Forums » View topic » Firearms Thread

View next topic
View previous topic
Reply to topic
Author Message
Zenith
Banned


Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 1,855/1
Rating: 67
Location: Vancouver, BC

PostPosted: 11 Feb 2006 01:16 AM Reply with quoteBack to top

Well Korou, I can appreciate the fact that a jam during a combat situation isn't a good thing but this isn't a 1v1 CS match. Hao's right, if the unit is competent then they should be able to hold a line and give any one person enough time to reload / fix their weapon.

Now Im not saying fix it on the field when you're in the middle of a fire fight. Obviously if it jams on you, the field manual says switch over to your secondary and continue the engagement.

At least you can appreciate that there's no room for screwups in war and that time is a critical issue. But the MP7 isn't proven. Its been tested by the company that made it and it hasn't been comissioned for any field missions. There's no way of telling how the environment would affect it. Newer guns always use smaller bearings and more intricate breech mechanisms. If the MP7 was used in Siberia lets say, the cold could freeze some of the pieces together, and then the gun would be jammed beyond repair. Im sure that's just as bad as dropping your p90.

The fact that the MP7 and the p90 are both SMGs. They're normally used for CQB and urban warfare. Short range missions that dont involve long distance targets. Which means the p90 (or the MP7 for that matter) should never be used in a situation where there is alot of running, rough terrain or large scale skirmishes.


the M16 and the MP7 are two different weapons and it probably wouldn't be fair to compare the two that kind of basis. On long range to medium range the M16 wins hands down, no questions asked. Its got superior range, accuracy and ammo count. But up close the MP7 stands a chance with its high rate of fire. But how often would a rifleman let someone get that close. Long story short, the M16 would stop an MP7 before it even gets into firing range.

Same thing if you took the MP7 vs the p90. Similar weight, similar power. The p90 has 30 more rounds than the MP7, which means the MP7 has to switch cartridges twice before the p90 does. With their high rates of fire, the MP7 will run blanks pretty quickly and given its effective range, the p90 can practically mug the guy. Unlike the rifles the MP7 and the p90 can't range their targets which means they have to be pretty close. The bottom line is, if you've got an SMG with a shallow magazine, its usually not a very good weapon for medium to close range combat and will put you in a very sticky situation.

_________________
Image
View user's profileSend private message JournalMSN Messenger
Korou
Senior Member


Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 4,225/1
Rating: 159
Location: Being Sedduced by the dancing mario

PostPosted: 11 Feb 2006 09:42 AM Reply with quoteBack to top

hao9031989417 wrote:
Korou wrote:
Zenith wrote:
the early prototype p90s had that problem. Its been fixed after it came into production for a few years. It used to have an inherant problem where if you dropped it the bullet casings would fall out of alignment and cause a jam in the loading mechanism of the gun. The rounds wouldn't properly fall into the breech and the detonation of the bullet would either not happen or fragment the barrel of the weapon upon firing. But all weapons with a long magazine have this problem. Its not only isolated to the p90. What they've done is fitted the rounds with a secondary case so there is no "rattlespace" between the rounds. The magazines also have a better spring mechanism now that lowers the chances of a misalignment.

Fixing it if there's a jam takes some time but isn't impossible for a soldier on the field. Disengaging the clip giving it a good hard tap at the head of the magazine and reinserting will fix it most of the time.

The chances of messing up your magazine isn't any higher than any other gun so its a negligible change of risk. Then again the mags are usually in a pouch, pocket or strapped to the combatant somehow. I wouldn't presume they'd be dropping them often.


lol in that time, the opposing force could be rushing while you're taping your p90. Then BOOM you're dead. Time is a very critical thing, and theres no room for screw ups in war, or you'll lose lives, maybe your own or your friends. soo... GO MP7!


Rush? This isn't CS, this is real life. The person rushing would probably get turned into meat jelly before he/she reaches you. Real battles are faught over a few hundred meters, try going across all that distance with over 50kg of gear. Besides, why would any soldier use a submachine gun while they could be using M-16/AK-47(74) assault rifles? In my opinion, a M-16 outperforms a MP7 other than the weight and slightly slower rate of fire.

