/k/ Webm/gif Comp
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
115 comments displayed.
#107 to #1
-
irishjohnny (12/14/2015) [-] 
>Hands on the muzzle with magazine still inserted
Good vid though.
Good vid though.
#35 to #1
-
creamymcgee (12/14/2015) [-] AKs are shockingly easy to take apart. Mr.Kalashnikov made one hell of a gun.
#87 to #35
-
corporations (12/14/2015) [-]
I haven't pulled apart an AK, but I have used a Galil which is basically the same thing and it's indeed pretty great. You could just remove two parts, shake the gun and it's disassembled.
#34 to #6
-
youraveragesupport ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] 4 rules of firearms handling
Rule 1: The weapon is always loaded until you yourself remove the magazine and check the chamber for a round. You put the gun down? You check it again when you pick it up.
It's all about habits. I know it seems stupid, but assuming the weapon is loaded and making sure is better than assuming it's unloaded and being wrong.
Rule 1: The weapon is always loaded until you yourself remove the magazine and check the chamber for a round. You put the gun down? You check it again when you pick it up.
It's all about habits. I know it seems stupid, but assuming the weapon is loaded and making sure is better than assuming it's unloaded and being wrong.
#48 to #6
-
daemonicdemeanor ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] **daemonicdemeanor used "*roll picture*"**
**daemonicdemeanor rolled image**Famous last words/thought.
**daemonicdemeanor rolled image**Famous last words/thought.
#18 to #15
-
muffincannibal (12/14/2015) [-] Pretty ******* sure they're informed as to whether or not its loaded, and they're mostly teenagers and young adults, so yeah lets give them loaded weapons to mess around with.
#19 to #18
-
tehfalconguy (12/14/2015) [-] Literally doesn't matter, when you're dealing with something that can easily kill you you don't take any chances, even if it's trivial.
#39 to #19
-
Silver Quantum (12/14/2015) [-] i think more than anyone, the instructor who gave them the weapon is aware of those rules, so the trainees being afraid of something like the weapon being loaded makes just as much sense as being afraid of being struck by a meteorite
#49 to #39
-
daemonicdemeanor ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] **daemonicdemeanor used "*roll picture*"**
**daemonicdemeanor rolled image**Any time you touch a gun, you make sure it's not loaded, or is if you're about to shoot something. The circumstances are irrelevant. I assume you look at your food before you eat it, even if your grandma cooked it, right? The way you're thinking is the cause of 100% of gun accidents.
**daemonicdemeanor rolled image**Any time you touch a gun, you make sure it's not loaded, or is if you're about to shoot something. The circumstances are irrelevant. I assume you look at your food before you eat it, even if your grandma cooked it, right? The way you're thinking is the cause of 100% of gun accidents.
#50 to #49
-
Silver Quantum (12/14/2015) [-] i look at my food to see what part of the food i'm eating first, or because i wanna eat it in a specific order, or simply because i enjoy looking at it, not because i need to watch out for cigarette buts or hidden teeth inside of it. what kind of retarded analogy is that?
#51 to #50
-
daemonicdemeanor ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] You're not very smart are you? Have you ever had a hair in your food, or a bone, or a fly that landed on it? I'm saying most people don't shove **** in their mouth without glancing at it instinctively. That's why everyone who has ever held a gun is freaked out that she didn't do that. Only retards like you think think it's ever acceptable to not check first.
#53 to #51
-
Silver Quantum (12/14/2015) [-] i see you shove **** in your mouth on a daily basis if you fear every meal is gonna poison you. only retards like you live in constant exaggerated fear that everything is an immediate danger to their lives.
#40 to #39
-
tehfalconguy (12/14/2015) [-] It's not even entirely about that, if you condition yourself to feel safe doing something that would be unsafe in the case that the weapon is loaded you're just asking for trouble.
#42 to #40
-
Silver Quantum (12/14/2015) [-] maybe the instructor mentioned beforehand that the weapon isn't loaded, so they wouldn't have to worry about it and focus on disassembling and reassembling the weapon as fast as possible
#46 to #42
-
norkasthethird (12/14/2015) [-] part of disassembly is removing the magazine and checking the chamber
#62 to #42
-
kanbabrif (12/14/2015) [-]
It's simply the rule. Even if you know it's ******* unloaded and been checked by 20 other people, you yourself must check it. Mainly because it's habit for when you don't know for sure that it isnt unloaded, and making sure you never get comfortable with something that can kill you.
