Sciencemadness Discussion Board - RE: Lost Discussion (Sabot Light AP Round)

RE: Lost Discussion (Sabot Light AP Round)

aliced25 - 28-1-2011 at 16:54

The ammunition under discussion may be used in weapons, in fact "Saboted Light Armour Penetrator" ("SLAP") has a long history and a major industrial market.

I see no reason why we cannot discuss the mechanics of how the thing works, maybe if I refrain from discussing the use of it in improvised weapons? The military is not exactly coy about the use of this ammunition type.

Based upon the logic however, though their might be some industrial purpose for details of nuclear materials & accidents, per se, they have less bearing on amateur science than the basic science of sabot ammunition. Saboted ammunition is designed to defeat aircraft, vehicular and personal armour, the development of the same is science, the use of the same without the correct gear is (a) stupid and (b) likely criminal (same as trying to set up a reactor in the garden).

vulture - 29-1-2011 at 09:45

Aliced25,

Polverone already gave his reasons for disallowing the (nonetheless interesting) discussion you started. To stress his main point again, your SABOT can only be used for military applications, whereas explosives or shaped charges have real applications in engineering.

Anyway, I'm afraid you will still disagree (if not, even better) but do realize that Polverone is both the founder and owner of this website, so he says what goes and what doesn't.

[Edited on 29-1-2011 by vulture]

aliced25 - 30-1-2011 at 04:30

Yes, I get that but the argument really is untenable. By all means, if Polverone is uncomfortable with certain material being on HIS website, then I'll respect that. However, when a demonstrably specious argument is raised as being the reason for not allowing the material on the site, I will automatically ask the questions raised by that argument.

To suggest that explosively formed liners, primary and secondary explosives, etc. have multiple uses is actually not that bad an argument, per se. But to suggest that the only difference between what is allowed and what is not, is based upon the existence of a engineering/industrial purpose, then that flies in the face of the fact that one of the largest industries, worldwide, is based upon the production of armour piercing projectiles, armour to deflect the same, etc. The Military Engineering/Industrial Complex is an obvious rebuttal to the suggestion that the discussion did not touch base with potential "industrial/engineering utility", I assure you, the conceptual design, prototyping, Research and Development, etc. that goes into the Military Industrial Complex employs a huge number of physicists, engineers, quantum mathematicians, etc. Such discussions clearly demonstrated that there is a live project based upon the same concept being carried out at the present time, and I assure you, every aspect of that project and the discussion I am referring to, dealt with real world, actual engineering/phsyics/chemistry. \

The design of sub-munitions, especially high-speed, high-accuracy, armour defeating sub-munitions like the APFSDS-SABOT type arrangement I was trying to discuss, is most assuredly high-end science (I didn't say I wanted to make a carbomb, could someone post the recipe for C4 for fucks sake). These type of munitions would, conceivably allow for the use of the 40mm M203 (slung under the Steyr/M16)/M79 (the Wombat gun - oversized shotgun specially designed for 40mm rounds) to fire such munitions, which would add to the capabilities of that extraordinarily useful weapon - it is the weapon used to fire the beanbag/truncheon/rubber bullet rounds & CS/Tear Gas, in crowd control situations, while the numbers of the M203 attached to the rifles of an Infantry Platoon seems to have grown significantly. If this weapon could be utilized to fire a Armour-piercing, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding-SABOT dart, that would provide each Platoon with an organic anti-armour weapon that would quite probably be far more effective than the old 66mm rocket (LAW) carried by several members of the same (it would also be multi-use, be much more concealable (not having the dust/smoke associated with firing) and easily used Light-Anti-Armour weapon. Whomever designs such a weapon, would be bought out by Raytheon/GE/etc. as the need for such organic weapons is huge. The average APC, wheeled/tracked (ignoring the incredibly heavy modified MBT designs from Israel) would be highly vulnerable to such weapons, which having no backblast/firing signature to compare with the various rocket based designs (which use mainly HEAT warheads), would enable light-infantry to stand and fight against armour (instead of knowing that firing at armour with today's weaponry (in close) is akin to shooting yourself in the head in terms of survivability).