M-16
Effective range 550 m
Rate of fire 750 to 900 round/min
Muzzle velocity 975 m/884 m per minute
Weight 2.9kg (Lightest version)

MP7
Effective range 200 m
Rate of fire 950 round/min
Muzzle Velocity 725 m/sec
Weight: 1.30~1.54 kg

world war 1, battle of sommes. The Allied rushed the Germans. All of them died before they reached the wire. They rushed again. No one made it past, then the Germans rushed them and they died. There ARE such things as rushes in real life. The main point of a rush is to confuse the enemy and to suprise them.

Zenith, the mp7 has a choice between 20rounds or a 40 round magazine. I always thought the SMGs were used to flank the opposing force by going to the side while the main rifle guys shoot at them.

_________________
Image

ISelfDestruct3 wrote:
people need to die. that's why disease, and viruses were made. im not saying god made them, or anything at all. (though my belief is that god made them). cause look at us, we are over populating the earth. PEOPLE NEED TO DIE!!
View user's profileSend private message Journal
Zenith
Banned


Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 1,855/1
Rating: 67
Location: Vancouver, BC

PostPosted: 11 Feb 2006 11:42 AM Reply with quoteBack to top

War's changed alot since world war 1. For instance, the weaponry, the effective range for that era was probably no more than 200 meters. Even then it was pretty close quartered because of it. With that kind of range, rushes are more common as you're closer to your enemy.

Today the MP7 has the exact same range, more power, and a higher rate of fire. If you had one in world war 1, it would probably decimate whole companies. But there's a reason why everyone uses high powered rifles in modern warfare. Because the effective range has more than doubled to 500+ meters. There is no way you can effectively rush an opposing company at half a kilometre out. Its true that there are rushes because people are caught out of position all the time.

I also believe you have the definition of a rush confused with a charge. The Allied forces didn't "rush" the Germans persay. The British Expeditionary planned the attack at 7:30am in the morning on July 1st with a force of 750,000 men. That's 27 infantry divisions versus the german front line of 16 infantry division. The idea was to catch them early in the morning under the cover of mist and fog and they charged across an open field. This is a charge, not a rush.

A Rush is defined as a quick offensive while there is a tactical gap in the opponent's strategy. For example, if an infantry company is attacking a machine gun turret (like in Saving Private Ryan). They will do diversionary bombardments with hand grenades but mainly running in front while the machine gun shoots. When the machine gun runs out of rounds and has to reload they will rush the turret with small arms before they can return fire. As you can see, a rush involves exploiting some tactical flaw with a time limit. The problem with that strategy is that they had to draw fire for a time and someone did get killed.

Today's warfare tries to avoid that type of contact. If you take the american army, they'll bomb a target first with primary and secondary air strikes. Only then will they send in armoured infantry to do an area sweep. Its rare that they'll send in infantry first anymore.


SMGs can be used for warfare but they're not the preferred choice of weapon. I mean I can't say no one uses SMGs for outdoor warfare, cause Im sure there's some Commanding Officer out there that's equipped his troops with SMGs /swt. But imagine this Korou. If you flank an enemy force with SMGs. And you start off at Maximum range near your riflemen at 500 meters. You have to get to 200 meters before you can begin firing. Thats 300 meters to cover, which is alot of distance, during which if you happened to get spotted, you can't return fire because your MP7 doesn't have that kind of range. But if you do manage to get up close to your targets, and they have some sort of cover, your MP7 will not pierce armor or thicker walls. Which will soon mean your flanking unit will end up in a close combat fire fight with no cover versus a fortified enemy position. Their backup, the riflemen, are half a kilometre away and will not be able to provide support for quite some time.

SMGs are used for urban warfare. Law enforcement units and against "soft" targets. Thats is if they're expecting to encounter standard civilian armor like kevlar vests. RCMP, SWAT, all the heavy civilian law enforcement units will use SMGs because a rifle is unwarrented most of the time. A Rifle will go straight through the wall in your house, at work or at school, through the guy's kevlar vest and most likely through a hostage. It will leave such a big wound that there is a very little chance that the victim will survive. But an SMG, if you get shot with it, you might still live and it doesn't spam bullets through walls and every other thing for a few hundred meters.

