>make a successor the the M2
>it's lighter
>but otherwise worse in absolutely every single way possible
>still somehow sees service for 35 years
Any other failure weapons that end up having a long service life?
>make a successor the the M2. >it's lighter. >but otherwise worse in absolutely every single way possible
>make new gun
>it's worse than the old one
how does this shit keep happening?? it's understandable with really complex shit like cars but guns are really fricking simple come on
>Nothing personal, kid.
this. oldgays felt like dying without writing shit down, so here we are.
>oldgays felt like dying without writing shit down, so here we are.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogbank
Interesting shit like this is why I still keep coming back here.
> There's another material in the—it's called interstage material, also known as Fogbank", and arms experts believe that Fogbank is an aerogel material which acts as an interstage material in a nuclear warhead; i.e., a material designed to become a superheated plasma following the detonation of the weapon's fission stage, the plasma then triggering the fusion-stage detonation.
That’s so wicked.
bombs bombing bombs bombing bombs
this shit happens at most businesses too. old engineer leaves and so does all his knowledge of making the fixtures to X part. new guy has to pick up the scraps and maybe even start over the development process if the stuff is really old. sucks balls.
>took 18 years to be able to replicate an equivalent
How the frick do you let such an important material just get memoryholed without some form of paperwork stating how to make it and why it needs to be made that way?
it probably wasn't even memoryholed, it's most likely sitting in a filing cabinet in some ancient SCIF because it's classified and the index that says where it is is classified and we can't find it
There’s also institutional knowledge and how hard companies push for it to be recorded. If you work for a company who legit push hard for employees to write down notes on how each and everyone of you efficiently do work or solve problems, an oldgay is much more motivated to record his knowledge down. If the company doesn’t give a shit, most employees won’t either.
There was a lot of notes that were destroyed which had the adjustments made to the design of the old rockets when they were being built. We have the blue prints but not most of the notes about the changes made. There was a guy who worked at NASA Kirk Sorensen who now does thorium reactors who talked about this subject a long time ago; there was a video but I forget on his youtube channel.
>an oldgay is much more motivated to record his knowledge down
The opposite really. They know they're leaving soon and don't give a frick and won't help train a replacement.
He and Kalashnikov are the two most successful historical men ever as even in ten thousand years, a botched pronounciation of their name shall be utteres to refer to machineguns and rifles respectively.
kalashnikov is a crook and an incompetent weapons designer, not even worth to be standing with nameless engineers working at small scale weapon companies.
only homosexual slavaboo scum worship the drunken subhuman homosexual.
Doesn't matter. The AK bears his name. In your point of view, unfortunately.
AK is also an overrated gun wielded by subhumans that will die with the shithole called russia.
To even compare it with actual work of gunsmiths and engineers is an insult to them.
Too shitfaced to properly counter rebute. Still, the AK is still called a Kalashnikov just like the M2 (and the 1911 and HP) are called Brownings. No matter what is said here and no matter the proper standing of Saint John Moses Browning and of Mikhail Kalashnikov, it remains that the weapons are named after them.
>Still, the AK is still called a Kalashnikov just like the M2 (and the 1911 and HP) are called Brownings.
Browning actually designed those guns. Meanwhile kalasnikov just stole all credit for the sake of commie propaganda. Cope, seethe and dilate homosexual commie troony.
Ur r homosexualA
>doesn't matter, my soviet propaganda said so
nice rebuttal
JMB was actually quite friendly with him, and they liked to chat each other up, so, like, shut up, homosexual
Goddamned homos
>JMB was actually quite friendly with him
JMB died before ww2, you fricking blubbering moron
Unless Mikhail was using an Ouija board to do the chatting, your statement is very dubious.
Did you really confused Browning with Stoner? Git out
>10 thousand years from now
>AKgays still b***hing at each other on how to mount optics
fricking kek
Nobody cares about Browning outside of a small community in America.
laying it too thick there mate
I'm serious, even most american gun owners aren't in on the cult, even Colt has more of a reputation.
