Interesting Military Facts & Stories You Discovered

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
During the Falklands War an Argentine Pilot and Squadron Leader Mario Jorge Caffaratti refused repeated orders to strike at the SS Uganda, a marked British Hospital Ship.



Later though he did manage to take part in the attack that resulted in the sinking of the RFA Sir Galahad, a logistics landing ship, in the Raid on Bluff Cove.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
149mm Ansaldo Italian Army Howitzer located on a ridge above the Adamello Glacier. Apparently the position has been located there for over a century. Italy's border defenses are clearly bordering on obsolescence... but I guess it's not that big of a concern since such positions will be of limited use once the Italians march north across the Rhaetian Alps to liberate Austria.



The thread actually has some random factoids and anecdotes about the Italian Army operations related to those guns still located thousands of meters up in the Alps, such as the use of dogsled teams to move ammunition up to said locations!

Not sure the particular model, but seems like one of the heavier Cannones!


 

Typhonis

Well-known member
The M16 was basically sabotaged by the Army because they liked the M-14 better. Why else would they not chrome the barrels, Army reason to save money. Change the powder type being used, Army Reason they claimed to have tons of the dirtier burning powder. Lastly not issue a single cleaning kit because the gun did not need cleaning, even though Army regulations stated they had to be cleaned.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
AR 10 was sabatoged.
AR 15 was a request on behalf of the AF
The sad thing was that the M16 was a victim of the Cult of the Rifle, no more and no less. Until the 1980s, the US upper echelons were deep into the Rifle Cult. It's why the 0.280 British got canned despite being better than a 0.30cal in general (and the skullduggery that went into that is only recently coming to the surface). The 6.8mm is only here because armor finally caught up and has proliferated quite readily (in Afghanistan, 5.56mm resistant armor was showing up en mass, though only the veterans were assigned armor).
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
AP rounds van go through armor with 5.56
Yeah, but they lose a lot of their anti-infantry potential in doing so, and that is the stuff that is readily available as well.

The funny thing is that we're getting into an interesting time in armor, where the only way to penetrate new armor is bigger.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Yeah, but they lose a lot of their anti-infantry potential in doing so, and that is the stuff that is readily available as well.

The funny thing is that we're getting into an interesting time in armor, where the only way to penetrate new armor is bigger.
Except not really, becuae any rounds that go through the armor will be spalling and spinning causing massive damage
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
The sad thing was that the M16 was a victim of the Cult of the Rifle, no more and no less. Until the 1980s, the US upper echelons were deep into the Rifle Cult. It's why the 0.280 British got canned despite being better than a 0.30cal in general (and the skullduggery that went into that is only recently coming to the surface). The 6.8mm is only here because armor finally caught up and has proliferated quite readily (in Afghanistan, 5.56mm resistant armor was showing up en mass, though only the veterans were assigned armor).
Back in 1960 it was impossible to say how long until such armor will become practical and common, and if the rounds will still be around by then.

Wouldn't be so sure about .280 being straight out better. Looking at dimensions (7.2x43) and stats its a little spicier 7.62x39, and we know that in long term everyone using that seems to be switching away to something more resembling the 5.56/7.62x51 mix.
The specific 6.8 USA is adopting not without controversy is a new design that would be technologically impossible in 1960's due to adaptation to insane chamber pressure. It's a much longer case that could be described more accurately as an expensive attempt to make 7.62x51 lighter and a little smaller.
 
Last edited:

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Back in 1960 it was impossible to say how long until such armor will become practical and common, and if the rounds will still be around by then.

