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.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let's all take a trip back to the late 1970s and early 1980s.  This was the time of punk.  This was the time of despair.   Punk was all about minimalism; strip everything down to a few chords, wear

Stechkin's Abakan (TKB-0146). https://www.kalashnikov.ru/abakan-stechkina-avtomat-stechkina-tkb-0146/        Bullpup, system of "recoil impulse shifted in time", 2-stage

So what, my 5.56 rounds are groundbreaking too if I shoot the dirt.

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      There are many who feel that the 5.56 NATO is a superlative rifle round. Much has been said about larger alternatives to 5.56, such as various 6.5mm and 6.8mm rounds among others. Less has been said about smaller rounds. Off the top of my head, I can recall that there was a German 4.6x36mm round, used in the HK36, and the British 4.85x49mm round. Neither of these rounds managed to gain widespread acceptance. My knowledge of the voodoo that is ballistics is somewhat limited, so I'm uncertain as to whether these failures were caused by flaws with the rounds themselves, or because they were below some lower limit of effective bullet size, beyond which performance decreases rapidly. Could we see a resurgence of these concepts in the future, or do they represent an evolutionary dead-end?

×
×
  • Create New...