#124 to #18
-
johnwaynee (12/14/2015) [-] Please don't EVER buy a firearm if this doesn't make sense to you. It's just common sense. Like how you shouldn't ever walk directly behind a horse, even if it's a friendly horse it's not worth the risk of getting kicked/shot
Pic unrelated
Pic unrelated
#2
-
chuchiereaper (12/13/2015) [-] I have a question, why are they wearing gas mask inside a tank in the 5th one?
#3 to #2
-
strooz [OP](12/13/2015) [-] During Gunnery, there are different practice tables or courses that we have to qualify through. Each table has it's own objective or guidelines. In table III, we have to preform offensive engagements in Nuclear-Biological-Chemical (NBC)
conditions, and you have to wear gas masks.
conditions, and you have to wear gas masks.
#8 to #3
-
greyhoundfd (12/13/2015) [-] I would also think that firing the shell would release some of the gas into the crew cabin, and in high concentrations it might become toxic. You'd probably have to wear a gas mask in those cases.
#57 to #8
-
necrova ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] It does create toxic gas when firing, WWII tank crews had to deal with breathing it in until that thing on the middle of the cannon barrel was invented, when firing it sucks the gas in and blows it out the end of the barrel instead of it entering the fighting compartment after firing the main gun.
#71 to #57
-
strooz [OP](12/14/2015) [-] LoL, that's called the bore evacuator, and with the rounds we have you still take in the gas. Which happens to smell slightly like a fart if I must say so. But I was taught that the bore evacuator prevented flare back into the turret from the breech so the rounds in storage don't cook off.
#4 to #3
-
chuchiereaper (12/13/2015) [-] Hmm interesting, I would have thoughts since newer tanks were built to withstand NBC attacks. Well guess i'm wrong, thanks I learned today.
#120 to #119
-
strooz [OP](12/14/2015) [-] What he's holding in his left hand is basically a safety for the main gun. When it's up it's ready to fire and when it's down it cannot be fired. When it's pressed down after firing it will open the breech, and when the round is inserted, the breech will automatically come up. In the video he tries to help raise the breech since it was having troubles coming up, probably because it was an older A1.
#23
-
presidentmoose (12/14/2015) [-] this was 100% for sure the most badass comp I've seen. I wish I could give you more than one thumb
#21 to #12
-
hitlerwasreich (12/14/2015) [-]
I gotchu fam.
Basically, going supersonic is something traditionally only accomplished at higher altitudes, as the decreased air density means it's both easier and safer to do so. This is because the plane has to push a far reduced amount of air particles out of it's way, creating less drag and friction.
SO, in going above the speed of sound at near sea-level altitudes where the air pressure is 1atm (or 760mmHg), the pilot has created a metric ******** of stress on his plane that it's not intended to endure, causing a critical structural failure and resulting in his death.
tl;dr pilot go too fast near water make big boom
In this particular incident, he was showing off to his buddies on the deck without supervision approval, because they definitely would have said no.
Sauce: I'm an F-16 mechanic and we learned about this particular incident in tech school.
Basically, going supersonic is something traditionally only accomplished at higher altitudes, as the decreased air density means it's both easier and safer to do so. This is because the plane has to push a far reduced amount of air particles out of it's way, creating less drag and friction.
SO, in going above the speed of sound at near sea-level altitudes where the air pressure is 1atm (or 760mmHg), the pilot has created a metric ******** of stress on his plane that it's not intended to endure, causing a critical structural failure and resulting in his death.
tl;dr pilot go too fast near water make big boom
In this particular incident, he was showing off to his buddies on the deck without supervision approval, because they definitely would have said no.
Sauce: I'm an F-16 mechanic and we learned about this particular incident in tech school.
#26 to #24
-
hitlerwasreich (12/14/2015) [-]
I'm guard going through school right now, but stationed at Andrews
#61 to #29
-
spetsnaztm (12/14/2015) [-]
I've always thought that if I joined the military, I'd want to go into tank school.
Is there anything that I should know? Did you choose to do it or were you put there?