And literally nobody outside of the US cares about Browning. You'll find a lot more people knowing who Mauser or Kalashnikov are in the world, even if the latter probably doesn't deserve the fame.
Should've insisted on the M2 being referred to as Brownings, but even then it would have "just" been a heavy MG which just doesn't have the star factor of a standard issue rifle or even a GPMG.
>but he did a lot of other things!
You and I know, but basically nobody else does.
He's already more of an anecdote for veterans because the US armed forces are still dragging their feet about replacing the M2 which, despite the qualities of the basic design, is mostly caused by about 3 million being built during WWII and the vast majority not really having much of a purpose so they were slapped on anything that could hold them, exported and just kept around.
The US made more M2s during WWII than most countries have soldiers.
yeah didn't read that
shit bait, try better next time
Redditspacer filtered.
the awnser is lost knowledge, remember how during the space race america was on its A game and after that the space industry crubeled? kind of the same thing happend after the world war. Momentum in knowledge/r&d plays a huge role. That being said almost all small arms today suck and the reason for that is its simply out of style, the new xm7 is essentially repacaged dmr with a few doodads, many of which where developed 50 years ago. Most people bright enough to actually go in to the defence industry will focus on UAV's etc and that is where the momentum currently is.
I mean we had the Space Shuttle up until the early 00s
why would you bother making something new if you weren't trying to improve what there already was? and the improvements were easy to make, why wouldn't they have done them on the original weapon?
thus it is hard/impossible to "improve" a 'mature' design without new materials being invented, and so each new "improvement" is actually just a different arrangement of compromises to emphasise whatever particular trait.
and it's almost always lightness, because "i want this, but lighter" is always the first fricking complaint, and the way you get things to be light is to make them shittier and more breakable. on a 100 year old machinegun there's no low-hanging fruit left to pick.
you won't be able to "improve" the m1 until we invent a new kind of steel or something.
>just a different arrangement of compromises to emphasise whatever particular trait.
You fricking moron. You frickwits always fall for this moronic argument. Tell me what compromise an AR15 makes in exchange for added capability compared to a fricking black powder muzzle loader and how these compromises end up making it an overall equally performing weapon???
>the way you get things to be light is to make them shittier and more breakable
You are stupid. You know nothing about material sciences. You know nothing about mechanical design and strength optimization.
>on a 100 year old machinegun there's no low-hanging fruit left to pick
jeesus fricking christ man
>you won't be able to "improve" the m1 until we invent a new kind of steel or something.
Yeah and the fricking commies managed to make the NSV with soviet 70's material sciences which weighs almost full 30 pounds less than an M2.
>NSV
Again its different arrangements and compromises anon. The Soviet Union decided that the tradeoffs of having a 30 pound lighter heavy machine gun was worth having a worse ROF, worse effective range, accuracy and precision, worse sustained duration of firing and less overall reliability and life expectancy when compared to the M2.
NVS is still a very reliable HMG, relatively speaking its not as reliable as an M2.
>worse ROF
Wrong
>worse effective range
Wrong
>accuracy and precision
Wrong
>worse sustained duration of firing
Wrong
>less overall reliability and life expectancy
Based on what? your predictions? based on your knowledge I doubt your predictions could be correct
Are the KORDS actually good I’ve heard people save the NSV are way better and the only reason the Kord got adopted was due to government corruption
russians made the KORD because all the tooling and blueprints were in ukraine
In kazakhstan, actually. This time it was not Ukraine.
>Tell me what compromise an AR15 makes in exchange for added capability compared to a fricking black powder muzzle loader
let's read together, anon. follow along with me please, this will be part of your homework.
>thus it is hard/impossible to "improve" a 'mature' design without new materials being invented
>without new materials being invented
do you understand better now? notice how all muzzleloaders are essentially the same shit after a certain point? notice how all assault rifles are essentially the same shit after a certain point? firearms are a downstream technology, they're not really an "invention" at all per se. you're just arranging shit that already exists into a new shape. eventually people figure out the best shape and then you have to wait for new shit to exist. like smokeless powder, like interchangeable parts, like plastics, like rising levels of capitalisation making expensive things cheap, etc. etc.