In that respect, it is no more objectionable than discussions vis-a-vis the production of, or the various designs of, both regular nuclear weapons, enrichment procedures, the conceptual design of "dirty bombs", etc. There is a wealth of such information on this site (or attached thereto), none of which, to utilize the theoretical objection raised by Polverone (supported by yourself) has no non-military utility whatsoever. The grades of U235:U238 and Pu239 do not even resemble the grades utilized for Industrial/Engineering purposes, the ONLY possible utilization of such grades is in the manufacture of weapons.

Let me repeat, if the problem is that, due to the current climate of fear (caused by rampant chemophobia & terrorists), Polverone and others feel uncomfortable hosting such discussions, then I will abide by the restrictions they impose. I would prefer, that if people are going to cover their behinds by placing a ban on certain subjects/topics, that they do so honestly (with the relevant intestinal fortitude) without treating myself and others as imbeciles who are dimwitted enough to believe the weak-as-piss cover story. It is called respect, I don't think I am asking too much, given that I have stated I am willing to refrain from posting such material based upon Polverone's personal decision & thus I am respecting that decision, to be shown some respect in turn.

So in response, let me state, categorically, that I will refrain from discussing certain subjects that the leaders of this community would, in their judgment, prefer not be discussed. I will do so in the understanding that the reason for that has little to do with the stated differentiation, having everything to do with a sense of self-preservation (which I suppose is fair, I'd hate for some wack-job like McVeigh to design a useable weapon from my ramblings and allow extremists (of any color / creed) to repel light armoured vehicles & infantry (which would have altered the outcome at Ruby Ridge & Waco, if the participants had the training & discipline to utilize the same properly).

I will not accept an argument that has more holes in it than an >21 cheerleaders convention. I actually resent the suggestion that I should roll-over & play nice, based upon an argument that is tedious, tenditious and without any real apparent grounding in fact. My pride allows me to respect others, when they deserve respect, and to allow those who deserve respect to make decisions that may affect their welfare by themselves. The argument advanced, is absurd and offensive to me personally, however I'll refrain from going further because I respect Polverone and others. I'm playing in his yard, I'll do so by his rules.

hissingnoise - 30-1-2011 at 06:47

I think Polverone is perfectly correct in discouraging the discussion of weapons on SciMad. . .
I must say though, that I've only come around to that conclusion over the last couple of years . . .

madscientist - 30-1-2011 at 09:33

If I'd been around to see this dirty bomb thread you speak of, it would be gone.

Sciencemadness is supposed to be about chemistry; munition design is just too far off into the realm of weapon-ish discussion. Even shaped charges are pushing it IMO. We've never been too keen on having anything weapon or bong related posted on the site... it's not the place for it. We're chemists!

DDTea - 1-2-2011 at 13:38

AliceD: What if you tweaked the topic such that it wasn't explicitly about weapons/munitions? You're right, the idea of a sabot round has some genuine scientific applications. For example: armatures for railguns--what's NOT scientific about seeing how fast a mass can be propelled by some new means of propulsion? When you mention specific cartridges, with the intent of designing a new type of ammunition for use in those cartridges, that seems to cross that blurry line between innocent science and improvised weaponry.

This isn't E&W, and I hope to God or Bog that it never becomes E&W. Err on the side of caution and, when in doubt, keep things deliberately general.

Not sure if the moderators would agree with that, but it's an idea. There are tons of borderline threads that I see on SM but the ones that remain open for discussion are deliberately vague in some aspects.

aliced25 - 2-2-2011 at 16:06

Doesn't appear to matter, even dedicated threads, that deal with quite strongly scientific applications of existing weaponry, which were also the subject of considered debate, have now been closed simply due to my having posted them. Considering the sheer fucking volume of discussion on this site about the various mustard/lewisite/etc. gasses and their utility, which gasses have NO INDUSTRIAL USE WHATEVER (cf phosgene), I fail to comprehend the argument, I cannot argue the rationality of the line, there doesn't appear to be one. Improvised KE weapons do not contradict the agreements, restricting the use of WMD, while discussions vis-a-vis gasses of the nature averted to above do. I'm waiting on a reply before I simply remove myself from the site.