Is there anything that I should know? Did you choose to do it or were you put there?
#69 to #61
-
strooz [OP](12/14/2015) [-] It depends, if you're enlisting in America then you can choose your job (MOS). You typically wont have a choice over your first duty station. In America they are downsizing us and all of us tankers are being reassigned to scouts and infantry if we re-enlist. But if you plan to enlist ask around and talk to people who've been in and see if it's actually what you're up for. All of the stuff you see on TV or youtube videos almost never happens.
But besides that, yes tanks are cool as **** and if you really want to do it, then go for it. Don't let your dreams be memes.
But besides that, yes tanks are cool as **** and if you really want to do it, then go for it. Don't let your dreams be memes.
#96 to #21
-
elsanna (12/14/2015) [-] Military aircraft are designed to go supersonic at low altitude, they have been doing it for 50 years.
He had an engine compression failure, unrelated to his velocity. He may have been pushing his engines too hard, but that's unrelated to his speed.
Both the pilot and his RIO ejected safely and survived. You can clearly hear "TWO PARACHUTES" being shouted by the crew of the USS John Paul Jones.
He had an engine compression failure, unrelated to his velocity. He may have been pushing his engines too hard, but that's unrelated to his speed.
Both the pilot and his RIO ejected safely and survived. You can clearly hear "TWO PARACHUTES" being shouted by the crew of the USS John Paul Jones.
#59 to #21
-
oslikriko (12/14/2015) [-]
Na man. Pilot and RIO survived. And if remember correctly from a documentary I saw years back (I could be wrong because like I said years ago) they had actually had permission to go supersonic. Also, I am aware that it is extremely stressful on the air frame, but the Blue Angels go supersonic regularly at their shows and at very low altitudes. (I may be wrong about the Blue Angels doing it but I know it isn't unheard of to do it at low altitudes.)
#52 to #21
-
rockamekishiko (12/14/2015) [-] is there currently any jet that is suited to go supersonic at low altitude?
#41
-
everheat (12/14/2015) [-] I don't understand how people would enjoy seeing such destruction...
#72 to #41
-
masterboll (12/14/2015) [-] sociopathic tendencies and feelings of pwer gives people a buzz
its helped people survive for centuries, but now we are left with neckbeards and basement dwellers with the same emotional reactions who wouldnt be able to experience these things in the real world
its helped people survive for centuries, but now we are left with neckbeards and basement dwellers with the same emotional reactions who wouldnt be able to experience these things in the real world
#64
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-] I went shooting for the first time yesterday.
This is a .45 from 25 feet
This is a .45 from 25 feet
#93
-
ellojello (12/14/2015) [-]
Damn Abrams not using an autoloader. We need a proper new MBT... Nunna that Stryker ******** either.
#103 to #93
-
captanyonomus (12/14/2015) [-] The M1 was developed in the 80's, back when Autoloaders were inferior in just about every single aspect of performance. They were slow and had reliability issues, it's only really been in the past two decades that Autoloaders like those in the Leclerc and the T-90 have even reached parity with what a trained gunner was capable of then and still capable of today.
That said I wouldn't be surprised to see the next MBT possessing some kind of autoloader, granted I'd be very surprised to see a new MBT before 2040 given the development of the M1A3 and the likelihood that they'd rather just create an A4 upgrade after that to modernize rather than invest in something new.
That said I wouldn't be surprised to see the next MBT possessing some kind of autoloader, granted I'd be very surprised to see a new MBT before 2040 given the development of the M1A3 and the likelihood that they'd rather just create an A4 upgrade after that to modernize rather than invest in something new.
#106 to #103
-
ellojello (12/14/2015) [-]
I'm aware of the Abrams deployment date; but as you've already mentioned we've modernized it a bunch of times since then. I'm surprised an autoloader hasn't been put into one of those upgrades.
I agree with you, and even current autoloaders are still usually very slightly slower than a human loader; but this is only true when the tank is more or less level/stationary. Once you start gunning it over obstacles, human loaders essentially can't function; giving the machine loaders a huge advantage. On the modern battlefield where urban combat is common, including running over cars, an autoloader seems prudent.