>You are stupid. You know nothing about material sciences. You know nothing about mechanical design and strength optimization.
the point is that in the absence of new materials there's frickall you can do to make things lighter without reducing their robustness. your answer will be hurr just design it better, and that's the point. it was already designed better. they didn't deliberately do a bad job to leave low hanging fruit for you to pick. they made it exactly as light as they could make it while still having it strong enough to do its job. and if you make it lighter, guess what happens? it's no longer strong enough to do its job.
>Yeah and the fricking commies managed to make the NSV with soviet 70's material sciences which weighs almost full 30 pounds less than an M2.
you have been wrong about everything so far so excuse me if i ignore your remarks about slavshit
jesus fricking christ anon i've never seen someone be so mad and so wrong over such a basic misunderstanding and i've been on this website for fourteen fricking years.
p.s. i know that computer aided organic design for example can be much more efficient than hand-drawn shit from the 1910s but it's also comparatively harder to produce (e.g. requires additive manufacturing) which is another one of those "capitalisation making expensive things cheap" step-changes that is required.
the point is that if you sit down in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen to design a 50 calibre machinegun you're not going to be able to do a better job. there's nothing wrong with the gun. if technology has moved on that's not a flaw with the design and taking advantage of the new technology is not so much "improving" the old gun as designing a whole new gun.
and you wouldn't bother designing a whole new gun just to make it 5% better than the old one, so the requirements are always overly ambitious and the output is always something that is, admittedly, much better but also cripplingly flawed.
for example, the Klansmen-class destroyers. or literally every other procurement project undertaken by DOD in the last 50 years.
The NSV is equivalent to the M2, just better in all ways. There is always a better way to design anything and the M2 is nowhere close to perfecting the concept of the heavy machine gun.
Short recoil is a garbage action btw.
NSV has a FRACTION of lifespan than an M2, anon. Russians didn't figure out some philosophers stone recipe to make milled steel 1/3 as light while being the same integrity.
>You fricking moron. You frickwits always fall for this moronic argument.
it looks like armatard has already found this thread
Because they wanted a .50cal gun to do everything, literally everything, the M85 was developed to:
>Be a .50BMG machinegun
>Be shorter than the M2
>Be lighter than the M2
>Be mounted on tanks, aircraft, and infantry mounts like the M2
>Be able to switch feeds from left to right
>Be able to have variable ROF
>Use different ammo links than the M2 to make that happen
It literally could have never gone well. There was no reason to make "M2 but shorter so it fits in tank" that fricking complicated. They just couldn't help themselves.
Those are not at all impossible requirements. Most of them quite trivial to achieve.
Not all at the same time, the main reason the M85 kept fricking up was the feed system tripping on itself due to the new links being trash, that they were only different from the M2's because they wanted it to be able to flp sides easily. The links would get stuck or not hold the rounds in place correctly.
It's a 50cal and it's recoil operated, there's no gas involved because why the hell would it, it's a lot of gas. The timing of the operation is not trivial to change on a weapon like that, it's why all higher caliber machineguns and cannons are chainguns, aka electric motor operated.
The Kord is a gas operated 12.7, there's plenty of gas operated .50 cals out there.
moron
>>Be shorter than the M2
Easy, the M2 receiver is frickhuge
>>Be lighter than the M2
Easy, the M2 is fricking heavy and uses dated engineering solutions
>>Be mounted on tanks, aircraft, and infantry mounts like the M2
Not a problem at all
>>Be able to switch feeds from left to right
Literally just requires an additional track on top of the bolt or any other really simple system people have come up with
>>Be able to have variable ROF
Easy as frick, just adjust spring pressure for example. Even easier with a solenoid trigger.
>>Use different ammo links than the M2 to make that happen
Not a problem.
>just adjust spring pressure for example
You don't even need to have that, just have adjustable gas like on the M240 and a bunch of other MGs.