DDTea - 2-2-2011 at 16:59

Quote:

Doesn't appear to matter, even dedicated threads, that deal with quite strongly scientific applications of existing weaponry, which were also the subject of considered debate, have now been closed simply due to my having posted them. Considering the sheer fucking volume of discussion on this site about the various mustard/lewisite/etc. gasses and their utility, which gasses have NO INDUSTRIAL USE WHATEVER (cf phosgene), I fail to comprehend the argument, I cannot argue the rationality of the line, there doesn't appear to be one. Improvised KE weapons do not contradict the agreements, restricting the use of WMD, while discussions vis-a-vis gasses of the nature averted to above do. I'm waiting on a reply before I simply remove myself from the site.

This is really easy to understand and there's no need to get butt-hurt. Stop sitting there, pouting, and writing asinine posts and grow up. If you take a step back, you'll see just how thick this latest comment makes you sound. Quite honestly, if you insist on discussing weapons design and application, you wouldn't be missed if you did remove yourself--and with that attitude, you might find that an administrator preempts your self-removal. Those kinds of discussions just aren't within the scope of sciencemadness, no matter how well-written or thoroughly researched (as Polverone has said).

[Edited on 2-3-11 by DDTea]

aliced25 - 2-2-2011 at 17:31

DDTea, I'm not being asinine, I am however more than aware of the Politics involved in-between the various sites. The application of weapons IS being discussed in the relevant part of the forum, by a lot more members than merely myself. Why then are only my offerings closed?

I have removed significant sections of threads from here before over another "rule" (may want to remember that, it appeared to result directly in the limitations on changing posts).

As to being missed, mate you ever heard the term DILLIGAF? Stands for "Do I Look Like I Give A Fuck", I'm not here for brownie points or personal assessment, that would be kind of pointless given I'm supposedly anon wouldn't it?

As to having any worthwhile input, say as you please, under various usernames (to do with losing access to PC's/Laptops the access was recorded on), I've had quite a bit of input on a number of topics. I'm glad you regard them as worthless, but I'll let others with the seniority to say yay or nay have the final word shall I?

DDTea - 2-2-2011 at 17:40

Dude, sometimes people need a firm, loving sucker punch. I'm not saying your posts are worthless, I'm just saying you're acting like my nephews when they throw a tantrum. Chill out, yeah?

madscientist - 2-2-2011 at 18:15

I don't like weapons discussion here. But some has to be tolerated in the interest of maintaining an open atmosphere for the discussion of chemistry without limitations. Maybe the guy writing about phosgene has a synthetic purpose in mind!

I have to assume the best, otherwise a vast number of topics would become forbidden; many aspects of chemistry can be used to injure or kill.

That said, your thread was a weapons thread, and not a chemistry thread. Hence, not appropriate for this forum.

Polverone - 2-2-2011 at 22:41

I don't want this to be a homemade weapons forum. This is not because I am personally a super-pacifist or because I fear retaliation from my government or web host, but because it doesn't fit my vision for the site. It has been this way for years.

Why haven't I shut down discussion of chemical warfare agents? First, chemistry plays a central role. Second, I allow discussion of the agents, but not of their weaponization. If someone wants to discuss agent dispersal or delivery, defeating protective gear, production under improvised conditions, or anything else that hints at mayhem, the discussion is stopped. If you find exceptions it is because I missed them, not because I approved.

Why haven't I shut down the occasional nuke discussion, despite a lack of chemistry and the presence of weapons discussion? Because there's no chance anyone can build the simplest fission weapon at home or even come close, unless the Fissile Isotope Fairy pays a visit.