_________________
Image
View user's profileSend private message JournalMSN Messenger
Korou
Senior Member


Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 4,225/1
Rating: 159
Location: Being Sedduced by the dancing mario

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2006 03:49 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

lol it seems like you say it like at 200 or so meters, the bullet drops. I read somewhere that the mp7 is designed to pierce through kevlar and some metals. Someone/thing reviewed it as a compact rifle, with less range, but keeping the same (not sure) power.

And you still know, there are troops in korea and vietnam. Not sure about vietnam, but for sure korea. There are usually heavy brushes there and low trees. What better way to use a SMG under those conditions?

Another thing is, P90 cant shoot underwater (i dont' remember if its true or not) but mp7 can (im pretty sure). Strap it on a navy seal and bam, lots of KIAs. Rifles are too bulky to strap on a chest of a seal, and i tihnk most of them can't shoot underwater.

_________________
Image

ISelfDestruct3 wrote:
people need to die. that's why disease, and viruses were made. im not saying god made them, or anything at all. (though my belief is that god made them). cause look at us, we are over populating the earth. PEOPLE NEED TO DIE!!
View user's profileSend private message Journal
Ketaunya
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Mar 2004
Posts: 728
Rating: 1
Location: In orbit

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2006 04:06 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

hao9031989417 wrote:
zidanet129 wrote:
Smith, I was actually thinking about the concept of Railguns. You know, firing shots with magnetic force instead of explosion of gunpowder. That has GOT to hurt considering how fast the bullet would be travelling. The only drawback is that the barrels would overheat quite quickly, so chained shots won't be possible.
And then there's the positron rifle...... Positrons = negative electrons...... Beam of positron pretty much causes EVERYTHING in its way to explode when positrons clashes with electrons (and you know, every single atom has electrons.......). In other words, it pretty much disintegrates anything in its way. Too much GS/D, I say.


Positron Cannons wouldn't work on earth, technically, as soon as the positron is fired into air, it would cause matter-antimatter reaction. It will only work in places where there is "matterless".

Railguns is realistic. I think there are already prototypes availible. The penetrating power of railguns is something like 2meters of steel. Almost 4 times as much as traditional HEAT/APFSDS/HESH rounds.


wow, four times as strong, thats amazing, a HEAT round is one of the top, yet a railshot is four times as strong, simply amazing.

Here is an idea that may or may not happen in the future (depending on the advances of technologies) I seem to recall that a RPG uses 86mm rockets. What if in the future they were able to take the explosive power of a single 86mm rocket and put it into a shell as small as a 9mm, then it could be loaded on automatic weapons like assault rifles. With this you can unleash rapid explosive power, sort of like a full auto RPG, just the ammo are lighter and easier to carry, you can easily take out vehicles like tanks and APC and any armored vehicles.

_________________
VicViper Vs R9, will the eternal struggle between them ever end. Only time will tell.

Only the orange colored petals shake away freely.

The memories which are softly laid on my forehead are now far away.

It sings an eternal farewell.

thank you kiwi for the awesome siggy <3
Image
View user's profileSend private message Journal
Zenith
Banned


Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 1,855/1
Rating: 67
Location: Vancouver, BC

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2006 04:38 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

@ Ketaunya
They're called depleated Uranium Rounds Rolling Eyes Not exactly as explosive as your 86mm rocket but they stop tanks dead in their tracks.

@ Korou
The P90 can be fired underwater. Same goes for most rifles as well.

Bullets start to drop as soon as they leave the barrel of a weapon. It says the effective range of the MP7 is 200 meters. That means after 200 meters, the velocity of the ballistic is insufficient to penetrate a standard soft clay target to a depth of more than 1 meter. This is a standard unit for all weapons. Im sure you know what the consistency of clay is.

At close range almost every weapon with a pointed bullet can penetrate armor, such as kevlar. Although I highly doubt the MP7 has the power to pierce armor at its maximum effective range. Most weapons that are considered Rifles (even compact rifles) have a range of 350 meters. I haven't read any of these articles so Im not sure what this MP7 is capable of, just going with whatever's been presented here.

