OT Kinetic Energy Weapons

That would have been fairly impressive in the original non-reversed version. Wonder why they thought it necessary to fake it?

ote:

rote:

ntry platoon could wipe out an entire medieval army.

eval army would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up walls the the riflemen couldn't shoot through, then bombard them with trenchbuts unti l they were either flattened or had starved to death.

h troops armed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show up on e platoon at a time.

of weapons, and a range of tactical situations.

ic weapons positions.

John Monash is idolised in Australia as a WW1 general who finally managed t o work out how to deal with entrenched machine guns, but only when he had s ome primitive tanks to play with.

can't continue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for having w eapons with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

if you can't see them, you can't shoot them. You can still drop artillery shells on them, but it pays to drop them where there are people to get dama ged by them.

sed against you. It gives you time to cut them all down before they get you within range of their weapons.

f you mass your troops on the other side of a hill the enemy can't see them or shoot at them

Visibility works the same way in any era.

he day would be cut to shreds by a WW2 era infantry platoon, without assist ance from artillery or the air.

shreds, and worked out how to get at the platoon without offering them any easy targets. Sneaking up on them in the middle of the night and cutting t heir throats might work. The Japanese did a bit of that in New Guinea in WW

1. They had perfectly good guns, but they are noisy.

dership.

The infiltration was by individual soldiers. Once they'd killed their singl e target they did go back where they'd come from - it wasn't used for mass attacks. Quite a few of them died trying, but if you have a couple of thous and soldiers to launch at platoon of thirty people, you don't have to succe ed all that often to kill every last member of the platoon.

of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and per haps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defeated them.

Clearly. They were utterly defeated. The Zulu's probably could have devise d a better attack - frontal attack in daylight wasn't all that clever, but it was good enough.

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Here it is:

For fun, I believe.

Best regards, Piotr

e:

te:

fantry platoon could wipe out an entire medieval army.

dieval army would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up walls th e the riflemen couldn't shoot through, then bombard them with trenchbuts un til they were either flattened or had starved to death.

ish troops armed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show up one platoon at a time.

y of weapons, and a range of tactical situations.

atic weapons positions.

r John Monash is idolised in Australia as a WW1 general who finally managed to work out how to deal with entrenched machine guns, but only when he had some primitive tanks to play with.

s can't continue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for having weapons with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

- if you can't see them, you can't shoot them. You can still drop artiller y shells on them, but it pays to drop them where there are people to get da maged by them.

assed against you. It gives you time to cut them all down before they get y ou within range of their weapons.

If you mass your troops on the other side of a hill the enemy can't see th em or shoot at them

the day would be cut to shreds by a WW2 era infantry platoon, without assi stance from artillery or the air.

to shreds, and worked out how to get at the platoon without offering them a ny easy targets. Sneaking up on them in the middle of the night and cutting their throats might work. The Japanese did a bit of that in New Guinea in WW2. They had perfectly good guns, but they are noisy.

eadership.

gle target they did go back where they'd come from - it wasn't used for mas s attacks. Quite a few of them died trying, but if you have a couple of tho usand soldiers to launch at platoon of thirty people, you don't have to suc ceed all that often to kill every last member of the platoon.

ut of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and p erhaps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defeated the m.

ed a better attack - frontal attack in daylight wasn't all that clever, but it was good enough.

As usual, after they got a bunch of people killed for nothing, they develop ed a serious weapon specifically for this kind of warfare

You keep saying the physics of this over-glorified rubber band thing is so interesting, yet you don't mention a scrap of it.

te:

ote:

rote:

infantry platoon could wipe out an entire medieval army.

medieval army would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up walls the the riflemen couldn't shoot through, then bombard them with trenchbuts until they were either flattened or had starved to death.

glish troops armed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show u p one platoon at a time.

ety of weapons, and a range of tactical situations.

omatic weapons positions.

Sir John Monash is idolised in Australia as a WW1 general who finally manag ed to work out how to deal with entrenched machine guns, but only when he h ad some primitive tanks to play with.

ops can't continue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for havi ng weapons with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

in - if you can't see them, you can't shoot them. You can still drop artill ery shells on them, but it pays to drop them where there are people to get damaged by them.

massed against you. It gives you time to cut them all down before they get you within range of their weapons.

s. If you mass your troops on the other side of a hill the enemy can't see them or shoot at them

or the day would be cut to shreds by a WW2 era infantry platoon, without as sistance from artillery or the air.

t to shreds, and worked out how to get at the platoon without offering them any easy targets. Sneaking up on them in the middle of the night and cutti ng their throats might work. The Japanese did a bit of that in New Guinea i n WW2. They had perfectly good guns, but they are noisy.

leadership.

ingle target they did go back where they'd come from - it wasn't used for m ass attacks. Quite a few of them died trying, but if you have a couple of t housand soldiers to launch at platoon of thirty people, you don't have to s ucceed all that often to kill every last member of the platoon.

r.

out of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and perhaps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defeated t hem.

ised a better attack - frontal attack in daylight wasn't all that clever, b ut it was good enough.

oped a serious weapon specifically for this kind of warfare

Hiram Maxim invented and developed it as a private venture . It wasn't the first rapid-firing gun, but it turned out to be a lot more reliable than an y of it's predecessors. It still jammed from time to time, but not all that often. The military were reluctant to rely on it - the intimidating effect goes away when the gun jams and stops firing, and it was a bit too big, he avy and expensive to be used in number.

rote:

a infantry platoon could wipe out an entire medieval army.

e medieval army would probably surround them, dig ditches and throw up wall s the the riflemen couldn't shoot through, then bombard them with trenchbut s until they were either flattened or had starved to death.