Your weapon thread is not being singled out. Here are some past instances of squelched weapons discussion:

Firearm design
Napalm and alternatives
Homocholine Tammelin-ester
Poisons + DMSO
Blowgun poisons
Napalm...a clear idea about it.
Direct Esterification of Phosphoric Acid

Some of the threads had technical merit, some didn't. All crossed the line too far into practical weapons territory, in my judgment, and brought either in-thread warnings or complete closure.

aliced25 - 3-2-2011 at 13:08

Re: the SABOT thread, I stated above that I have no drama with you simply refusing to allow it

That does not extend to the general discussion in energetics about Map Directed Fire Support, which was a healthy discussion, between the people interested in the same (being people with experience in the field of Organic Indirect Fire Support) and was aimed at the current adoption of the MAG-58 (under its various names) and the .50 cal M2HB-QCB (Heavy Barrel - Quick Change Barrel) by several armies, notably the UK, Canadian & Australian Infantry, as indirect fire support with the M2 being used out to 6.5km.

That is not a thread on making weapons, it IS/WAS a thread of the utilization of heavy weapons, in a very unusual way. Unless you know the concept of mounting the same on a tripod/hard mount and using a C2 Sight, it is of little interest - true. However, several members here have such knowledge (first hand) and I honestly do not see how it falls within the scope of the ban.

For that matter, the utilization of existing weapons with light SABOT rounds, even by the military, should not fall within the ban from my perspective. Otherwise there can be no discussion of how best to arrange the 40mm M203/M79 so that they can be used as section/squad light anti-armour weapons, which I believe they could be adapted to.

But the problem is not the specific SABOT discussion, it is the closing of other threads that mention weapons at all. If there can be no discussion of weapons, I've yet to see ANY non-military or IED useage of explosively formed liners (shaped yes, explosively formed, no).

madscientist - 3-2-2011 at 13:17

The utilization of heavy weapons has nothing to do with chemistry.

aliced25 - 3-2-2011 at 19:42

But it has a lot to do with the energetics, the round is propelled by chemicals, the amount thereof and the bearing are of extreme interest to anyone who has the training & knowledge of the systems involved. That coupled with the science behind the calculation of vectors (ie. elevation) in order to utilize a trajectory weapon, is science, like it or lump it.

madscientist - 3-2-2011 at 20:24

By that reasoning, computer programming could be argued to be related to chemistry, as a lot of chemists are employed designing the materials for semiconductors and chips.

aliced25 - 4-2-2011 at 05:26

Possibly, quite a lot of it is chemistry related - particularly the etching processes with the wafers. Computer programming itself no, there is no interaction with the chemicals involved. There is a great deal of science, but not chemistry. With the average crew served weapon, particularly mortars & artillery, there is interaction with the chemicals (as anyone who has suffered the powder headaches of playing with charge bags will tell you). There is also the sphincter tightening UD Procedure with mortars, undo the pin, wait, after x minutes, remove the plug from the baseplate and tilt the barrel in the bipod so that the round gently rolls down into the hands of lucky No.2, who then walks (no running) to a safe distance, the use of C4 to detonate the same is also quite interesting. The WP rounds are delivered in waxed tubes, stored separately, when one begins to smoke, a similar procedure is followed.

The long illumination rounds (with timer) have a plastic explosive propellant, whereas HE/WP both have charge bags (nitrocellulose - those charge bags are the best means known for starting hexamine stoves). There is an awful lot of chemistry and a hell of a lot of science involved. For instance the box barrage & creeping barrage, or the fire plan H-Hour, M-Minute and the use of various rounds for various effects.

Anyone who has ridden the bubbles (by applying gentle pressure to either side of the bipod, one can move the thing just enough to get the three spirit level bubbles in the right spot), on a 40-60 round shoot, is interested in this. Granted not everyone is, I'm not interested in making explosively formed projectiles or rocket fuel. I'm also less than interested in primary/secondary explosives, I have access to both and know how they are used. This is a widely diverse site, false distinctions on weapon RELATED topics, as opposed to weapon MANUFACTURE topics, are not necessary.

FTP & SABOT

MadHatter - 4-2-2011 at 07:51

Check your U2U. The FTP may contain interesting material if you're wiling to go through
some of it. There's 400 GB of data there, so enjoy !

