Archived threads in /k/ - Weapons - 2936. page

>>31841203
cont

Introduction

With due respect to the people who posted this stuff, none of it is true. SAS selection is a tough business, no doubt of that, but do you need to be a 'professional athlete' to pass the course? No, not even remotely. So what do you need? This Guide Entry is an attempt to answer that question, because I suspect many people misunderstand what is actually required to become an SAS soldier, and although it's 38 years since I did the regular selection course, and doubtless things have altered slightly, the fundamentals are the same and always will be. Technology changes: men don't.

This will not be a list of 'how to' tips and hints. At that level, selection is mostly common sense. Nor will it give away any secrets, mainly because there's nothing secret involved. What it will try to do is simply elucidate the underlying keys to passing SAS selection. It is in no way scientific: it's not based on statistics or detailed analysis, but on my five years of experience as a trooper in the territorial and regular SAS.

>>31841211
cont

The Fascination of War

Before anyone puts the boot in by saying that's not very long, I should add that not only did I risk my neck on behalf of Her Majesty, but I also served in two foreign armies: once as an officer of irregular troops and once, as a volunteer in a guerrilla force, charged with strategic sabotage. After leaving the SAS, I tramped from one war to another, constantly for ten years and then sporadically for a further nine. I finally 'retired' from war zones in 1991, at age 45, apart from a very brief skirmish in Iraq in 2003. I've thus seen my fair share of conflict, in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and the Far East. Some of it was extremely bloody. For instance, in the Sahara I was involved in a savage close-quarter firefight in open desert in which 30 out of the 40 combatants died in the space of ten minutes.

If this sounds like I was a 'war junkie', perhaps I was. Strictly speaking, once I'd given up active soldiering I was a TV film-maker, but in my head I felt like a soldier on extended study leave. One of the things that drove me was a fascination with the people to be found in the front line. The closer to the killing ground that you get, the more the layers of pretence are peeled away, until all that is left is naked, raw character. The wannabees, the poseurs, the bombasts have all found an excuse and left. Those that remain are among the most admirable individuals I've ever met - quiet-spoken, friendly, and sometimes fantastically brave.

>>31841225
cont

The most vivid example I can give took place in Afghanistan. It was 1979, before the Russian invasion, when the country was starting its slide into the chaos which has so tragically engulfed it to this day. A brigade of government soldiers had mutinied, killed their communist commissars, and joined the mujahideen. Of these 2,000 troops, one group of 25 volunteers, led by a colonel of artillery, climbed a 4,000-foot ridge and took up a position from which the rebel forces could dominate the valley. A terrible battle ensued.

I was with them, and over the next ten days we were attacked twice by units of 250 men, and finally by 600. At the close, 200 rotting corpses surrounded our sangars. The infantry assaults were prefaced by mortar barrages. We had no overhead cover: we just crouched in crevices as hundreds of 120mm bombs rained down, in attempts to wipe us out.

The second blitz was the worst. 300 missiles landed inside our perimeter in 15 minutes. We weren't counting: we got the figure later by listening to enemy radio chatter. The explosions were mind-shattering: an almost non-stop, deafening, thunderous roar mixed with the shriek of deadly flying shards. For the first couple of minutes I shook violently and uncontrollably, until I regained a semblance of composure. I have never been so frightened. It wasn't like fighting: we could only curl up and take it. I was certain at least half of us were going to die, and I started doing deals with the Almighty. For one man it was too much, and he became permanently deranged.

Between attacks there was 24/7 harassing fire, and occasional strafing by Mi-24 gunships. Five of this stubborn little band were killed. By the end, everyone's nerves were in shreds, but they clung on grimly, fought like demented wildcats - and won.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-6dKVNt1C4

>>31841143
nice

File: 1375800972302.gif (3MB, 260x200px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 260x200px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBhh23-paLU

>>31841079
This page explains it quite nicely
http://www.hkpro.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23:the-g11-caseless-military-rifle&catid=11:rare-prototypes&Itemid=5

For Germany it failed simply because it was too cheap, the reunion was expensive and the G36 was cheaper.
>It's Eastern Germany's fault that space magic isn't NATO standard

>>31841150

G11 Cannot into creating a gas seal on the breech end of the barrel, as well as issues with heat control and fouling.

>>31841150
Thanks man!

>>31840992
You gotta get the artery, not the windpipe. They'll bleed out within a minute or so, it depends on multiple factors. If done right it will incapacitate them regardless of time taken to bleed out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edi1wk7XiQc

It's much slower and WAYYYYYY bloodier than in the movies

In most films you see people get their throat cut, they bleed a bit down their front and that's about it

What was the WW2 thing? Heart is seconds, throat is minutes. gut is hours. Or something like that.

