a real fucking dumb idea

>>34535399

That is brilliant. If only you could link a bunch of rounds together and had a weapon that could feed and fire the links.

Amazing no one has thought of this before.

>>34535399

Give it 30-50 years and I see conventional munitions being created in the field using 3D printing. Instead of arming up with ammo, you'd load up with 3D printing material.

The printer would manufacture additional munitions as needed based on use, so if for example your .50 gunner opens up on some allahu ackbars a computer will know how many rounds are being fired and another computer will have a 3D printer make additional rounds on demand hooked up to the same internal system, eliminating the need to reload or to restock ammo.

Media for the printer would be fueled like gasoline or water; just pour/put it in. This is the future: instead of sending 100 things to a theatre (space, war, etc), you're going to send a few dozen things along with a piece of equipment that can turn those few dozen into hundreds.

>>34535423

>literally carry around the weapon, blank cases, powder refills and bullet caps
>crash behind enemy lines
>Hajis find maybe 10 rounds of any actual use, a machine they don't know how to use, and a bunch of deconstructed munition
>might work.jpeg

>>34535505

Throw in a thermite charge or some shit to make the machine useless in case of this eventuality, and you're golden

>>34535521

DNA biometric security.

>>34535490
>3D printing
Stop falling for that meme

>>34535914
/thread

This raises the chance of a failure-to-feed by 2x. I see what you're saying OP, but still hesitant about small arms working like this.

Obviously artillery has been working like this for a long time, but that loads individually.

A real dumb idea from me:

Why not put artillery in a c-130? you can aim it by turning the plane and it has a bigger range and it's a lot cheaper than stupid missile strikes.

>>34536082
They do that already. But it is limited by the stress that the airframe can absorb. Also why not just fly over the target and drop a bomb. No need to heft around a bunch of propellant.

>>34536082
>Why not put artillery in a c-130?
it's called an AC-130

>>34535399
not op but i can see this, mayb not for conventional artillery, but maybe costal arty, a huge gun aboce ground, with a factory underneath, by big i mean huge thou, it be like those guns from War Hammer with the belt feed planetary guns i think

>>34536321
let me expand, a shell so fucking big, that it would be able to transport by plane or ship, like fucking huge, its the only way op's idea would be feasible

>>34536344
wouldn't* /production on site would be necessary

>>34535399
For literally what purpose? If you're carrying the cases, powder and bullet, you're still carrying all the weight you would if you were carrying complete cartridges.

Why would you ever make it so complicated for no reason? Why is this not the first time I've seen this idea on /k/?

>>34535490
Again wtf. If you're in the field, carrying all the materials for your ammunition, you might as well be carrying the ammunition and ditch the weight of the printer.

You might have the basics of an idea if you applied it to FOBs or bases or on Carriers or whatever where you have to store stocks of different types of ammo.
>"Sir, we're going through more [Caseless MG ammo] than we thought, and are barely using [Caseless Infantry rifle ammo]"
>"All right, switch 3 more of the ammo assemblers from Rifle to MG"
That way you don't have to ship stuff you don't end up using.

Even then its still not that good an idea.

>>34535399
There was an old repeating flintlock pistol that worked like this.

It had a tube full of lead balls and a tube full of powder with a mechanism where you turned a lever to separately load powder and shot in the chamber.