Unique Military Weapons

[Easy 6]

Cant recall ever seeing a thread on this topic so i thought it was time we had one... this thread is dedicated to military weaponry of any kind, from any era or nation.

There is a seemingly endless array of novel, fascinating, revolutionary or even ill-fated hardware out there so subject material shouldnt be a problem.

First entry coming up shortly...

[Easy 6]

So Aries, you wrote "Run For Your Life, John Colter"... ?

http://www.historynuggets.com/nugget...fe-john-colter

I've read more about the wild west than anything else by a huge margin, its my favorite subject of all time... the first book I ever read of my own will was a huge, totally for adults tome about Lewis and Clark

It inspired my lifelong fascination with the Old West

And of all the untold number of stories I've ever read on the subject, this tale of John Colter is quite possibly the most well written saga of badassery I've ever heard of... absolutely fascinating

I dont doubt his story, even if he was the only one to tell it... crazed derring do by rugged figures like himself is what made the west what it was

Excellent work Aries, could feel my heart racing just thinking about his scared shitless flight from the Blackfoot... he is so lucky one of the cooler heads prevailed to give him a head start

[Aries Walker]

Thank you! As soon as I heard the skeleton of his story, I knew I had to write it. And yes, it might have been embellished or telephone-gamed, but I did my best to omit the parts of the story except those which appeared in multiple tellings, and then included the disclaimer. Sometimes that's the best historians can do.

I also did my best to describe the terrain; I've never been to Montana, but I really should go. My family is related to Meriwether Lewis (my sister's middle name is Meriwether), and I really should get out there one of these days to see the land personally.

I very much appreciate the compliment! I have some ideas for what's next, and as long as work and/or taking care of my Dad don't hamper my trajectory, I should be able to get going with it again, so watch this space.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Thank you! As soon as I heard the skeleton of his story, I knew I had to write it. And yes, it might have been embellished or telephone-gamed, but I did my best to omit the parts of the story except those which appeared in multiple tellings, and then included the disclaimer. Sometimes that's the best historians can do.

I also did my best to describe the terrain; I've never been to Montana, but I really should go. My family is related to Meriwether Lewis (my sister's middle name is Meriwether), and I really should get out there one of these days to see the land personally.

I very much appreciate the compliment! I have some ideas for what's next, and as long as work and/or taking care of my Dad don't hamper my trajectory, I should be able to get going with it again, so watch this space.

I will definitely be adding more of your work to this thread, thanks for reminding me about your site by posting the fire balloon story

[Easy 6]

What is going on with the Brits main battle rifle, Donger?

It really is an awkward looking weapon, it appears to have the ergonomics of a brick to go along with other problems

https://warisboring.com/maybe-this-u...ff7#.drpu558m5

[Discuss Thrower]

As much as everyone hates the F-35 because of the lifetime sticker cost...

How big of an advantage will it be to have considering the plane + the augmented reality helmet the pilot wears + a duo or trio of autonomous drones that are under the pilot's command?

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

As much as everyone hates the F-35 because of the lifetime sticker cost...

How big of an advantage will it be to have considering the plane + the augmented reality helmet the pilot wears + a duo or trio of autonomous drones that are under the pilot's command?

The more I read, the clearer it becomes that costs will fall as they refine their production methods

And oh yeah, imagine each pilot commanding a swarm of armed stealth drones like this, able to send them into the worst danger areas or use them as decoys

https://www.google.com/search?q=stea...NyRVUOm_WlM%3A

Its an idea they've been working on for years, so it will be a reality in short order no doubt

http://www.defensetech.org/2015/05/2...flying-drones/

[Easy 6]

Watch the USS Jackson undergo a shock trial by cruising past a 10,000 pound explosive blast

[FlintHillsChiefs]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

The more I read, the clearer it becomes that costs will fall as they refine their production methods

And oh yeah, imagine each pilot commanding a swarm of armed stealth drones like this, able to send them into the worst danger areas or use them as decoys

https://www.google.com/search?q=stea...NyRVUOm_WlM%3A

Its an idea they've been working on for years, so it will be a reality in short order no doubt

http://www.defensetech.org/2015/05/2...flying-drones/

We need to stop building manned planes.

AI is already kicking the teeth in on highly trained fighter pilots.

Aircraft are already limited by what the human body can withstand. If they could design an aircraft that doesn't have to protect a human body, you'll get a lighter, faster, and way more nimble air combat platform. The article states that the AI ALPHA can already map out optimal combat tactics for 4 aircraft 250 times faster than the blink of a human eye.

http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks...res/alpha.html

[Discuss Thrower]

Yeah, no. The fewer AI we equip with thousands of pounds of ammunition, the better.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by FlintHillsChiefs

We need to stop building manned planes.

AI is already kicking the teeth in on highly trained fighter pilots.