_________________
Image
View user's profileSend private message JournalMSN Messenger
Korou
Senior Member


Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 4,225/1
Rating: 159
Location: Being Sedduced by the dancing mario

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2006 05:19 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

that must be some strong clay then.
But share some love for the mp7 D=
And i didn't know most rifles can shoot underwater... I thought they couldn't because the water resistant slows down the bolt action for most rifles and makes the gunpowder wet (if it uses gunpowder). Take the AK. It uses a bolt action firing thingy mabob. If the water resistance is too strong or big or however you mesure it, the bullet won't go far.

_________________
Image

ISelfDestruct3 wrote:
people need to die. that's why disease, and viruses were made. im not saying god made them, or anything at all. (though my belief is that god made them). cause look at us, we are over populating the earth. PEOPLE NEED TO DIE!!
View user's profileSend private message Journal
Simplexity
Senior Member


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 392
Rating: 0
Location: Burnaby

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2006 07:13 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

/omg

glock all the way, guys. >_>

Image

_________________
*
Image

---


Insight

ronlyfoo ♥ mylalala
View user's profileSend private message JournalMSN Messenger
hao9031989417
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3,099
Rating: 8

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2006 07:30 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

Ketaunya wrote:
hao9031989417 wrote:
zidanet129 wrote:
Smith, I was actually thinking about the concept of Railguns. You know, firing shots with magnetic force instead of explosion of gunpowder. That has GOT to hurt considering how fast the bullet would be travelling. The only drawback is that the barrels would overheat quite quickly, so chained shots won't be possible.
And then there's the positron rifle...... Positrons = negative electrons...... Beam of positron pretty much causes EVERYTHING in its way to explode when positrons clashes with electrons (and you know, every single atom has electrons.......). In other words, it pretty much disintegrates anything in its way. Too much GS/D, I say.


Positron Cannons wouldn't work on earth, technically, as soon as the positron is fired into air, it would cause matter-antimatter reaction. It will only work in places where there is "matterless".

Railguns is realistic. I think there are already prototypes availible. The penetrating power of railguns is something like 2meters of steel. Almost 4 times as much as traditional HEAT/APFSDS/HESH rounds.


wow, four times as strong, thats amazing, a HEAT round is one of the top, yet a railshot is four times as strong, simply amazing.

Here is an idea that may or may not happen in the future (depending on the advances of technologies) I seem to recall that a RPG uses 86mm rockets. What if in the future they were able to take the explosive power of a single 86mm rocket and put it into a shell as small as a 9mm, then it could be loaded on automatic weapons like assault rifles. With this you can unleash rapid explosive power, sort of like a full auto RPG, just the ammo are lighter and easier to carry, you can easily take out vehicles like tanks and APC and any armored vehicles.


If you were to do that now, you'd have to have a truck with a huge electricity generator in order for the pistol to work. So, unless they figure out how to make batteries compact enough to be put onto a rifle while able to perform, there is no point in creating a pistol able to pentrate the armour of a MBT as the electric generator would be huge, even bigger than the ammunition of the simple RPG.

And no, HEAT is not the best anti-tank round. an APFSDS is. (Armour Piercing Fin Stablized Discarding Sabot). Yes, some of these rounds has depleted uranium as the core of the penetrator, but they are mainly made out of tungsten. The advantage of DU is that it tends to melt as it hit, so the point will remain sharp even if it hits the armour, on the other hand, penetrators made out of tungsten usually form "mushroom" heads as it hit the target, reducing it's penetrating abilities. Also, DU has the tendency to burn up as it is heated, creating havoc inside the vehicle after penetrating it. Thus, the Depleted Uranium APFSDS rounds used in Iraq were nicknamed the "silver bullet" by tankers. In fact, there was one instance where 1 shot by an M1A1 tank penetrated one T-72 tank, passed right through and penetrated the one right behind it, destroying both T-72s.

_________________
Retired.
View user's profileSend private message Journal
Zenith
Banned


Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 1,855/1
Rating: 67
Location: Vancouver, BC

PostPosted: 12 Feb 2006 10:49 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

Korou wrote:
that must be some strong clay then.
But share some love for the mp7 D=
And i didn't know most rifles can shoot underwater... I thought they couldn't because the water resistant slows down the bolt action for most rifles and makes the gunpowder wet (if it uses gunpowder). Take the AK. It uses a bolt action firing thingy mabob. If the water resistance is too strong or big or however you mesure it, the bullet won't go far.


