• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Discussion of Military, real or fictional

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Hopefully that can be accurately expanded out to "An obstacle that doesn't stop the enemy is not an obstacle, and an obstacle that is not covered by fire does not stop the enemy". That would make sense.

Pretty much exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2022 at 9:15 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

Hopefully that can be accurately expanded out to "An obstacle that doesn't stop the enemy is not an obstacle, and an obstacle that is not covered by fire does not stop the enemy". That would make sense.

Hm. This is just me but I would count defences that slow down the enemy as obstacles, especially if they are placed so as to allow the defenders more time to shoot back at the attackers. Barbed wire, trenches with earthworks, caltrops, minefields -- none of them really stop the enemy. But they do buy you valuable time. Or possibly even invaluable time.

On 11/17/2022 at 9:15 PM, Darth Fluffy said:

At least until we foolishly crank out the Terminators that kill us all. I suppose you could consider them as 'manning'.

To stay with the terminology, maybe we could consider them 'terminating.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

especially if they are placed so as to allow the defenders more time to shoot back at the attackers

That is what "covered by fire" means.  If you don't have it all you have is a slight annoyance to the attacking forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Hm. This is just me but I would count defences that slow down the enemy as obstacles, especially if they are placed so as to allow the defenders more time to shoot back at the attackers. Barbed wire, trenches with earthworks, caltrops, minefields -- none of them really stop the enemy. But they do buy you valuable time. Or possibly even invaluable time.

Good point.

 

2 hours ago, mlooney said:

That is what "covered by fire" means.  If you don't have it all you have is a slight annoyance to the attacking forces.

Also good point.

 

Ultimately, even an unmanned obstacle might be decisive if it slows your opponent down long enough to prevent them from accomplishing a particular timetable goal. Perhaps dividing their forces so you can engage portions separately. But also, clearly not as effective in being a 'Thou shalt not pass' barrier. Apple/oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Passive barriers stopped being insurmountable once armies adopted means of remotely delivering explosives to them (i.e. explosive artillery shells with indirect fire). Since then, the main purpose of fortifications is to protect your forces from enemy fire until you can shoot down the attackers (e.g. foxholes and trenches).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. Do you have a link to it? That is one odd weapon. It appears to be a double flintlock, seven simultaneous shots per side.  The lower tune on the left looks like a holder for a second cleaning rod, but it might have not come with a second one. In a practical sense, almost like a double barreled shotgun. Looks f'ing heavy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears to be some sort of volley gun, made to fire seven or four rounds at once. I’m fairly certain that it is meant to be mounted on a swivel mount or light cart, not fired from the shoulder—it looks like it ought to weigh at least thirty kilograms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Indeed. Do you have a link to it? That is one odd weapon. It appears to be a double flintlock, seven simultaneous shots per side.  The lower tune on the left looks like a holder for a second cleaning rod, but it might have not come with a second one. In a practical sense, almost like a double barreled shotgun. Looks f'ing heavy.

 

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/perdition-to-conspirators-magnificent-14-barrel-flintlock/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2022 at 7:08 PM, mlooney said:

Apart from weighing a ton it must have taken sodding forever to load. But its single volley would have been brutal.

If I wanted something that could put a terrifying barrage of fire into the air, I think I would prefer a Glock-19. If I could get one, that is. A bit lighter and more concealable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a muzzleloader with that many barrels, I would expect about five minutes to load them all one by one. What interests me is what sort of mechanism would let a single flint striker fire so many barrels simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ijuin said:

What interests me is what sort of mechanism would let a single flint striker fire so many barrels simultaneously.

I suspect a large flash pan that has 7 holes leading to the chambers. I also suspect that it miss fires and doesn't get all 7 off a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall something like that being developed by the US Army in the Desert Shield era (early '90s). I don't know what ever became of the program, if it was ever fielded. Weirder things have happened.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I recall something like that being developed by the US Army in the Desert Shield era (early '90s). I don't know what ever became of the program, if it was ever fielded. Weirder things have happened.

 

The US army had at one time the 9th Infantry Division act as a "High-Technology Test Bed" which included fast attack dune buggies.  The army decided against using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is, it is a very good example; a parody that some numb nuts will actually try, with deadly results.

There is a fair point embedded in there, a 22 LR or even more a 22 short is mostly non-lethal. That doesn't mean it won't hurt, cause injuries, take out an eye, or whatever. You shouldn't even be shooting air rifles nor bb guns at each other as a game. Hell, even laser tag requires safety goggles.

"What about a subsonic rock at his head, can I throw that?"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

There is a fair point embedded in there, a 22 LR or even more a 22 short is mostly non-lethal.

Not exactly.  IT's got more penetration power than I expected.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is impressive, but I wonder if it says more about sheet rock than it does about 22LR rounds.

Is a 22LR something you should not mess around with? Your kid needs supervision and training to use one? It's not a toy? Definitely.

Significantly, in the video, the 22LR rounds show no sign of expansion as they penetrated the panels. Better for penetration, but an exit wound would be small.

So, to the Quora post's point, "Yes, poster, use your 22LR for your Airsoft game. Someone's got to thin the herd and weed out your demographic, it might as well be you." The man deserves a Darwin Honorable Mention, even if he survives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now