Things that go bang

[mlooney 3,417]

A Centurion at the Teutoberg Forest

[mlooney 3,417]

Magazine fed 40 mm grenade launcher. What the actual [redacted]?

[ijuin 572]

What, you think they never feel the need for a faster rate of fire than they can get with the single-shot kind?

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

I would be concerned with that rate of fire the company might run out of ammunition before they reach the first a tow, row, row, row, row, row

[ijuin 572]

Yeah, well if your first shot fails to take down the target, then you’ll be glad to have another shot at the ready before they get the chance to shoot back.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

I assume it is semi-auto. It makes sense for clearing an area; multiple buildings, or imagine what this would have done for trench warfare.

The similar object I don't get is the full auto shotgun. Why, and how do you even control it?

[mlooney 3,417]

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I assume it is semi-auto. It makes sense for clearing an area; multiple buildings, or imagine what this would have done for trench warfare.

The QLB-06/87B varient of the QLZ-87 automatic grenade launcher is shoulder fired, so it's possible that this monster is full auto, albeit at a low rate of fire.  Also the QLB-06 is 9.1 kg with out ammo, so "shoulder fired" might be pushing it.

https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/QLZ-87_(Type_87)_Chinese_35mm_Automatic_Grenade_Launcher

[Darth Fluffy 302]

12 hours ago, mlooney said:

The QLB-06/87B varient of the QLZ-87 automatic grenade launcher is shoulder fired, so it's possible that this monster is full auto, albeit at a low rate of fire.  Also the QLB-06 is 9.1 kg with out ammo, so "shoulder fired" might be pushing it.

https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/QLZ-87_(Type_87)_Chinese_35mm_Automatic_Grenade_Launcher

Compared to the linked Chinese weapon, the 40 mm launcher above appears to be easy to reload; slap another magazine in. 

In the picture you posted, the shooter is aiming through an optical sight that is skewed off center from the launcher. This suggests that the initial aim does not matter so much and the grenade rounds are guided munitions; the box on the side of the optics may be the sending unit. I've seen something of the sort several years ago on The Military Channel, but not this gun I don't think.

Actively guided rounds argues against full auto; it could still be done, but the sending unit has to guide each one and has to address them individually.

The whole thing is probably susceptible to jamming.

... It might just be a target designator that paints the target through the sight optics. That would be much easier. Could probably handle full auto better, but you wouldn't want to throw the designator off.

Arguably, even more so than on a gun, semi-auto is more useful that full.

 

[mlooney 3,417]

They have made, and tested in Afghanistan, a grenade launcher that lases a target, then set the time on the fuse to go off after it has traveled that distance. giving an air burst explosion, which defeats a lot of forms of cover.  This is not jamable, assuming you don't some how jam the laser, which is tricky at best given our current tech. I suspect this is what this does, as guidance packs on a 40 mm grenade would take up a lot of the limited space within the grenade.  Or it could be some one that thought that the 6 seconds it takes to reload a M203 was too long.  With modern small arms design I'd go with the timed fuse theory, but the "it takes to long to reload" theory is also good.

[mlooney 3,417]

[mlooney 3,417]

Some real tactical [redacted] going down

[ijuin 572]

Is that like phone booth packing?

[mlooney 3,417]

22 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Is that like phone booth packing?

Yeah, but you don't want to be the guy on the bottom

[mlooney 3,417]

Even if this is fake, it's going into my "Silly Guns for Gamers" book.  0.55 Webley revolver with bayonet and shoulder stock.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

10 hours ago, mlooney said:

They have made, and tested in Afghanistan, a grenade launcher that lases a target, then set the time on the fuse to go off after it has traveled that distance. giving an air burst explosion, which defeats a lot of forms of cover.  This is not jamable, assuming you don't some how jam the laser, which is tricky at best given our current tech. I suspect this is what this does, as guidance packs on a 40 mm grenade would take up a lot of the limited space within the grenade.  Or it could be some one that thought that the 6 seconds it takes to reload a M203 was too long.  With modern small arms design I'd go with the timed fuse theory, but the "it takes to long to reload" theory is also good.

