_original.jpg

 

ORSIS-Mosin, heh

SybVmdj.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vicious_CB said:

I like Kalashoid, it sounds alot better than the Shrike/Ares16/MCR  or whatever they're calling it these days.which is where I assume they got the idea from. 

 

Pretty sure "Kalashoid" means "something based on a Kalashnikov", and they are saying this new gun is not that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

That is me, yes, and yes I died in a tragic boating accident over a year ago.

Nice trigger kung-fu, shoots like full auto.

 

Remember the "Overmatch: On Bullets, Bombers, and Taking the Right Path (Brief Thoughts 004)"? On that blog.

Any changes or consider it true to this day? (Very interesting to know)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pascal said:

Nice trigger kung-fu, shoots like full auto.

 

Remember the "Overmatch: On Bullets, Bombers, and Taking the Right Path (Brief Thoughts 004)"? On that blog.

Any changes or consider it true to this day? (Very interesting to know)

 

I consider it one of my best works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I consider it one of my best works.

I should have said that i seek only the think related to the B-17 and it's machine guns vs speed.

 

It stuck in my head because the soviets tried the fast bomber approach before the ww2 and in/after it they pretty much put a lot of turrets and cannons compared to others on their bombers and even transport aircraft.

(I hold to this think because i rarely see some posts related to bombers and defensive armaments)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pascal said:

I should have said that i seek only the think related to the B-17 and it's machine guns vs speed.

 

It stuck in my head because the soviets tried the fast bomber approach before the ww2 and in/after it they pretty much put a lot of turrets and cannons compared to others on their bombers and even transport aircraft.

(I hold to this think because i rarely see some posts related to bombers and defensive armaments)

The performance of the YB-40 should slam the door on things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pascal said:

I should have said that i seek only the think related to the B-17 and it's machine guns vs speed.

 

It stuck in my head because the soviets tried the fast bomber approach before the ww2 and in/after it they pretty much put a lot of turrets and cannons compared to others on their bombers and even transport aircraft.

(I hold to this think because i rarely see some posts related to bombers and defensive armaments)

 

I got a ton of pushback on that, but I stand by what I said then. It's still my current position on the subject. The Fortress concept was a failure. It got an enormous amount of men killed. Efforts should have focused on speed, altitude, and evasion, not armament. The B-29 and virtually all subsequent bombers prove this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

I got a ton of pushback on that, but I stand by what I said then. It's still my current position on the subject. The Fortress concept was a failure. It got an enormous amount of men killed. Efforts should have focused on speed, altitude, and evasion, not armament. The B-29 and virtually all subsequent bombers prove this.

I have seen only a pushback, that was only directed to the idea "many .50 bad", many didn't have a problem there with the focus on speed, altitude, evasion.

But making a B-29 from a B-17 is like removing the 37mm gun turret from a M3 Lee and name it M4, needs more than that and most important time.

 

How much would an B-17 win in altitude, speed without the defensive armament?

(I stop here, very off-topic.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...