M2 is recoil operated, which is a fundamental limit. To work it needs to absorb and re-purpose the recoil impulse which it does through heavy carefully machined balanced pivoting arms. If you make them lighter, or sliding, or out of stampings (tolerances), or shorter, they don't work. Go to
,
problem solved plenty of gas power spare to shove shitty clockworks around
>it's understandable with really complex shit like cars
It's not even understandable with cars frankly.
Vehicles have gotten so much shittier over the years in the name of profit grabbing it's fricking nuts.
See: Ford F-150 plastic oil pans, Dodge Charger plastic oil fill/reservoirs, intake manifolds, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM806
The light-weight American guns are reliable and light as hell, but low ROF to stop their barrels from turning to slag in a single firefight.
moronic troony MIC workers want a light gun which magically prevents overheating, good luck with that.
Would it be possible to add a water cooling system to the XM312 or XM806 without exceeding the weight of the M2? I'd guess that if that could be accomplished you could increase the RPM to at least match the M2.
>40 rpm sustained
>mfw M82 Barrett has more sustained firepower than this shit
The barret sure as hell doesn't have that sustained rate of fire. Cyclic? Yes. Not sustained.
Water cooling has a whole list of issues and would just make the gun weigh almost as much as the M2.
The slower cyclic guns still had just as much sustained rate of fire. Do you care about 40 shots per minute in a matter of seconds, or 40 shots per minute over a minute?
>The barret sure as hell doesn't have that sustained rate of fire. Cyclic? Yes. Not sustained.
It likely has a heavier barrel than that piece of shit they call a machinegun. As long as you have enough mags around you to keep shooting you absolutely can do 40rpm with better accuracy and effect than this nuisance.
There's no fricking way that between reloads you can keep accurate 40RPM fire on a target.
Not to mention all those fricking box magazines will weigh an asston compared to links.
It won't all be on target but neither will the bullets XM806 spews. Same thing for the ammo, sqaud weapons are operated by squads.
I'm not saying that it's a good idea or a viable option, i'm saying that doing something like that gives better or as good results as that joke of a machinegun it exemplifies just how silly the gun is.
The M2's official sustained fire is only 40 rounds a minute as well. Why aren't you calling the M2 a joke?
>official
what's the source you quote?
What's your source it can do significantly greater?
You do realize machineguns don't actually fire that many rounds per minute over long periods of time, because of heating issues right?
Watercooled guns can keep the trigger pulled, aircooled cannot.
>What's your source it can do significantly greater?
Ok, you made it up and are now coping. Gg wp.
>Noguns confirmed
>why don't you find me info my OFFICIAL figure isn't real
>prove me a negative
the last resort of a losing Black person, to cope
>wojackposting
>but guns are really fricking simple
It's a metal tube. If you've ever taken one apart and put it back together it's amazing how simple they are and still do everything they do.
This thing and all of it's variants.
It should have been retired right after Vietnam.
It was an outdated airframe designed in the 50s that was less than mediocre at everything it did. Even as a EW platform, the AF had better alternatives.
It didn't do us any favors on cost because the clapped out airframes had to be rebuilt from the ground up several times.
What drugs are you on? The A6 was a great plane and was highly regarded. The navy wanted to continue to upgrade them.
>The navy wanted to continue to upgrade them.
Which was the problem. Imagine using a subsonic plane with short legs over hostile skies all the way into the late 20-teens.
I agree, the EF-111 did have better payload and range to this day.
I know english isn't your first language. But read it again. Fricking yuropoor tourists
>with short legs
USN is still bemoaning the loss of the 1000 mile combat radius capability they lost when they retired the plane, you stupid worthless vatBlack person troglodyte.
>EF-111 did have better payload and range
It was importing the hardware from the Prowler from its inception.
>subsonic
>pitiful payload when loaded with fuel
>only 1000 mile range
You can lick my ass with that handicap
>It was importing the hardware from the Prowler from its inception.
It could carry more equipment further, faster, and better than the EA-6.
IT COULD ACTUALLY KEEP UP AND FLY TOGETHER WITH STRIKE AIRCRAFT.