English troops armed with tolerably modern rifles. Modern armies don't show up one platoon at a time.

riety of weapons, and a range of tactical situations.

utomatic weapons positions.

. Sir John Monash is idolised in Australia as a WW1 general who finally man aged to work out how to deal with entrenched machine guns, but only when he had some primitive tanks to play with.

roops can't continue towards the objective. There's a lot to be said for ha ving weapons with 10x the range of the opposing force too.

g in - if you can't see them, you can't shoot them. You can still drop arti llery shells on them, but it pays to drop them where there are people to ge t damaged by them.

is massed against you. It gives you time to cut them all down before they g et you within range of their weapons.

pes. If you mass your troops on the other side of a hill the enemy can't se e them or shoot at them

for the day would be cut to shreds by a WW2 era infantry platoon, without assistance from artillery or the air.

cut to shreds, and worked out how to get at the platoon without offering th em any easy targets. Sneaking up on them in the middle of the night and cut ting their throats might work. The Japanese did a bit of that in New Guinea in WW2. They had perfectly good guns, but they are noisy.

ir leadership.

single target they did go back where they'd come from - it wasn't used for mass attacks. Quite a few of them died trying, but if you have a couple of thousand soldiers to launch at platoon of thirty people, you don't have to succeed all that often to kill every last member of the platoon.

der.

ps out of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troops a nd perhaps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defeated them.

evised a better attack - frontal attack in daylight wasn't all that clever, but it was good enough.

eloped a serious weapon specifically for this kind of warfare

e first rapid-firing gun, but it turned out to be a lot more reliable than any of it's predecessors. It still jammed from time to time, but not all th at often. The military were reluctant to rely on it - the intimidating effe ct goes away when the gun jams and stops firing, and it was a bit too big, heavy and expensive to be used in number.

You're not talking about the gun, you're talking about the British. Don't e xpect much out of them. The gun just doesn't jam and stop firing for no rea son. There's a reason for that, things like excessive residue build-up from crap gunpowder, or pieces over expanding due to heat in a poorly designed mechanism. This era was not far removed from the recently introduced develo pment of interchangeable parts for firearms. If you want an excellent gun, give it to the Germans. and let them perfect it. Germans also realized, and the British proved time and again, the best weapon in the world is a piece of crap if it doesn't have a developed tactical doctrine for its use, the two go hand in hand.

te:

te:

ruder.

oops out of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and perhaps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defeat ed them.

devised a better attack - frontal attack in daylight wasn't all that cleve r, but it was good enough.

eveloped a serious weapon specifically for this kind of warfare

the first rapid-firing gun, but it turned out to be a lot more reliable tha n any of it's predecessors. It still jammed from time to time, but not all that often. The military were reluctant to rely on it - the intimidating ef fect goes away when the gun jams and stops firing, and it was a bit too big , heavy and expensive to be used in number.

expect much out of them. The gun just doesn't jam and stop firing for no r eason. There's a reason for that, things like excessive residue build-up fr om crap gunpowder, or pieces over expanding due to heat in a poorly designe d mechanism.

The Maxim gun jammed a whole lot less often that it's rivals, and was clear ly better designed than the competition. Metallurgy has come on a bit since then, but burning successive chunk of self-oxidising material in the same breech does create problems that aren't that easy to solve.

interchangeable parts for firearms. If you want an excellent gun, give it to the Germans. and let them perfect it.

The AK-47 seems to be more popular than it's German equivalent.

eapon in the world is a piece of crap if it doesn't have a developed tactic al doctrine for its use, the two go hand in hand.

Curious that the British tactical doctrine stopped communist insurgence in Malaysia, but didn't work when the Americans tried to apply it in Vietnam.

rote:

rote:

cruder.

troops out of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troo ps and perhaps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defe ated them.

ve devised a better attack - frontal attack in daylight wasn't all that cle ver, but it was good enough.

developed a serious weapon specifically for this kind of warfare

t the first rapid-firing gun, but it turned out to be a lot more reliable t han any of it's predecessors. It still jammed from time to time, but not al l that often. The military were reluctant to rely on it - the intimidating effect goes away when the gun jams and stops firing, and it was a bit too b ig, heavy and expensive to be used in number.