Isolate them to fuck up their economy. No other way to deal with it without a chance to fuck up your own country.

>>31841004
>Isolate them to fuck up their economy.
Did that stop NK nuclear program? Russia, the US, China - pretty self-sufficient countries.

I'll just tell him to lay down on the floor.. he'll actually do it the absolute madman hahahahahahaha!

>>31840903
Needs more guns

Also pants

>>31840930

>not operating with your dick out

>>31840903
Add a waifu pillow, a Gadsden flag, and about 400 pounds.

Impressive

Clearly China's innovation is top notch and on top of the world. No other country has an analogue and it's the best of its class. Internet experts will praise it for its stealth and innovative appearance.

Clearly a positive deviation from all the drone technology that America is lagging behind and that is being lead by China.

>>31840794
kek'd

>>31840794
Are you seriously so autistic and butthurt that you reply to EVERY thread about China's military?

>>31840690
Because it's a whole fuck of a lot easier to carry only a dedicated weapon than it is to carry a rifle then a bunch of heavy ass rifle grenades. So glad your stupid ass was here to post this thread and take up bandwidth OP, that's why we have these stupid fuck adds all over now.

>>31840704
> easier to carry only a dedicated weapon than it is to carry a rifle then a bunch of heavy ass rifle grenades

The m79 wasn't a dedicated weapon. Many US soldiers cut the stock to make a more portable weapon. With the M79 they would have been forced to carry a dedicated weapon, the m79, and ammo for both.

If the US were to use rifle grenades during Vietnam, they could have issued just 1 per soldier and it would have likely improved coordination.

>>31840704
also a anti-personnel and anti-vehicle rifle grenade doesn't even weigh 1 pound

>MUH HEAVY GRENADES

AR15 chambered in 223

a short AR or AK pistol
basically all you need is a bullet flying really fucking fast and a rifle round has the fucking fast part down pat

TT-30/33

about the same as any other socom dudes considering they are often deployed with said socom dudes as part of a unit. i guess they could be the "socom guy with some fat ass radio" or some shit. while in the job description the copy writers put some shit about establishing air strips it's not something they really need to do too often

if you need an air traffic controller they are trained for that too

>>31840586
that's what I figured, they roll with delta/seals as attached elements and stack aicraft in their AO and direct fire missions

>>31840558
Is that what they call a "weather parachutist"?

I hear clouds are pretty damn cold to pass through.

>>31840495
You think a single carrier could or would ever lose to one single destroyer? Even Brazil's carrier could and would win against any given destroyer.

Having the ability to not only carry missiles and CWIS as well as planes gives you an incredible advantage. If you honestly think that two ships with equivalent firepower but one has 20+ planes would lose ever you need to hang yourself.

Seriously, I know this is a b8 thread but stop being fucking retarded.

The one that fires first.

HMS Duncan. Every day of the week. No contest.

File: S&W 469.jpg (1MB, 2688x1520px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2688x1520px

>>31840489
If you want a heavy DA trigger buy a pic related

File: images(71).jpg (22KB, 393x375px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 393x375px

>>31840489
.38 has. Also as a bonus, you don't leave shells at the area you used it, for um... you know... reloading purposes.

>>31840504
I hate pistols alright, not just because of the trigger happy tendency, they're also mechanically more complicated to work with. And anyway, with double action, you can cock the hammer first to make the trigger lighter for the next shot.

>>31840505
But there's no 38 on that pic?

File: 1443248920744-2.jpg (2MB, 1421x2131px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1421x2131px

I do use rock armor, my rock hard muscles XDDDDDDDD

>>31840400
>ceramic plates

>What is a Hesco barrier?
>What is a sandbag?

No reason to carry around rocks as body armor when steel and ceramic plates to stop rifle rounds exist.

idk lol

File: Army_of_Two_Devil's_Cartel_Splash.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>in during army of two post

>>31840295
>>31840296
Like seriously tho

It'd help in combat so much I would think

>>31840288
You're talking like jet engined transport aircraft didn't exist

There's the C-2 (mitsubishi), Embraer KC-390(hueland) and even Antonov An-178 (ukraine)

turboprops are way more fuel efficient than turbofans, they're just slower. If airliners thought that people would put up with the noise and the slow flight time they'd be using turboprops for every flight to save on the cost of fuel. As it is they're only used on flights short enough that the time lost doesn't add up to much. Smaller intakes on the turbine section also provide a slighty better protection against FOD.

>>31840288
Also, while turboprop is easier to maintain than turbofan aircraft, the main advantage of turboprol aircraft is its tactical lift capability, where the aircraft can operate in short, unpaved airstrip