Well you know what just occured to me though. the MP7 seems to be a cheaper production model than the MP5. If that's the case it might become the standard for north american urban law enforcement units.

All production arms use gunpowder ballistics. The bullet sits on top of a "mound" of gunpowder encased in a shell. The casing is waterproof now a days because of assembly line production. An imperfect case could result in a misfire because the explosive force wouldn't eject the bullet upon detonation. With that said, all modern rifles can fire underwater, but its not recommended cause you never know what will happen.

The viscosity of water is enough to reduce the muzzle velocity by up to 50%. Essentially reducing the weapon's effective range. I wouldn't have to worry about the water stopping the chamber cover/bolt because the springs are usually quite good. Its enough to snap off a finger if you tried to plug it. Its more of the water constantly slowing down the bullet or impurities in the water jamming up the pieces inside, though it doesn't happen often. In World War 1 the Enfield (sp?) rifles rusted up because they didn't have galvanized surfaces which added to other problems such as ammo mismatch.

There's only one class of weapons that doesn't function underwater to the best of my knowledge and those would be the Shotguns. Its because they use electrical detonation rather than a mechanical mechanism.

_________________
Image
View user's profileSend private message JournalMSN Messenger
Korou
Senior Member


Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 4,225/1
Rating: 159
Location: Being Sedduced by the dancing mario

PostPosted: 13 Feb 2006 05:53 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

Zenith wrote:
Korou wrote:
that must be some strong clay then.
But share some love for the mp7 D=
And i didn't know most rifles can shoot underwater... I thought they couldn't because the water resistant slows down the bolt action for most rifles and makes the gunpowder wet (if it uses gunpowder). Take the AK. It uses a bolt action firing thingy mabob. If the water resistance is too strong or big or however you mesure it, the bullet won't go far.


Well you know what just occured to me though. the MP7 seems to be a cheaper production model than the MP5. If that's the case it might become the standard for north american urban law enforcement units.

All production arms use gunpowder ballistics. The bullet sits on top of a "mound" of gunpowder encased in a shell. The casing is waterproof now a days because of assembly line production. An imperfect case could result in a misfire because the explosive force wouldn't eject the bullet upon detonation. With that said, all modern rifles can fire underwater, but its not recommended cause you never know what will happen.

The viscosity of water is enough to reduce the muzzle velocity by up to 50%. Essentially reducing the weapon's effective range. I wouldn't have to worry about the water stopping the chamber cover/bolt because the springs are usually quite good. Its enough to snap off a finger if you tried to plug it. Its more of the water constantly slowing down the bullet or impurities in the water jamming up the pieces inside, though it doesn't happen often. In World War 1 the Enfield (sp?) rifles rusted up because they didn't have galvanized surfaces which added to other problems such as ammo mismatch.

There's only one class of weapons that doesn't function underwater to the best of my knowledge and those would be the Shotguns. Its because they use electrical detonation rather than a mechanical mechanism.

im not sure, but i think revolvers and pistols can't. Oh yea since the P90 Magazine is spring operated, wouldn't there be chances of airbubbles if you dive in a ocean with it? And the airbubbles would disloged the bullets and hence, jamming the gun yet again. Then the seal would get hit by a torpedo fired by a submarine and you got a KIA on your hands. I know the mp5 doesn't have that problem because it was made for amphibious combat, hence it being the H&K MP5 NAVY. Maybe H&K made the MP7 the same way?

And just a quick question, anyone seen a mp6? if theres a mp5, there should be a mp6.

_________________
Image

ISelfDestruct3 wrote:
people need to die. that's why disease, and viruses were made. im not saying god made them, or anything at all. (though my belief is that god made them). cause look at us, we are over populating the earth. PEOPLE NEED TO DIE!!
View user's profileSend private message Journal
hao9031989417
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3,099
Rating: 8

PostPosted: 13 Feb 2006 07:08 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

Korou wrote:
Zenith wrote:
Korou wrote:
that must be some strong clay then.
But share some love for the mp7 D=
And i didn't know most rifles can shoot underwater... I thought they couldn't because the water resistant slows down the bolt action for most rifles and makes the gunpowder wet (if it uses gunpowder). Take the AK. It uses a bolt action firing thingy mabob. If the water resistance is too strong or big or however you mesure it, the bullet won't go far.