't expect much out of them. The gun just doesn't jam and stop firing for no reason. There's a reason for that, things like excessive residue build-up from crap gunpowder, or pieces over expanding due to heat in a poorly desig ned mechanism.

arly better designed than the competition. Metallurgy has come on a bit sin ce then, but burning successive chunk of self-oxidising material in the sam e breech does create problems that aren't that easy to solve.

f interchangeable parts for firearms. If you want an excellent gun, give it to the Germans. and let them perfect it.

The German equivalent is the G36 chambered for 5.56 x 45 mm:

Even the Soviets dropped the AK-47. It was okay in its day, 75 years ago, b ut no more. Here's the reason for its popularity:

Leave it to you to endorse a low quality ghetto weapon of low performance.

weapon in the world is a piece of crap if it doesn't have a developed tacti cal doctrine for its use, the two go hand in hand.

n Malaysia, but didn't work when the Americans tried to apply it in Vietnam .

Not familiar with the details but I'm certain you're wrong :-) So won't bot her to look it up.

e:

it cruder.

h troops out of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native tr oops and perhaps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly de feated them.

have devised a better attack - frontal attack in daylight wasn't all that c lever, but it was good enough.

ey developed a serious weapon specifically for this kind of warfare

n't the first rapid-firing gun, but it turned out to be a lot more reliable than any of it's predecessors. It still jammed from time to time, but not all that often. The military were reluctant to rely on it - the intimidatin g effect goes away when the gun jams and stops firing, and it was a bit too big, heavy and expensive to be used in number.

on't expect much out of them. The gun just doesn't jam and stop firing for no reason. There's a reason for that, things like excessive residue build-u p from crap gunpowder, or pieces over expanding due to heat in a poorly des igned mechanism.

learly better designed than the competition. Metallurgy has come on a bit s ince then, but burning successive chunk of self-oxidising material in the s ame breech does create problems that aren't that easy to solve.

of interchangeable parts for firearms. If you want an excellent gun, give it to the Germans. and let them perfect it.

but it seems to have been dropped.

but no more. Here's the reason for its popularity:

It is cheap to make, but the performace is adequate.

t weapon in the world is a piece of crap if it doesn't have a developed tac tical doctrine for its use, the two go hand in hand.

in Malaysia, but didn't work when the Americans tried to apply it in Vietn am.

other to look it up.

Americans do take that attitude, these days. The Communist insurgents in Ma laysia had to cope with longer supply lines than the Viet Cong, and once th e South Vietnamese government had been replaced in a US-backed military cou

?m regime which it replaced.

The general opinion at the time was that British had done an exemplary job in Malaysia, and that the US hadn't been able to make their approach work in Vietnam - they certainly tried to copy some features of the British appr oach, but couldn't make them work well enough to be useful.

te:

te:

ote:

bit cruder.

ish troops out of a force consisting of 1,800 British, colonial and native troops and perhaps 400 civilians (rather more than a platoon), and utterly defeated them.

d have devised a better attack - frontal attack in daylight wasn't all that clever, but it was good enough.

they developed a serious weapon specifically for this kind of warfare

asn't the first rapid-firing gun, but it turned out to be a lot more reliab le than any of it's predecessors. It still jammed from time to time, but no t all that often. The military were reluctant to rely on it - the intimidat ing effect goes away when the gun jams and stops firing, and it was a bit t oo big, heavy and expensive to be used in number.

Don't expect much out of them. The gun just doesn't jam and stop firing fo r no reason. There's a reason for that, things like excessive residue build

-up from crap gunpowder, or pieces over expanding due to heat in a poorly d esigned mechanism.

clearly better designed than the competition. Metallurgy has come on a bit since then, but burning successive chunk of self-oxidising material in the same breech does create problems that aren't that easy to solve.

nt of interchangeable parts for firearms. If you want an excellent gun, giv e it to the Germans. and let them perfect it.

It's still in service after 24 years, but as usual there's a lot of politi cal wrangling to replace it with an even better weapon, this one:

o, but no more. Here's the reason for its popularity:

ce.

The people using the AK-47 are more or less rabble.

est weapon in the world is a piece of crap if it doesn't have a developed t actical doctrine for its use, the two go hand in hand.

ce in Malaysia, but didn't work when the Americans tried to apply it in Vie tnam.

bother to look it up.

Malaysia had to cope with longer supply lines than the Viet Cong, and once the South Vietnamese government had been replaced in a US-backed military c

??m regime which it replaced.

b in Malaysia, and that the US hadn't been able to make their approach work in Vietnam - they certainly tried to copy some features of the British app roach, but couldn't make them work well enough to be useful.

U.S. screws everything up. It's a case study in ignorance, waste, corruptio n and extreme incompetence.

Here's a video debunking the apocryphal bs about the AK-47 still working after being submerged in mud.

Fred Bloggs wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

A real gun precision engineered by the Germans:

The AK-47 stops operating when the shooter is cut in half.