Aircraft are already limited by what the human body can withstand. If they could design an aircraft that doesn't have to protect a human body, you'll get a lighter, faster, and way more nimble air combat platform. The article states that the AI ALPHA can already map out optimal combat tactics for 4 aircraft 250 times faster than the blink of a human eye.

http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks...res/alpha.html

Fish posted an article about this exact thing in the Science is Cool thread the other day, I read the article and have to admit... it sounds extremely impressive

That top gun Colonel went home beaten, sweaty and spent

Maybe its arrogance or hubris, but it still seems to me that nothing quite replicates a human being... as good as AI might be in a simulator, I still prefer to not only have a "man in the loop", but a man controlling/overseeing things from a high, nearby perch

The purely technical aspects, the AI matching him move for move, anticipating everything he did sounded genuinely awe inspiring... yet the battlespace is more complicated than ever, just cant help feeling that AI must ultimately be controlled by a man... or else it will control us

But ultimately you're right, like it or not... robots are the future

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5383/4347306/

[Easy 6]

Our new B-21 stealth bomber now has a name

http://www.scout.com/military/warrio...er-b-21-raider

Just a hunch, but I'm willing to bet the wings arent going to be so pronounced... the flight control technology is surely in place by now to enable clipping them quite a bit to reduce the rcs

Cant wait to see the real deal and not just an artists rendering, it will be an awesome sight... no doubt

[2112]

How about that Zumwalt class destroyer? badass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

[2112]

Originally Posted by D2112

How about that Zumwalt class destroyer? badass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

2 × 155 mm (6 in)/62 caliber Advanced Gun System; 920 × 155 mm rounds,

I think thats the new rail gun

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by D2112

How about that Zumwalt class destroyer? badass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

Post 214 last page

But many thanks for chiming in, railguns are definitely the future

[notorious]

I have a lot of knowledge of military hardware, but I have never heard of the Soviet Type 279 Tank



http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...-failure-17995

Why Russia's Cold War Monster Tank Was 60 Tons of Total Failure


Robert Beckhusen

October 10, 2016


In a war that never happened, formations of heavy and rather odd-looking Soviet tanks would have powered through atomic explosions in breakthrough attacks into West Germany.

Enter the Object 279 tank, a curious oddity from the late 1950s which was obsolete — despite its design principles deliberately reflecting the fear of a nuclear battlefield — by the time it was produced.

It was certainly not a success, as the Soviet Union only manufactured a handful of prototypes.

But the fact that it appeared at all is indicative of an obsession among a small number of Red Army military planners dating back to World War II. As the Nazis and Soviets battled for hegemony, both sides fielded increasingly heavier tanks — with bigger guns — which could absorb fire while destroying their heavily-armored enemies at long range.

Medium tanks, such as the legendary T-34, would ultimately pioneer the main battle tanks which armies deploy today. However, the Kremlin continued building thousands of heavy tanks into the 1960s until Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev effectively put a stop to it.

The Object 279 was part of this tradition.

The Object 279’s most visible features include the sharp, saucer-shaped chassis and four distinct, enormous tracks. The latter was to give the 60-ton tank more traction in difficult or soft terrain, always a problem for heavier tanks prone to bogging down. A 1,000-horsepower engine powered the beast.

The design’s obvious downside? One could only imagine the difficulty repairing the two inner tracks running underneath the chassis’ belly, let alone the complex transmission. Equally bizarre is the shape of the chassis to protect the vehicle and its four crew members from shock waves generated by an exploding nuclear bomb.

The Object 279 came with serious armor — 319 millimeters thick in the turret and 269 millimeters at the thickest point in the hull, significantly greater than the far more widespread T-72 which entered service in the 1970s.

An impressive, stabilized 130-millimeter rifled cannon and 14.5 millimeter machine gun rounded out the turret.

But the quad-tracked juggernaut’s technical specifications are somewhat moot, as the prototypes came at the worst possible time.

Back up. During World War II, the Soviets refined their heavy tank designs, culminating in the IS-2 — an intimidating and impressive vehicle which entered service in 1944. IS-2s most notably spearheaded the Red Army assault into Berlin, blasting German Tiger tanks and reducing fortified positions into rubble.

The success of the IS-2 was never replicated again in a Soviet heavy tank. A follow-up, the IS-3, was a nightmare to maintain and underwent near constant upgrades to resolve numerous design problems in the welding and wheel bearings.

“Even in 1946 a committee was formed to fix the problems of what had become the flagship Soviet tank, and to prevent Western intelligence agencies from finding out how bad the tank really was,” Stephen Sewell wrote in a 2002 edition of Armor magazine.

“Militarily the IS-3 offered little more than propaganda value, as it was an embarrassment and seldom offered to Soviet allies.”

When the IS-3 did find itself outside the USSR, it rarely saw combat. Protesters during the 1956 Hungarian uprising destroyed a few, and the Israelis annihilated dozens of them in Egyptian service in 1967.

The IS-4 hardly fared better, and another tank called the T-10 endured a torturous development period as capable medium tanks such as the T-55 and the soon-to-come T-64 competed for budget dollars.

In reality, classic heavy tanks stopped making sense by the mid-1950s. Speedy, maneuverable and reliable tanks — with new high-powered guns — would win the wars of the future. Devastating guided missiles capable of punching through heavy armor had also begun entering service.

Khrushchev, who loved missiles, had enough of the Soviet army’s penchant for heavy tanks.

“If tanks were going to remain, they must fire missiles and use a drum-canister inside the tank for storage. [Tank designer L.N.] Kartsev argued that this was a dumb idea, and that the USSR was more likely to need gun tanks than missiles,” Sewell wrote, referencing a 1960 conversation between the two men.

“While he and Khrushchev argued, it was apparent that Khrushchev was listening to him. But after seeing the old-fashioned T-10, Khrushchev was adamant: no more heavy tanks.”

The Object 279 died with them. But in an irony which its designers would have appreciated, today’s main battle tanks — what were once medium tanks — have grown a lot heavier.