Yeas, agree, if it is guided by a signal, jam-able; if it is tracking a painted target, not so much. Fly by wire works in that regard, but has other issues. The thought occurs that the box could be programing an INS in the shell for destination and flight time. It could even be uploading a snapshot of where to hit.

I saw that air burst shell on the Military Channel, impressive round. Hiding behind cover got less effective.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

The Webley with a shoulder stock and bayonet is just sad. I'm sure it has it's lethal uses, it just does not appear to be good at any of them.

I don't recall that the Webley was a particularly great revolver, just on it's own. In photos, the walls look too thin.

It seems off hand that by the time that came out, a carbine like the Henry rifle would have been available.

[mlooney 3,417]

31 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

The Webley with a shoulder stock and bayonet is just sad. I'm sure it has it's lethal uses, it just does not appear to be good at any of them.

I don't recall that the Webley was a particularly great revolver, just on it's own. In photos, the walls look too thin.

It seems off hand that by the time that came out, a carbine like the Henry rifle would have been available.

The Webley was the standard service side arm for the UK until 1947.  Many troops were issued Browning Hi-powers if they really needed a pistol for offensive use. (Commandos, SAS those sort of people.)  Run of the mill officers had the Webley, or later in the war Sten SMG.

[ijuin 572]

1 hour ago, mlooney said:

Even if this is fake, it's going into my "Silly Guns for Gamers" book.  0.55 Webley revolver with bayonet and shoulder stock.

Shoulder stock seems kind of pointless for such a short barrel, unless it’s a very-high recoil round like .44 Magnum or heavier.

[mlooney 3,417]

9 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Shoulder stock seems kind of pointless for such a short barrel, unless it’s a very-high recoil round like .44 Magnum or heavier.

Well it is a 0.55 round.  Slow and heavy is how it's normally called.  Not sure if it's supersonic or not.

[mlooney 3,417]

The ex-commies and current commies have too many cruise missiles. The US army thinks that there are 48 worth tracking data for. Russia accounts for 22 of those. The PRC is almost as bad with 18 listed. Most of these are anti-ship missiles, but the Russians have been using ASM as land attack missiles in Ukraine. Well I'm done with them for a while anyway.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

7 hours ago, mlooney said:

Well it is a 0.55 round.  Slow and heavy is how it's normally called.  Not sure if it's supersonic or not.

I'm pretty sure it's not.

 

7 hours ago, mlooney said:

The Webley was the standard service side arm for the UK until 1947.  Many troops were issued Browning Hi-powers if they really needed a pistol for offensive use. (Commandos, SAS those sort of people.)  Run of the mill officers had the Webley, or later in the war Sten SMG.

I did not know it was still in use that late. At least someone had the good sense to issue a serviceable gun to those who needed one.

Even setting 'I don't like the design' aside, fielding a revolver as a military weapon in WWII is already questionable. I suppose if Patton wants to look good with his pearl handles, it works, but if you are going to actually shoot at your enemy, there are better tools.

[mlooney 3,417]

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I did not know it was still in use that late.

According to the Wikipedia article on it, it was in use until 1954. 

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Even setting 'I don't like the design' aside, fielding a revolver as a military weapon in WWII is already questionable.

Pistols in general are a questionable choice for weapons in warfare at all in the 20th century.  The use case for them is fairly limited, and is better fielded by carbines or SMG.  Plus "shoot the dude with the pistol" was pretty much standing orders for snipers.

[mlooney 3,417]

[mlooney 3,417]

For a country that has really crappy command and control (as seen in Ukraine) Russia sure has a lot command and control vehicles. Out of 35 listed in the WEG, Russia accounts for 27. The US has 2. Of course both of these numbers don't count the soft skinned trucks that help make up a command post, but that's about an even number of types of vehicles.

[mlooney 3,417]

Russian "smart" missile

http://www.spellbooksoftware.com/received_355976413337090.mp4