Military Equipment Sperging Thread - The Tiger II is a better tank than the M1 Abrams edition

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
has anyone tried making a .50cal AHEAD airburst round, or is this not feasible with current technology (or is it simply not effective enough to be worth it)
.50 caliber couldn't pack enough explosive to make that effective, to say nothing of the fuse that makes all the magic happen. That sort of option becomes viable in 20mm autocannons, and the sweet spot for efficiency vs effectiveness in the context of AFVs seems to be between 30mm and 40mm. 12.7mm is far too small.
 
has anyone tried making a .50cal AHEAD airburst round, or is this not feasible with current technology (or is it simply not effective enough to be worth it)
Far too small a projectile, and far too expensive for the effect on target. I'm sure every dumb idea possible has been tried with the .50 BMG, but almost none have actually resulted in anything practical. Raufoss Mk 211 is an example that actually works thanks to not including a fuse, which is the only way to pack enough stuff inside the projectile that it still contains a reasonable amount of payload. Still limited compared to the internal volume of a 20mm round, however, TM 43-0001-27 gives 13 grains of Comp A-4 explosive (RDX with wax stabilizer), and 13.1 grains of incendiary for the Mk 211. Meanwhile TM 9-1985-3 gives the old German 20mm HE rounds depending on design anywhere from 49 grains of PETN all the way up to 262 grains for the Minengeschoß design that packed in as much explosive as possible.
There's just no replacement for internal volume on a projectile when you want a payload.
 
There's just no replacement for internal volume on a projectile when you want a payload.
Same as with early AT guns. As I recall, there were attempts to keep the 37mm guns relevant by using them more often in direct fire with HE, but then you still had a projectile with about the same charge as a 40mm grenade, which could be disappointing given the weight of the weapon.
 
Last edited:
has anyone tried making a .50cal AHEAD airburst round, or is this not feasible with current technology (or is it simply not effective enough to be worth it)
Not effective enough to be worth it. .50BMG just doesn't have the internal volume for explosive rounds to be worth it with the very notable exception of the Raufoss (however the fuck you spell it) but that thing's basically witchcraft.
 

This is the closest the West gets to a modern F-5E. Most customers fly the the dual seat model and just put one guy in it when it's being used for light attack or air policing.
If we're returning to cold war tech (AR-15 supremacy, light fighters), in the absence of the A-10 can we possibly bring back JATO... 🥺 There's some drones, but it's just not the same...

Jato3.jpg


The end part where it's travelling down the runway sideways while belching fire is just magnificent and makes you proud to be westoid. (It did indeed slow their landing.)
 
Same as with early AT guns. As I recall, there were attempts to keep the 37mm guns relevant by using them more often in direct fire with HE, but then you still had a projectile with about the same charge as a 40mm grenade, which could be disappointing given the weight of the weapon.
Yeah the 37mm HE was mediocre but still is a hell of a lot better than not issuing HE ammunition for your light AT/tank gun (looking at you, Brits). The Stielgranate 41 was the cooler way to make it still relevant. Worked pretty well in ambushes and against hardpoints, but otherwise limited range, accuracy and rate of fire. I would not want to reload that in combat, not one bit. Still, being able to knock out almost any tank of the war at 300m was a pretty decent capability for a gun that was incapable of destroying the most common medium tanks of the war. Was always fun to use in Combat Mission against my friends if anyone else has played that autistic simulator, very satisfying when a 150mm rifle grenade detonates a Churchill.
stielgranate 41.jpg
The Stielgranate 42 on the other hand is true kraut autism at its best. When 150mm artillery is too small, just chuck a 300mm version of a rifle grenade on the muzzle.
stielgrenate42.jpeg
Makes me wonder what size of supercaliber projectile one could launch from a .50 BMG out to 500m. Not much practical reason to do so, but I'd like to see it anyway.
 
Same as with early AT guns. As I recall, there were attempts to keep the 37mm guns relevant by using them more often in direct fire with HE, but then you still had a projectile with about the same charge as a 40mm grenade, which could be disappointing given the weight of the weapon.
WW2 was in many ways, still a war of infantry so having versatile small gun that could be handled by a small team of guys was still a relevant thing in many areas where there wasn't that much heavy metal roaming around.
 
WW2 was in many ways, still a war of infantry so having versatile small gun that could be handled by a small team of guys was still a relevant thing in many areas where there wasn't that much heavy metal roaming around.
The issue with towed artillery in an anti-armor role is that it was just never quite fast enough to deploy.
 
The issue with towed artillery in an anti-armor role is that it was just never quite fast enough to deploy.
Perhaps, but small guns are much less of a pain for infantry units to handle. They can be deployed in places where you can't shove a bigger gun and are more easily hauled to positions where a larger gun would necessitate a tractor.
 
Perhaps, but small guns are much less of a pain for infantry units to handle. They can be deployed in places where you can't shove a bigger gun and are more easily hauled to positions where a larger gun would necessitate a tractor.
Also true but the issue is that if the enemy knows they're there then they'll most likely attack somewhere else where they are not (if they can) and at that point your gun is largely useless.
 
I think that there is a reason why most nations did not go over 75mm towed AT cannon. Germans used 88mm Flak36/Pak41/43 but those generally were set up beforehand or commandeered AAA with their Luftwaffe ground crews. Arguably one of the most successful towed AT is the 75mm Pak 40 because of the balance between portability and effectiveness and the 37mm M3 while being completely useless in the AT role was light enough to be easily manhandled by it's crew to be used in fire suppression.
 