Wouldn't be so sure about .280 being straight out better. Looking at dimensions (7.2x43) and stats its a little spicier 7.62x39, and we know that in long term everyone using that seems to be switching away to something more resembling the 5.56/7.62x51 mix.
The specific 6.8 USA is adopting not without controversy is a new design that would be technologically impossible in 1960's due to adaptation to insane chamber pressure. It's a much longer case that could be described more accurately as an expensive attempt to make 7.62x51 lighter and a little smaller.
Sure, but the Cult of the Rifle was deeply in denial about the utility of having select-fire capability on the rifleman level, using the exact same arguments that the previous Cult of the Rifle had used against magazine-fed repeaters and ignoring that those arguments were completely discredited by history.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Sure, but the Cult of the Rifle was deeply in denial about the utility of having select-fire capability on the rifleman level, using the exact same arguments that the previous Cult of the Rifle had used against magazine-fed repeaters and ignoring that those arguments were completely discredited by history.
Well they did go back on that after ~20 years with M16A2. Ironically they wouldn't be that wrong with the battle rifles other NATO countries were using at the time, some also modified to be SA only in some countries due to their uncontrollability. Classic case of experience and proven ways of doing things following few steps behind technology.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Well they did go back on that after ~20 years with M16A2. Ironically they wouldn't be that wrong with the battle rifles other NATO countries were using at the time, some also modified to be SA only in some countries due to their uncontrollability. Classic case of experience and proven ways of doing things following few steps behind technology.

It was very well understood that you needed to go to an intermediate power round in order to have controllable recoil levels out of a select-fire infantry rifle; that's what the StG-44 was, and the .280 British, and even before that the .276 Pedersen that was killed off by Dugout Doug. The NATO "select fire" battle rifles were a matter of the Cult of the Rifle in U.S. Army leadership ramming the M-14 through and forcing NATO to standardize on it in bad faith.

So no, at no point were the "experience and proven ways" of the Cult of the Rifle correct beyond "sky is blue" level obvious facts that everyone always knew.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Except not really, becuae any rounds that go through the armor will be spalling and spinning causing massive damage
The problem is that we've gotten really good at countering spalling. Like really good. If you maintained the spall liners, most kinds of spall would be useless, at least from my readings.
It was very well understood that you needed to go to an intermediate power round in order to have controllable recoil levels out of a select-fire infantry rifle; that's what the StG-44 was, and the .280 British, and even before that the .276 Pedersen that was killed off by Dugout Doug. The NATO "select fire" battle rifles were a matter of the Cult of the Rifle in U.S. Army leadership ramming the M-14 through and forcing NATO to standardize on it in bad faith.

So no, at no point were the "experience and proven ways" of the Cult of the Rifle correct beyond "sky is blue" level obvious facts that everyone always knew.
It also didn't help that the US's prior experiences tended to be fighting soldiers so hopped up on combat drugs that they could ignore the shock of more 'sane' rounds (it's why the .45ACP was even adopted as the principle round for the US Army because the older revolvers weren't putting down drugged-up Philipines who could take entire cylinders to the chest and still engage in close quarters battle with Americans, it was during this time that the US adopted shotguns en mass for soldiers because their shot and slugs were one of the few things that could put such troops down, and this was also the reason why the US was extremely slow to adopt the 9mm after WW2 despite the 9mm being outright better), which fed into this.
 

Buba

A total creep
Wasn't the "testing" leading to the 11,43mm M1911 being adopted skewed as fuck?
IMO the FN1900 (also Browning's, BTW) in 7,65x17mm (0,32ACP in USA) would had been perfectly adequate for Show Of Authority uses (the only RL use of pistols), with shotguns adopted to deal with juiced up Freedom Fighters.

The 0,45ACP is pee-pee waving ...
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
It was very well understood that you needed to go to an intermediate power round in order to have controllable recoil levels out of a select-fire infantry rifle; that's what the StG-44 was, and the .280 British, and even before that the .276 Pedersen that was killed off by Dugout Doug. The NATO "select fire" battle rifles were a matter of the Cult of the Rifle in U.S. Army leadership ramming the M-14 through and forcing NATO to standardize on it in bad faith.

So no, at no point were the "experience and proven ways" of the Cult of the Rifle correct beyond "sky is blue" level obvious facts that everyone always knew.
But LMGs did pull that off before, while being little heavier than said rifle. Lightest variants of BAR and BREN were about 6-8 kg, early Cold War battle rifles are about 4.5-5 kg. Attitudes and advertising could really cause bad moves on such margins without real malice, and ironically later technology made battle rifles like that relatively controllable with use of different stocks, accessories, weight distribution and so on, see SCAR-H.

Here's a little funny idea, wonder what would it do for reputation of rifles like G3 and FN FAL if seeing the full auto recoil problem on them the manufacturers tuned down automatic RoF to 300-400 rpm to make them into BAR style weapons.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top