DDTea - 4-2-2011 at 08:18

Quote: Originally posted by aliced25

Possibly, quite a lot of it is chemistry related - particularly the etching processes with the wafers. Computer programming itself no, there is no interaction with the chemicals involved. There is a great deal of science, but not chemistry. With the average crew served weapon, particularly mortars & artillery, there is interaction with the chemicals (as anyone who has suffered the powder headaches of playing with charge bags will tell you). There is also the sphincter tightening UD Procedure with mortars, undo the pin, wait, after x minutes, remove the plug from the baseplate and tilt the barrel in the bipod so that the round gently rolls down into the hands of lucky No.2, who then walks (no running) to a safe distance, the use of C4 to detonate the same is also quite interesting. The WP rounds are delivered in waxed tubes, stored separately, when one begins to smoke, a similar procedure is followed.

The long illumination rounds (with timer) have a plastic explosive propellant, whereas HE/WP both have charge bags (nitrocellulose - those charge bags are the best means known for starting hexamine stoves). There is an awful lot of chemistry and a hell of a lot of science involved. For instance the box barrage & creeping barrage, or the fire plan H-Hour, M-Minute and the use of various rounds for various effects.

Anyone who has ridden the bubbles (by applying gentle pressure to either side of the bipod, one can move the thing just enough to get the three spirit level bubbles in the right spot), on a 40-60 round shoot, is interested in this. Granted not everyone is, I'm not interested in making explosively formed projectiles or rocket fuel. I'm also less than interested in primary/secondary explosives, I have access to both and know how they are used. This is a widely diverse site, false distinctions on weapon RELATED topics, as opposed to weapon MANUFACTURE topics, are not necessary.

Designing rocket fuel compositions would actually be Chemistry.

What you're not understanding is that there's a big difference between CHEMISTRY (a branch of science) and things that are "related to" chemistry. Simply contacting chemicals does not make something chemistry. Chemistry = solving scientific problems related to to chemical systems via the scientific method. Chemistry deals with matter and its transformations (to quote the job descriptions on USAJobs.gov).

You're not thinking like a scientist. Instead of trying to understand HOW things work, you'd rather ask, "what can Chemistry do for me?" In fact, discussions of weapons are closer to, "How can I use Chemistry to inflict harm on others?" That's an utter bastardization of science.

[Edited on 2-4-11 by DDTea]

aliced25 - 5-2-2011 at 01:29

The title of this site, forgive me if I am wrong, is SCIENCEMADNESS rather than CHEMISTRY MADNESS?

Nobel himself utilized science to generate significant sums of money from explosives, several other Nobel prize winners used chemistry for weapons. How is that a bastardisation of science? It is one of the key areas in which funding is ALWAYS available.

In some sections of this forum I am quite happy to discuss chemistry, in others, science. I really don't see the issue, science is a dual-edged weapon, the greatest consumer of the same is the international arms trade.

The argument vis-a-vis light infantry, moving across country without vehicle support versus heavy, mounted infantry, forced to ride in progressively heavier and heavier vehicles, which are then restricted to roads (and thus IED/Ambush) bait, is also science. Particularly when the question is what the statistics are in terms of loss of life/wounding as a result of being roadbound v free to move cross country. This is actual science, it is not art, it requires a calculation as to the probability of things happening and the effects of the lower number of hits on less heavily armoured soldiers.

There seems to be a mindset here that unless it can be achieved under strict laboratory conditions, it isn't science. That is a fallacy, try looking outside your uncomfortably narrow box and see the rest of the world. Science is done without test tubes or rats/dogs/primates, particularly in Afghanistan at present. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it any less factual.

The arguments about map-directed fire support, comes from a consideration that the vehicle mounted GPMG/M2's, which are remote-controlled, could be tied into the net and operate with the Support Coy weapons in providing Organic Fire Support for the task-force/group. It isn't so much about killing people, as saving the lives of the only troops I give a flying fuck about the welfare of. If people who are trying to kill them get their comeuppance, so be it.