I wanted nothing more than the best for the US, but it seems like you appreciate the uselessness of that platform.
payload when loaded with fuel
>>only 1000 mile range
>cope and seething from a lying shitskin
I accept your concession. It's good that you admit you know nothing about military aircraft.
Arguing with you isn't meant to convince you of anything. I don't care of you agree or disagree.
It's to inform everyone else who reads this reply chain. You did a good job helping me lay out a case.
The more equipment you bolt on the wings, the less external fuel you carry. You get 5, that's five hardpoints. No more.
The max range is shit and unrealistic on actual EW missions, the max speed is unrealistic with pylon drag and the fact that to get the range, they have to fly at a eco cruise.
The EA-6B can't keep up with strike aircraft like the F-15E, which makes it a useless platform. Simple as.
Your cope is delicious.
Please, point me another naval strike aircraft with 1000 mile combat radius. Do you know what a naval aircraft is?
>The EA-6B can't keep up with strike aircraft like the F-15E
why the frick would it be keeping up with an f-15 you dirty shitskin
Gulf War says hello.
in most carrier operations land based aircraft aren't really factored into the design/doctrine moron
>AF
>meme arrows
Had better range and payload than anything TO THIS DAY
>the AF had better alternatives
>A-6 operators: US Navy, US Marine Corps
So you're saying that you're a clueless moron?
its 7.62x51mm counterpart replacement to the M1919, the M73 was also pretty bad.
Like the M85 it was replaced and forgotten but still served longer than it deserved to.
Wish we could of got a updated 1919 with a better buttstock but actually good and not some diy shit
The M2 in aircraft version was a total piece of shit only held on due to mutt homietry over a 20mm cannon.
You mean the AN/M2?
Because that thing seemed to do the job pretty damn well.
During the fall of the Philippines, US airmen pulled a bunch of AN/M2s out of their destroyed planes and welded together tripod mounts for them to be used in a ground role.
The good part was that it absolutely shredded the Japs and went straight through the jungle, but the bad part was that it's 1200 rpm meant that they frequently burned through all their ammo before the combat ended.
AN/M2 had 700rpm, it's only after some special fiddling in the AN/M3 did they raise the RPM to 1200. AN/M2 was basically M2 with a light barrel.
It was like most Americans severely overweight for what it did. One 20mm was worth 3 .50s for the weight of 2 .50s
The American planes were just using enough engine to carry enough of the shit M2s to do the job (P-38 with 2 engines and P-47 with a giant radial. Though the P-51 caught up it first went with anemic 4 .50s).
A FW-190 could carry up to 6 20mm and 2 HMGs, equalling the firepower of 3 mutt planes. Or the other way around, a lightened 190D could equal the firepower of the P-47, the best armed mutt plane, with 2*20 and 2*13, with much better effective firepower due to the Germoid firing all on centreline and the M2 being absolute dogshit on the centreline unless you're twin engined.
>One 20mm was worth 3 .50s for the weight of 2 .50s
Lmao. Why are you trying this cope again? .50s were more weight efficient than anything short of the diabolical mk108 in ww2.
NTA but that's not true, their performance was not particularly impressive against fighters and terrible against bombers and other heavy planes. The US didn't really have to fight a lot of bombers so that wasn't too much of an issue, but even against its preferred target of lighter planes it was just thoroughly mediocre.
20mm was just a better caliber, 25mm would've likely been the best compromise against fighters but I don't think any nation with relevant engineering went for that.
And .50s weren't the most weight efficient, you needed quite a lot of hits to reliably down a single fighter, with 20mm that was reduced significantly. From a purely practical standpoint most windows of attack against fighters were extremely short with a tiny opportunity to put as much lead in the air as possible in the air and hoping you hit. It didn't really work like in modern games (and even most flight sims).
The .50 just didn't hit hard enough,which is why they had to slap so many on fighters and even then it wasn't as effective.