And yeah, I agree, the current Congress-run military R&D is ******** . It's slow, more expensive despite the Congressman trying to "save money," and usually results in: (1) retrofits, (2) **** the military brass doesn't want, (3) **** the military brass doesn't need, (4) complete **** . Cite the Abrams for (1) and the F-35 project for (2-4).
I agree with you, and even current autoloaders are still usually very slightly slower than a human loader; but this is only true when the tank is more or less level/stationary. Once you start gunning it over obstacles, human loaders essentially can't function; giving the machine loaders a huge advantage. On the modern battlefield where urban combat is common, including running over cars, an autoloader seems prudent.
And yeah, I agree, the current Congress-run military R&D is ******** . It's slow, more expensive despite the Congressman trying to "save money," and usually results in: (1) retrofits, (2) **** the military brass doesn't want, (3) **** the military brass doesn't need, (4) complete **** . Cite the Abrams for (1) and the F-35 project for (2-4).
#108 to #106
-
captanyonomus (12/14/2015) [-] Abrahm's fits for number 2 and 3 too, IIRC Congress ordered up something like 2-3000 more M1A2's back in 2012-3 despite both the Army and Marines saying more or less that they wanted to invest in either other vehicles or wait til ~2020 when the M1A3's start rolling out.
I'd never actually considered the urban warfare benefits of having an Autoloader, it's a surprisingly compelling argument. I have to imagine that the reason an Autoloader never made it in was probably the aforementioned development costs, the cannon and turret would likely both need to be redesigned, if there was ever a time they could have done it it would have been the transition from the original 105mm's to the current 120mm but even still I can't actually think of a contemporary 120mm autoloader from the West from the late 80's Pretty sure that China had experimented a bit with autoloaded 120's by this point
I'd never actually considered the urban warfare benefits of having an Autoloader, it's a surprisingly compelling argument. I have to imagine that the reason an Autoloader never made it in was probably the aforementioned development costs, the cannon and turret would likely both need to be redesigned, if there was ever a time they could have done it it would have been the transition from the original 105mm's to the current 120mm but even still I can't actually think of a contemporary 120mm autoloader from the West from the late 80's Pretty sure that China had experimented a bit with autoloaded 120's by this point
#130 to #108
-
ellojello (12/14/2015) [-]
Yeah, Congress just recently ordered 80 more M1A3's too the brass didn't want. I was talking more about R&D though; the brass DID want a new MBT when the Abrams first went into development. But yes, if you count the continually increasing numbers of the Abrams tanks then it does fit into 2 and 3 as well.
And yes, it would take major retrofitting, but I'm sure it could be done. Of course, really we are to the point where we need a new MBT to combat the newest T series of Russia, the Leopard II of Germany, the Sun Panther of South Korea, etc. The Abrams is too old to catch up by retrofits anymore. I'm not sure when the first autoloaders started to see prime time though.
And yeah, even using it in desert combat is of some use, though not as much of an advantage. A big advantage the Abrams had in the Gulf was (aside from its infinitely superior main gun and targeting systems) its mobility; tank-on-tank battles were often settled at full speed. Rapidly changing direction at those speeds jostles the hell out of loaders too, slowing them down. Like I said, this isn't as big a deal as when you roll over cars and the like, but still slows them down. So really from all angles, now that the autoloaders have generally caught up in speed (and cost, if you consider the cost of paying, housing, and feeding an extra crewman; if you have ten Abrams, crew count goes from 40 to 30 and that's ten less beds and mouths and paychecks).
And yes, it would take major retrofitting, but I'm sure it could be done. Of course, really we are to the point where we need a new MBT to combat the newest T series of Russia, the Leopard II of Germany, the Sun Panther of South Korea, etc. The Abrams is too old to catch up by retrofits anymore. I'm not sure when the first autoloaders started to see prime time though.
And yeah, even using it in desert combat is of some use, though not as much of an advantage. A big advantage the Abrams had in the Gulf was (aside from its infinitely superior main gun and targeting systems) its mobility; tank-on-tank battles were often settled at full speed. Rapidly changing direction at those speeds jostles the hell out of loaders too, slowing them down. Like I said, this isn't as big a deal as when you roll over cars and the like, but still slows them down. So really from all angles, now that the autoloaders have generally caught up in speed (and cost, if you consider the cost of paying, housing, and feeding an extra crewman; if you have ten Abrams, crew count goes from 40 to 30 and that's ten less beds and mouths and paychecks).