The concept I had was a modified C2 Sight, which, if it utilized GPS technology and a dedicated data-line, could effectively lay itself (by virtue of having the elevation for a certain distance, and the bearing between GPS Data point x (where the weapon is) and y (where the target is)). It would effectively act as a force multiplier, allowing the unused (and currently, solely direct fire weapons mounted on vehicles) firepower to be put into the Btn's bag of tricks.

As to the right or wrong of the Taliban/Al-Quaeda/etc. and the rest, I couldn't really be less interested. Our troops are there because they have been ordered to be there, their troops/militias are there because they wish to reimpose their will on the populace. Anybody who points a weapon at our troops should be dispatched as quickly, as effortlessly and as efficiently as possible. Right or wrong really doesn't enter the question, legally, our troops are under Military Law. Provided their actions are within the same, their actions are legal. What is legal is right, by definition.

madscientist - 5-2-2011 at 02:05

Chemistry is a science, and our experiments are madness.

Weapons discussion has not been tolerated during the first 8 years of our existence and certainly will not be anytime in the next 80. This policy is not up for debate.

Quote:

What is legal is right, by definition.

DDTea - 5-2-2011 at 03:01

Quote: Originally posted by aliced25

The title of this site, forgive me if I am wrong, is SCIENCEMADNESS rather than CHEMISTRY MADNESS?

Nobel himself utilized science to generate significant sums of money from explosives, several other Nobel prize winners used chemistry for weapons. How is that a bastardisation of science? It is one of the key areas in which funding is ALWAYS available.

...

The argument vis-a-vis light infantry, moving across country without vehicle support versus heavy, mounted infantry, forced to ride in progressively heavier and heavier vehicles, which are then restricted to roads (and thus IED/Ambush) bait, is also science. Particularly when the question is what the statistics are in terms of loss of life/wounding as a result of being roadbound v free to move cross country. This is actual science, it is not art, it requires a calculation as to the probability of things happening and the effects of the lower number of hits on less heavily armoured soldiers.

...

The arguments about map-directed fire support, comes from a consideration that the vehicle mounted GPMG/M2's, which are remote-controlled, could be tied into the net and operate with the Support Coy weapons in providing Organic Fire Support for the task-force/group. It isn't so much about killing people, as saving the lives of the only troops I give a flying fuck about the welfare of. If people who are trying to kill them get their comeuppance, so be it.

The concept I had was a modified C2 Sight, which, if it utilized GPS technology and a dedicated data-line, could effectively lay itself (by virtue of having the elevation for a certain distance, and the bearing between GPS Data point x (where the weapon is) and y (where the target is)). It would effectively act as a force multiplier, allowing the unused (and currently, solely direct fire weapons mounted on vehicles) firepower to be put into the Btn's bag of tricks.
...

So how many Nobel prizes in Chemistry, Physics, or Biology have been awarded for the development of new military technologies? I don't mean tangentially related--you can't say "the atomic bomb research," because the Atom bomb DID NOT win any Nobel prizes. Research in Nuclear physics, atomic structure, new elements, and quantum theory did win Nobel prizes though.

In a way, I see what you're saying. Yes, statistical analysis based on a lot of compiled data regarding military strategy IS scientific. It involves testing a hypothesis based on observable data and reaching conclusions.

Your discussion on Heavy v. Light Infantry was simply that: discussion and conjecture (although I hesitate to even call it conjecture). There's no hypothesis, there's no data, there are no references. Maybe you're just unaware of how scientific discussion is done in polite circles, but we generally don't say, "I was sitting on my bum and thought this would be a cool idea..." The statements you make are sweeping generalizations that are NOT based on even a cursory statistical analysis. Where are the probability calculations that you speak of? That's a bad start to a discussion that's supposed to be about statistical analysis of war-fighting strategies, and if you took that line of reasoning to decision-makers, you wouldn't be taken seriously.

As far as the Shotgun SABOT went...seriously, that's a thinly-veiled attempt at improvised weaponry. I'll quote:

Quote:

I'd dearly love to see their faces when facing a population they have "disarmed" (ours for instance), which have resorted to rearming themselves with the one weapon they'd fear more than just about anything else, a miniaturized AT cannon, firing miniature AP SABOT shells.