We don't have to guess, US did extensive tests right after ww2 with various weapons and found that M2 was no worse at downing a B25 than most autocannons for speed and more ammo efficient than them due to more trigger time. That's the reason they went with AN/M3 after the war instead of their new high velocity .60 cal.
Except you pulled that out of your ass, you disingenuous Black person. The US Navy even in WW2 confirmed and admitted a 20mm is worth 3 .50.
AIRPLANE VULNERABILITY
OVERALL. ARMAMENT
EFFECTIVENESS
by BRL
google it, it's availabe for free. it's a pretty extensive read but you can scroll to the page 55.
>The US Navy even in WW2
some moronic nobody from the navy
now start coping some more, i already got my popcorn
Then please explain why every single country in WW2 except for Amerifats and every single country in the world now prefers 20+mm to HMGs?
>Then please explain why
Because they thought different.
>every single country in the world now
jet age
go take a read, they go into quite the extreme details there, with tons of math, calculations, considerations and formulas. it's pretty interesting
Mate "Jet age" doesn't mean shit, airplanes haven't gained or lost significant resistance to airplane armament the moment someone slapped a turbojet on them. If .50 were any good everyone would use them, instead it's literally only the US Army/Airforce which couldn't admit they fricked up (and backed it up with a shill study).
Also fricking remember we're talking about the M2 not the M3 which was worth 1.5 M2s. The M3 got decent again, yet still the M2 was a fat piece of shit.
>
Because they thought different.
>every single country in the world now
jet age
go take a read, they go into quite the extreme details there, with tons of math, calculations, considerations and formulas. it's pretty interesting (You)
>Mate "Jet age" doesn't mean shit, airplanes haven't gained or lost significant resistance to airplane armament
They did, actually. The stresses and loads experienced by high speed jet fighters are way more than those of lightweight prop planes. The jet engines are also smaller and often sturdier than the engines of the planes US typically faced in ww2.
>Also fricking remember we're talking about the M2 not the M3 which was worth 1.5 M2s.
The research addresses that. I implore you to check it out. You can actually see how much of an improvement M3 was and what M2 could do.
I've downloaded it but it doesn't show correctly on my phone and I'm not reading 107 pages of Americans confirming Americans aren't moronic even though the whole world concluded correctly they are.
Whatever advantage jet planes might have in resistance is so marginal it's not even worth targeting. Your WW2 armament is supposed to take out armoured bombers. Every single country on planet earth and the us navy has concluded the .50 is obsolescenct. The .50 could torch Jap paper planes and fighters and that's it. Unless you give me studies how other countries actually thought an inert .50 is better to an explosive 20mm but they were forced to use the suboptimal cannons for "reasons", your American study gets discarded for "they obviously have an agenda" reasons.
>I'm not reading 107 pages of Americans confirming Americans
I've pointedyou to page 55 and now also 59 but you're clearly incapable of accepting proof for what it is which is why i'm just going to laugh at your vatBlack person denial. Cope and seethe.
>Whatever advantage jet planes might have in resistance is so marginal it's not even worth targeting
US through different and adapted pretty quickly.
>Your WW2 armament is supposed to take out armoured bombers
US had no issues with their armament and they downed more aircraft that anyone else in ww2.
>The .50 could torch Jap paper planes and fighters and that's it.
Damn, i guess luftwaffe just tripped and fell. oh well.
>your American study gets discarded for "they obviously have an agenda" reasons
cry about it, lol
It's (Jap paper planes) and (Fighters). Luftwaffe bombers were in the east. The US didn't face any tough targets in the air. Frankly they'd be fine with .30s.
They downed the most planes because they faced two fronts and used a bad gun on good planes that could carry enough bad guns to get decent firepower against vulnerable targets.
You can shove your study where the sun doesn't shine, even in WW2 many countries have correctly concluded that even a 20 isn't really working against tough targets. Yet you're literally stanning for a payloadless .50.
What was the problem with sending bombers west? They'd be immune to puny .50 cals.
Sounds like you have acute cope-induced butthurt because you got dunked on with extensive evidence. Pretty typical of the ever-wrong vatBlack folk.