In interesting news, the new US Dark Eagle Hypersonic glide vehicle actually has more range than initially stated and it's entering service now.


It can hit mainland China from Guam, so just about 2,200 miles.

Army gets a new Sentinel radar


Aka the one that works with NASAMS and other SAM systems. Army says that it can actually accept a more capable AESA antenna of necessary in the future.

Say hello to the new Air Force One paint scheme, already being used on the smaller VIP transports

Boeing-737-bbj-dhs-ties.jpg
 
Say hello to the new Air Force One paint scheme, already being used on the smaller VIP transports
Oh, welcome back 1980s British Airways livery. I'm not complaining, it's a great looking livery very sharp and professional. Honestly looks great, way better than the previous one.
British-Airways-Boeing-747-in-Landor-livery-2881091933.jpg
 
The debate over whether the Iowa-class battleships ever did or didn't actually sail with nuclear shells for the 16-inch guns is looking to be bending more towards 'did'.

 
The debate over whether the Iowa-class battleships ever did or didn't actually sail with nuclear shells for the 16-inch guns is looking to be bending more towards 'did'.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=pEeSmhTIIDY
I wouldn't be surprised. For a multitude of reasons during the Eisenhower administration particularly there was a massive push to incorporate nuclear weapons into everything. We developed (and deployed) nuclear artillery, nuclear recoilless rifles, nuclear torpedoes, nuclear air-to-air missiles, nuclear demolitions charges... A nuclear shell for a battleship seems almost natural.
 

President Trump will announce on Monday a new fleet of large warships he is calling “battleships,” according to a U.S. official and another official familiar with the discussions, marking a step toward achieving the president’s vision for a new “Golden Fleet.
The news follows the Navy’s announcement last week that it will commission a new class of frigates. Trump has for years advocated for revamping America’s fleet of warships, which he has said are “terrible-looking” and covered in rust. In his first term, he called for a return to steam-powered catapults to launch jets from aircraft carriers, in a move that wasn’t successful, and complained about the aesthetics of the Navy’s destroyers. He has been personally involved in crafting plans for the Golden Fleet, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.
The new battleship will be an upgrade to the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which are the workhorse of the current fleet and which Trump has compared unfavorably to rival navies. The “battleship” name harks back to the ships with large main guns used until the end of the Cold War, but the new ships will feature a next-generation design.
Another U.S. official said the president would make an announcement on Monday afternoon alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Navy Secretary John Phelan, but wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the announcement.

Mark Montgomery, a former rear admiral who is senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who is in touch with people involved in the discussions, said Trump will announce the battleship on Monday. However, he criticized the Golden Fleet plan as “exactly what we don’t need,” and noted that each new battleship will cost at least $5 billion.
“We do not need ships that are not optimized to provide lethality against the Chinese threat,” Montgomery said, adding that the new frigate has “zero tactical use” because it will not be equipped with a vertical launch system or the Aegis ballistic defense system.
“That is not what these are focused on—they are focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship,” he said.
Over the past few months, a Navy team developed and approved requirements for the new class of large-surface combatants, according to the U.S. official. The new ship will weigh 30,000 tons, larger than current destroyers, and have the ability to add future weapons like electromagnetic rail guns and directed energy lasers, according to one of the people familiar with the discussions.
The Navy will launch a competition to choose a vendor, and plans to procure the first hull in 2030, the official said.
A White House and Navy team earlier this year began planning for a new fleet that will be better suited to counter China, manage the Western Hemisphere and deal with other threats, WSJ first reported. The Navy proposed the name “Golden Fleet,” following other similarly branded Trump-era initiatives such as the Golden Dome missile defense system he ordered the military to build soon after returning to office.
Golden Fleet will comprise a number of large warships outfitted with more powerful long-range missiles, even potentially hypersonic missiles, along with a larger number of a new small ship, the frigate. The new frigate will be based on the Coast Guard’s Legend-class National Security Cutter, which Ingalls builds in Pascagoula, Miss., and will replace the Constellation-class frigate that the Navy canceled last month after years of delays.
The Navy has 287 ships in its inventory, mostly destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers, amphibious ships and submarines.
Battleships of the 20th century were heavily-armored, built with large guns so that they could attack ground targets and ships from beyond the range of an enemy’s weapons, said Bryan Clark, a naval expert with the Hudson Institute. They gained notoriety during the 20th century world wars and were the centerpiece of a battle formation—similar to the role the aircraft carrier is today, Clark said Monday.
“The idea was the battleship had big enough guns they could shoot far enough that it generally was able to shoot from outside the range of most of its opponents,” he said.
Today the Navy needs a more powerful ship to better defend its carriers, which have become increasingly vulnerable, most recently seen by an attempted Houthi attack on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. Clark said long-range missiles on today’s warships replaced the role of guns on battleships since they could fly much longer distances, and strike a target with more precision and accuracy. But to remain relevant for future battles, the ships need more firepower, which means more missile-launching tubes and the ability to carry hypersonic weapons.
“You need something like two-to-three times the size of an [Arleigh Burke-class destroyer],” said Clark, adding, “you need some ships with that type of size so that you can have the defenses to protect the carrier, and the reach to be able to attack targets from a place where you can be survivable.”
 
A new class of frigates?

Mr. Bones says "THE RIDE NEVER ENDS!"
Actually its the Legend Class proposal, from the original competion if im reading this right. The Legend class was a success for the coast guard, and has expansion room for VLS cells and shit. This is literally as low cost and budget as it gets- because the yards know how to build the fucking things already.
 
Back
Top Bottom