#131 to #130
-
captanyonomus (12/15/2015) [-]
That's one thing I've still highly interested in, while the Leo 2A6 is in much the same state as the M1A2 and even more so the M1A3 Being still a product of the Cold War and only the most recent modernization , is seeing how the T-14 actually performs.
I've maintained for a while that if it proves superlative in combat it could easily kickstart German, British, and American tank designing of an actually modern generation MBT.
The K2 And for that matter the various MBT's of regional powers like Japan, Israel, China, really all the nations whom aren't operating watered down M1's or T-72 and Leo 2 variants are rather intriguing because none of them have really been tested in any significant combat and they're by and large all more modern than the MBTs of the world's more battle-tested powers.
It very well could be that even the M1A3 upgrade isn't nearly enough for the next decade and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Personally I'd be more interested in seeing the addition of GLATGM capabilities onto the existent M1 fleet than an autoloader addition but I can see the arguments against it. Who needs tank-killing missiles on a tank when your air force dwarfs that of any other nation.
I've maintained for a while that if it proves superlative in combat it could easily kickstart German, British, and American tank designing of an actually modern generation MBT.
The K2 And for that matter the various MBT's of regional powers like Japan, Israel, China, really all the nations whom aren't operating watered down M1's or T-72 and Leo 2 variants are rather intriguing because none of them have really been tested in any significant combat and they're by and large all more modern than the MBTs of the world's more battle-tested powers.
It very well could be that even the M1A3 upgrade isn't nearly enough for the next decade and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Personally I'd be more interested in seeing the addition of GLATGM capabilities onto the existent M1 fleet than an autoloader addition but I can see the arguments against it. Who needs tank-killing missiles on a tank when your air force dwarfs that of any other nation.
#133 to #131
-
ellojello (12/15/2015) [-]
Haha, yeah, rolling to war every 5-10 years does give the USA and the rest of the common coalition members (Britain, for example) an advantage in "battle testing" our gear, haha.
And I have faith the new Russian T's will act just like all the other T's, upper-middle performance for upper-low end pricing. They have just gotten to the point where the modern "upper-middle" competes with the 10-20 year old high-upper class. The USA has always dumped as much money as we needed into making something that is unparalleled, for better or worse. The Russians are a little more frugal, spending 20% of the money to get 80% of the way there.
And I agree, it will be interesting to see if it prompts us to get back on the MBT R&D. I'm interested, though, if we ever both to do so at all. The MBT is filling a smaller and smaller role as air power continues to grow; at least against the backwards ass countries we have been fighting. If we started fighting other superpowers with reasonable AA ability, who knows how that would change the role of the MBT.
And I have faith the new Russian T's will act just like all the other T's, upper-middle performance for upper-low end pricing. They have just gotten to the point where the modern "upper-middle" competes with the 10-20 year old high-upper class. The USA has always dumped as much money as we needed into making something that is unparalleled, for better or worse. The Russians are a little more frugal, spending 20% of the money to get 80% of the way there.
And I agree, it will be interesting to see if it prompts us to get back on the MBT R&D. I'm interested, though, if we ever both to do so at all. The MBT is filling a smaller and smaller role as air power continues to grow; at least against the backwards ass countries we have been fighting. If we started fighting other superpowers with reasonable AA ability, who knows how that would change the role of the MBT.
#136 to #133
-
captanyonomus (12/15/2015) [-] I have to agree, the first decade of the 2000's was dominated by large powers trying to wage conventional war in a modified-for-the-situation Cold War AirLand Battle style doctrine against unconventional forces and as proven by the various 'Urban Assault' kits Like the M1A2's TUSK or that T-72B upgrade pack Russia has been marketing for a lil while now, can't remember what it's called. that have been developed. It'll be interesting to see how if this becomes the standard for 21st century warfare and then what will happen when a conventional war against evenly matched nations breaks out.
I have to say though, the T-14 looks so 'Un-Russian' for lack of a better term, it's design seems heavily influenced by more traditional Western design principles. I have to wonder if when the time comes to market them they'll be on a more 'Western' price scale and if they'll just keep pumping out T-72 variants for export while keeping the T-14's more domestic like what was done in the Soviet era with the T-64 and T-80 lines.