NTA but what were they supposed to bomb in the west?
You haven't posted any proof for anything.
>NTA but what were they supposed to bomb in the west?
The same thing they were bombing before - London.
Also, lmao at that butthurt samegayging.
>London
That would be moronic, something even Goering understood before the US officially joined the war.
>samegayging
Nah, but you're clearly butthurt considering how you spam pictures instead of just providing proof.
Hint: Telling others to provide proof for you proves nothing.
Anon's right in saying 20mm was superior for general use. It wasn't a secret either, the 50 cal was just so widely available with so much ammo that it wasn't worth switching to anything else for the most part because the US didn't have to deal with heavier planes. The US actually did plan to switch over but for different reasons that didn't happen.
Here's a nearly 1 hour long video about it:
Here's a comment with more info:
>The US intended to switch to a 20mm standard battery for all fighters, back in the late 1930s, and started desperately looking for an "off the shelf" 20mm cannon they could adopt. The .50 was retained as a stop-gap, but the plan was to cut in 20mm armament as soon as possible. Even into the very end of the war.
>However, the US had major problems with reliability in US produced Hispano-Suiza 20mm cannon. The reason was primarily that the US ordnance types insisted stubbornly that the chamber dimensions the original designers provided were too shallow. Even when the British (who provided the specs) and US ammunition manufacturers said, "Hey, you cut the chambers 1/16th of an inch - 2mm - too deep!"
>Note that the British produced guns worked fine with both US and British made ammunition, as did other Hispano-Suiza guns built elsewhere. The US produced guns with the proper chambers produced for Britain to Britian's demand that they use the chamber dimensions the British provided, worked. But US guns, built to the US altered chamber dimensions, had reliability issues with everybody's ammo. But US Ordnance types never admitted that they had created the problem they claimed was an inherent design fault.
You lose.
>Nah, but you're clearly butthurt
lol, says the samegay
>It wasn't a secret either
It's not a secret that US researched that extensively.
>The US actually did plan to switch over
And chose not to because they found M3 to work better.
>some british cope
lol
Reminder that I have provided proof and you haven't, making me the victor by default.
Go watch the video instead of coping so much.
AIRPLANE VULNERABILITY
OVERALL. ARMAMENT
EFFECTIVENESS
by BRL
are you going to pretend you didn't see it? what's the sources the guy in the video is quoting?
>are you going to pretend you didn't see it
I saw it, I won't google it or look up the relevant passages for you, that is your job if you actually believe your own bullshit.
If not then I'll accept your surrender.
>*crickets*
Yeah, that's about what I thought. Go watch the video, he uses a lot more sources than yours.
Not that you've even read it and neither will anybody else here because you're entitled enough to believe others need to make your argument for you. Complete Black personisraelite mindset.
I win, you lose. Enjoy coping throughout the rest of the thread.
Look at that meltdown.
>nooooo these proofs don't count
>i won't see them, they don't exist
>reeeeee
lmao
- every single warplane in the world is armed with 20mm+
"Muh proof!'. How about you sodomize yourself with a M3 .50 and then blow up your ass with 1200 rpm? I'd accept this a proof for the M3 being an effective homosexual killer.
>every single jet in the world
ftfy
cope and seethe, vatBlack person homosexual
You thumping that one study as proof for anything is about as moronic as Amerifats thumping their toilet paper constitution which literally is just the opinion of some old Englishmen. You're probably a TrumpBlack person, that's the argumentation level i expect from subhumans.
>more impotent seethe about Americans
>more tears about actual scientific studies where you have youtube gospel
>more vatnik butthurt
I'm just waiting for more samegayging and we're golden.
Ah yes the Same US ordnance board that was responsible for the Mark 14 torpedo, god what a bunch of useless muppets.
Are you literally moronic? What was the problem with sending bombers into total enemy air superiority? Gee, let me think.
The .50 can shoot down bombers, especially since the Germans only had few heavies in the He 177, it's just not good at it. I've never claimed .50s bounce of fricking Ju 88s like logic bounces off your thick burger skull.