Well you know what just occured to me though. the MP7 seems to be a cheaper production model than the MP5. If that's the case it might become the standard for north american urban law enforcement units.

All production arms use gunpowder ballistics. The bullet sits on top of a "mound" of gunpowder encased in a shell. The casing is waterproof now a days because of assembly line production. An imperfect case could result in a misfire because the explosive force wouldn't eject the bullet upon detonation. With that said, all modern rifles can fire underwater, but its not recommended cause you never know what will happen.

The viscosity of water is enough to reduce the muzzle velocity by up to 50%. Essentially reducing the weapon's effective range. I wouldn't have to worry about the water stopping the chamber cover/bolt because the springs are usually quite good. Its enough to snap off a finger if you tried to plug it. Its more of the water constantly slowing down the bullet or impurities in the water jamming up the pieces inside, though it doesn't happen often. In World War 1 the Enfield (sp?) rifles rusted up because they didn't have galvanized surfaces which added to other problems such as ammo mismatch.

There's only one class of weapons that doesn't function underwater to the best of my knowledge and those would be the Shotguns. Its because they use electrical detonation rather than a mechanical mechanism.

im not sure, but i think revolvers and pistols can't. Oh yea since the P90 Magazine is spring operated, wouldn't there be chances of airbubbles if you dive in a ocean with it? And the airbubbles would disloged the bullets and hence, jamming the gun yet again. Then the seal would get hit by a torpedo fired by a submarine and you got a KIA on your hands. I know the mp5 doesn't have that problem because it was made for amphibious combat, hence it being the H&K MP5 NAVY. Maybe H&K made the MP7 the same way?

And just a quick question, anyone seen a mp6? if theres a mp5, there should be a mp6.


Excuse me, but never have I heard such a thing, using a torpedo to try and kill a single soldier? To use a torpedo to hit a target, first you must acquire sonar contact with the object, then you must calculate a firing solution and then can you engage. There are quite a few problems:

1) A diver would not be recognized as a threat by the submarine because the fire control computer would "filter" the diver out as marine life, for all the computer knows, it could be a normal seal or a dolphin. Even if it could, the distance would be very short.

2) A torpedo engagement with a frogman would be tactically unsound. Provided the sonar did detect the diver, the distance would be very short and the torpedo's explosion may damage the submarine itself. Also, the torpedo may "turn around" and start chasing the submarine itself, friendly fire is definitely unwanted.

3) A Mk 48 torpedo (The multi-purpose torpedo American SSNs and SSBNs use) is very large, weighs around a ton, that is, 1000 kg.(if not over) The electronic guidance onboard is very expensive, a single unit could cost up to $500,000, to use such a weapon against a human diver would be a severe waste of ammunition and resources, that torpedo could be used to engage enemy ships/submarines.

Really, Korou, you should start researching before pulling idiotic remarks out of your backside. To suggest using a torpedo to kill a single soldier is simply preposterous.

_________________
Retired.
View user's profileSend private message Journal
Korou
Senior Member


Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 4,225/1
Rating: 159
Location: Being Sedduced by the dancing mario

PostPosted: 13 Feb 2006 07:22 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

hao9031989417 wrote:
Korou wrote:
Zenith wrote:
Korou wrote:
that must be some strong clay then.
But share some love for the mp7 D=
And i didn't know most rifles can shoot underwater... I thought they couldn't because the water resistant slows down the bolt action for most rifles and makes the gunpowder wet (if it uses gunpowder). Take the AK. It uses a bolt action firing thingy mabob. If the water resistance is too strong or big or however you mesure it, the bullet won't go far.


Well you know what just occured to me though. the MP7 seems to be a cheaper production model than the MP5. If that's the case it might become the standard for north american urban law enforcement units.

All production arms use gunpowder ballistics. The bullet sits on top of a "mound" of gunpowder encased in a shell. The casing is waterproof now a days because of assembly line production. An imperfect case could result in a misfire because the explosive force wouldn't eject the bullet upon detonation. With that said, all modern rifles can fire underwater, but its not recommended cause you never know what will happen.