This is kinda odd to say, but because of where I am, a very liberal College campus, I rarely get to 'geek' out about the various military and arms related things that interest me. It was great to be able to shoot the **** a bit with someone who seems to have some of the same interests.
I have to say though, the T-14 looks so 'Un-Russian' for lack of a better term, it's design seems heavily influenced by more traditional Western design principles. I have to wonder if when the time comes to market them they'll be on a more 'Western' price scale and if they'll just keep pumping out T-72 variants for export while keeping the T-14's more domestic like what was done in the Soviet era with the T-64 and T-80 lines.
This is kinda odd to say, but because of where I am, a very liberal College campus, I rarely get to 'geek' out about the various military and arms related things that interest me. It was great to be able to shoot the **** a bit with someone who seems to have some of the same interests.
#137 to #136
-
ellojello (12/15/2015) [-]
I'm just glad whenever I can get 3-4 comments down a thread and not have the conversation/argument devolve into name-calling and trolling.
I read an article recently talking about the development cost of the T-14, and about how it was as I described. The 20% of the cost for 80% of the gain. While it is much more advanced than the old T series and shows a huge break from the conventional " **** the troops, let 'em die" Russian mentality; I think this is largely due to what I described previously. Just like computers aging (which happens much faster, obviously), the "advanced Western technology" has finally gotten old enough to be the readily achievable standard today.
Although, really, as much as I am a fan of military tech; as I said already I think the tank is playing a smaller and smaller role. I'm just hoping the USA keeps its fleet (and the aircraft on it) technologically ahead of our time.
I read an article recently talking about the development cost of the T-14, and about how it was as I described. The 20% of the cost for 80% of the gain. While it is much more advanced than the old T series and shows a huge break from the conventional " **** the troops, let 'em die" Russian mentality; I think this is largely due to what I described previously. Just like computers aging (which happens much faster, obviously), the "advanced Western technology" has finally gotten old enough to be the readily achievable standard today.
Although, really, as much as I am a fan of military tech; as I said already I think the tank is playing a smaller and smaller role. I'm just hoping the USA keeps its fleet (and the aircraft on it) technologically ahead of our time.
![[FORUM WEAPON] Bitches Love Cannons!](https://img.youtube.com/vi/o3vO7n8-9v0/default.jpg)
#114
-
kingdaniel (12/14/2015) [-] Whats the story behind this? an American anti tank missle vs a soviet tank?
So I'm guessing Americans vs some Sand people army/terrorist?
Strooz
So I'm guessing Americans vs some Sand people army/terrorist?
Strooz
#116 to #114
-
strooz [OP](12/14/2015) [-] When we sold ATGMs and TOW missiles to the middle eastern country's armys, we made it a requirement that they film the use of each one and send it back to us so we can keep record of how they're being used.
All I know about this one is that it was a T-55 Struck by an ATGM in Benghazi.
All I know about this one is that it was a T-55 Struck by an ATGM in Benghazi.
#125 to #114
-
actionmastermegatr (12/14/2015) [-] The Americans and the Gulf States basically handed out TOWs to Syrian rebels like candy, TOW videos are probably the hottest social media craze to ever hit Syria.
#83
-
derpish ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] that slow-mo explosion was fracking awesome. ive always wanted to see that kinda stuff.. more nukes in slow-mo!
#13
-
walcorn (12/14/2015) [-] If that rolling tank had landed right-side-up, it'd have been a pretty ******* awesome move
#66 to #13
-
xzayviaaeyeres ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
Just made me think of rallycross and how awesome it would be with tanks
#128
-
spoperman (12/14/2015) [-] I love anything Nuclear Bomb related and if you guys do as well, I'd totally recommend watching Trinity and Beyond. Its a really good documentary on Atomic Weapons and the music during most of the detonations is ******* epic.
Also narrated by Captain Kirk so yeah
Full movie if ya want but piratebay has the better quality version
(39:55 is a good starting point if you just want to see the 'splosions)
Also narrated by Captain Kirk so yeah
Full movie if ya want but piratebay has the better quality version
(39:55 is a good starting point if you just want to see the 'splosions)