Let's summarize:
You have: one mutt study that supposedly confirms mutts aren't moronic, and that's only the land based half of mutts, the waterborne mutts figured out their land based cousins are stupid as well.
I have: literally every other country and half of muttlandia and the other hand of muttlandia after some years of sunk cost fallacy switching to 20mm+.
You can parrot victory but everyone notices you're a Black person lacking critical thinking skills beyond "my tribe best!"
>The .50 can shoot down bombers
But i thought they could only shoot down weak japanese planes? Didn't you claim that?
Screeching about mutts won't really make proofs go away and won't make M2 any worse. Everyone can see that you're beyond reasoning and are just coping and seething about mutts living rent free and dabbing on your shithole country eternally as you try to get back at them.
Okay I'm sorry i thought i was talking to a human being capable of rational thought and not a complete autist incapable of understanding hyperbole.
For the record, the .50 cal isn't literally unable to shoot down anything else but unarmored Japanese planes and German fighters. Just it sucks at it, like even the 20mm proved inadequate against American 4e bombers.
But you probably can parrot the one time a P-47 shot down a lost He 111 as clear evidence that the .50 is a capable bomber killer, as if the British didn't shoot down thousands of Germoid bombers with their fricking .303s and yet nobody sucks .303 wiener like you do .50. Because only Americans react to "well one of your guns is actually overrated" with such fricking outrage and intellectual dishonesty.
But that's not true anon lmao
Still not true, you are wrong and dumb.
>reeeee your proofs are not proofs
vatBlack person denial, cope, seething, that's what i come here for
the vatniks always deliver
You haven't posted any proof.
You're also completely uninformed.
>your proofs aren't proofing anything
lmao
NTA but you type like an actual homosexual.
Imagine if Browning was borne not in 1855 but 1985.
With all these materials, technologies, engineering knowledges and user experiences we have today.
He would make you Amerimutts a real bolter gun I have no doubt.
He'd be a nobody anon. He'd be another very clever weapons engineer in a room full of other very clever weapons engineers making slight improvements to the basic designs that have been around for the last century. The era when one dude could be in a machine shop and invent something revolutionary is more or less done.
There is no such thing as genius engineers nowadays, they are all cogs in a corporate machine.
Weight don't matter when you are vehicle mounted.
Reminder that KRISS said they could reduce the weight of the M2 by 50% and recoil by up to 90%. Nothing ever happened. I guess it was either 1. Too expensive or 2. KRISS using dodgy measurement to reduce the recoil.
Still, M2's are pretty hefty, dropping the weight by 50% would massively improve the design.
You can drop the weight by almost 25%, if you replace the steel with titanium alloys.
Look at you and your Gucci machine gun. You wouldn't even need to fire it - the enemy would just have a heart attack at the sheer opulence of your gun.
The brits reduced the weight on the M777 from 16k lb on the legacy M198 to 9.3k lb by going full titanium.
M777 is a completely separate design from M198, it was made with the light weight in both materials and structure in mind, unlike the M198.
How does it change the fact that they achieved most of the weight savings by extensively using titanium alloys?
It doesn't, i was just clarifying that it's an unrelated design from M198. You're right.
Roughly 3 million M2 Browning's were made in WW2. There is an absolute abundance of receivers, barrels, spare parts, etc for them. Lots of people are trained on them, their servicing characteristics are well understood, and they meet all of the criteria as required of them adequately. Lots of mounts and brackets are available for affixing them to vehicles and aircraft.
Basically, we could make a lighter, smaller & more durable M2 browning but it would not be cost effective to do so. Additionally, they are typically not used in roles where a weight savings of ~40 pounds would make a substantial difference. It would make more sense to simply run them until they're completely dead, and design new guns for circumstances where weight and overall length are a concern.
I don't know anon but that experimental .50 cal Gatling gun from general dynamics was pretty neat sadly I don't think it went anywhere tho would have been cool as a vehicle gun
>ywn
>it's lighter
it's lighter