The viscosity of water is enough to reduce the muzzle velocity by up to 50%. Essentially reducing the weapon's effective range. I wouldn't have to worry about the water stopping the chamber cover/bolt because the springs are usually quite good. Its enough to snap off a finger if you tried to plug it. Its more of the water constantly slowing down the bullet or impurities in the water jamming up the pieces inside, though it doesn't happen often. In World War 1 the Enfield (sp?) rifles rusted up because they didn't have galvanized surfaces which added to other problems such as ammo mismatch.

There's only one class of weapons that doesn't function underwater to the best of my knowledge and those would be the Shotguns. Its because they use electrical detonation rather than a mechanical mechanism.

im not sure, but i think revolvers and pistols can't. Oh yea since the P90 Magazine is spring operated, wouldn't there be chances of airbubbles if you dive in a ocean with it? And the airbubbles would disloged the bullets and hence, jamming the gun yet again. Then the seal would get hit by a torpedo fired by a submarine and you got a KIA on your hands. I know the mp5 doesn't have that problem because it was made for amphibious combat, hence it being the H&K MP5 NAVY. Maybe H&K made the MP7 the same way?

And just a quick question, anyone seen a mp6? if theres a mp5, there should be a mp6.


Excuse me, but never have I heard such a thing, using a torpedo to try and kill a single soldier? To use a torpedo to hit a target, first you must acquire sonar contact with the object, then you must calculate a firing solution and then can you engage. There are quite a few problems:

1) A diver would not be recognized as a threat by the submarine because the fire control computer would "filter" the diver out as marine life, for all the computer knows, it could be a normal seal or a dolphin. Even if it could, the distance would be very short.

2) A torpedo engagement with a frogman would be tactically unsound. Provided the sonar did detect the diver, the distance would be very short and the torpedo's explosion may damage the submarine itself. Also, the torpedo may "turn around" and start chasing the submarine itself, friendly fire is definitely unwanted.

3) A Mk 48 torpedo (The multi-purpose torpedo American SSNs and SSBNs use) is very large, weighs around a ton, that is, 1000 kg.(if not over) The electronic guidance onboard is very expensive, a single unit could cost up to $500,000, to use such a weapon against a human diver would be a severe waste of ammunition and resources, that torpedo could be used to engage enemy ships/submarines.

Really, Korou, you should start researching before pulling idiotic remarks out of your backside. To suggest using a torpedo to kill a single soldier is simply preposterous.


i did it in battlefield 1942 =(

ok so a torpedo won't be the best example.. how about a seal jumping out of a boat and an airplane sees it? or if seals from one side engage with seals on the other in an underwater combat? hey you never know what might happen.

_________________
Image

ISelfDestruct3 wrote:
people need to die. that's why disease, and viruses were made. im not saying god made them, or anything at all. (though my belief is that god made them). cause look at us, we are over populating the earth. PEOPLE NEED TO DIE!!
View user's profileSend private message Journal
hao9031989417
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 3,099
Rating: 8

PostPosted: 13 Feb 2006 09:15 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

Ok this is getting no where, you are not getting the point. What we are debating is NOT games. Saying "I did it in Battlefield 1942" just makes everything you said bogus.

_________________
Retired.
View user's profileSend private message Journal
HelloMrBean
Early Adopter


Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 123
Rating: 0
Location: my room

PostPosted: 13 Feb 2006 10:07 PM Reply with quoteBack to top

Quote:
ok so a torpedo won't be the best example.. how about a seal jumping out of a boat and an airplane sees it? or if seals from one side engage with seals on the other in an underwater combat? hey you never know what might happen.


Just to clarify, there is no "seals on the other [side]". Seal is part of the US Navy.
Airplanes can't really do much about frongmen--maybe for reconnaissance purposes at most. For anti-frogman measures, even depth charge is close to over kill. As posted previously in this thread, a strong pulse of sonar is sufficient to disable any divers.
View user's profileSend private message JournalMSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:      
Reply to topic


 Jump to:   



View next topic
View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Terms of Service · Privacy Policy · Contact Us
All times are GMT - 8 Hours · Revision 5284:5295
Copyright 2003-2019 Xenophase, a not-for-profit volunteer organisation · Celebrating a 16th year online.