Weapons and Warfare

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:27 pm

I wasn't talking about AAA, but about the physical protection against attack - the bulging and internal subdivision of the Yamatos that allowed them to absorb dozens of torpedo and AP bomb strikes and keep going.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:58 pm

I suspect that the size of the ship will be dictated by the power plant necessary to run the railguns and lasers, both of which are power hungry. The US Navy is looking to go all nuclear again so at minimum I would expect something around the size of a modern Tico.

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:28 pm

Huh? The Navy wants to go "all nuclear"? As in cruisers... destroyers...?

Sonic Glitch · Post by **Sonic Glitch** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:35 pm

GrahamKennedy wrote:Huh? The Navy wants to go "all nuclear"? As in cruisers... destroyers...?

That's the impression I got...

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:37 pm

I've heard the same thing myself. Don't know if its true, but its on the scuttle...

Post by **Graham Kennedy** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:51 pm

I find it very hard to believe. Nuclear propulsion costs shedloads of money, a lot of it in great big up front costs. Whilst there are some savings along the line in terms of fuel costs and such, I just can't imagine the budget being there for an all nuclear navy.

Certainly the new LCS ships aren't nuclear...

Sonic Glitch · Post by **Sonic Glitch** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 pm

Deepcrush wrote:I've heard the same thing myself. Don't know if its true, but its on the scuttle...

They're gonna scuttle the fleet?!!??!

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:55 pm

Sonic Glitch wrote:
Deepcrush wrote:I've heard the same thing myself. Don't know if its true, but its on the scuttle...
They're gonna scuttle the fleet?!!??!

Don't make me kill you............

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:13 am

I'm sure the scientific programs will be unaffected

MetalHead · Post by **MetalHead** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:30 am

alright, how about this

most *notorious* weapon. as in well known for slaughtering loads of people

few ideas -
M1908 Thompson SMG
Karabiner K98K
M1 Garand
M16 (A2/A3 variants)
M4A1 Carbine
AK47
Glock 18

could list loads

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 2:54 am

For the most notorious weapon. I'd have to say the Tompson, hands down! Nothing in history matches this thing. I've met people from around the world who want nothing more then to fire one "gangster style" with the drum.

Plus its my favorite weapon of all time so I'm a BIT bias...

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:44 am

If you truly mean notorious, as in having a truly feared reputation - then hands down it's the Maschinengewehr 42 or MG42. It was nicknamed "Hitler's buzzsaw" by American troops because of the sound it made - it's rate of fire was so high than the human ear can't discern the individual rounds. It fired twice as fast as a Vickers or BAR. I say it wins in the "notorious" category because the U. S. Army made training films specifically about handling the psychological trauma of facing an MG42.

The Colt Single Action Army, a.k.a. Peacemaker or "Colt .45," was justifiably famous, but IDK about "notorious." The Maxim was sure as hell known for killing lots of people. As far as being made famous (or infamous) by their users, there's always the Colt 1851 Navy cap-and-ball revolver used by Wild Bill Hickock and Clyde Barrow's BAR.

Post by **Mikey** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:54 am

Hmmm... here's a question for all you gun-knowledgable folks: why was the Colt Single Action Army called "army?" Back then, calling a revolver "army" or "navy" had nothing to do with who purchased it or used it; rather, it referred to the caliber. Navy meant .36, Army meant .44. The Peacemaker was neither of those, so how did it get the name "Single Action Army?"

Deepcrush · Post by **Deepcrush** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:57 am

Mikey wrote:If you truly mean notorious, as in having a truly feared reputation - then hands down it's the Maschinengewehr 42 or MG42. It was nicknamed "Hitler's buzzsaw" by American troops because of the sound it made - it's rate of fire was so high than the human ear can't discern the individual rounds. It fired twice as fast as a Vickers or BAR. I say it wins in the "notorious" category because the U. S. Army made training films specifically about handling the psychological trauma of facing an MG42.

I could see the MG42 as well. Though it just doesn't have the time accounted to it that the Tompson has.

colmquinn · Post by **colmquinn** » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:12 am

I remember seeing a docu about WWII and it talked to the vets on either side - they described the sound of the MG42 as being like the sound of tearing cloth. No individual rounds could be heard it was just a stream of lead, MG42 in case people don't know the device we're talking about.

Oh and here's info on the Colt 1873 Single Action Army

Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare

Re: Weapons and Warfare