Combine that with your mention of what is "easy to acquire" and that thread deserved to be locked. As it is, the public and members of law enforcement are terrified of chemistry. Combine talk of Chemistry with talk of designing weapons and what do you hope to accomplish? What kind of attention do you think that would attract to this forum? And what would be gained from it? Creating an environment where teenagers can mentally masturbate while fantasizing about engaging tyrannical zombie Blackwater-affiliated members of law enforcement with high tech weaponry? No thanks.

When it comes to map-directed fire support or indirect-fire machineguns, that discussion would have at least been interesting if you'd done a slight bit of work. For example: drawn a crude block diagram of what you are proposing. "Modified C2 sight," "GPS technology," "dedicated data line"--that's all jargon and quite honestly, it doesn't SAY anything. Yet you insist on babbling this nonsense on and on as if saying it enough times will somehow make it coherent. It's not and it never was.

In short, the discussions you are whining about are little more than verbose, half-baked, juvenile discussions in a world where Wars are fought between absolute "good guys" and "bad guys," the latter probably allied with the likes of the Joker and the ghost of Saddam Hussein.

Also, your understanding of global politics is so nauseatingly provincial and jingoistic that addressing your statements on Afghanistan would be an exercise in futility. Not only would it effectively derail the conversation, feelings would be hurt, bad arguments would be made, religion would be discussed, the US would be bashed, Hitler would be mentioned, and the thread would be closed, and nothing would be resolved.

[Edited on 2-5-11 by DDTea]

aliced25 - 9-2-2011 at 00:10

1. Starting a discussion, on any branch of any science, is an art form in itself. What would you have me do? Present a topic and then populate the entirety of it myself? Despite it being one that is the basis of considerable argument and conjecture? Be kind of over the top wouldn't it? That would be like some poor excuse for a halfwit (with study you may make it one day) misquoting people in order to give a lecture (pretty much like the post above)

2. Mate, if you have no knowledge of the "jargon" (or technical terminology), then the discussion is probably not for you (although I really don't think the terms "data-line" or "GPS" should be too daunting) nothing personal. It WAS a seriously technical discussion (or was designed to be), in that it suggested that the vehicle mounted firepower assets could be incorporated into a Battalion/Companies Organic (ie. owned by that unit), Indirect (ie. one outside the clear 'line of sight' of the target) Fire-Support. Doing so would, at a single stroke, double (or better) the capacity of a mechanized/motorized unit to defend itself and/or accomplish its mission(s).

There was no need to draw a block diagram, the people who have ever actually gained the knowledge necessary to see what I'm talking about, wouldn't need it (and I really don't want to assist any half-baked wanker to build a mortar sight). Quite simply, those who took part, knew what was under discussion to the necessary degree, those that don't don't need to. Simple block diagrams of mortar sights are (a) not simple; (b) not for public consumption; and (c) not something I intend to share with idiots (please feel free to be offended).

3. Please, do not mistake my discussion of what is possible theoretically, with regard to a SABOT round with American Gun Control. If ever a population had too many weapons, it is yours. Then again, our population HAS been disarmed, while in several key areas large sections of the population are being subjected daily to illegal, immoral and increasing brutality from Police, it has to end, or it will be ended.

watson.fawkes - 9-2-2011 at 07:22

Quote: Originally posted by aliced25

1. Starting a discussion, on any branch of any science, is an art form in itself. What would you have me do?

We would have you take your discussion of these topics to another place. Whether you take yourself entirely there as well is your own choice.

If you are feeling especially persecuted, you are welcome to start your own board and discuss whatever you like there. Oh, the horror of speaking to an empty room! The participants here are not your personal plaything, to be done with as you will. They are here because of the atmosphere that Polverone has created over the years. That includes not discussing weapons design. This policy keeps Teh Stupid away and fosters an environment that folks want to be around. Your desire to discuss what you like is not as important as everyone else desire to have such discussion absent.

Rosco Bodine - 9-2-2011 at 08:02

Quote: Originally posted by aliced25

3. Please, do not mistake my discussion of what is possible theoretically, with regard to a SABOT round with American Gun Control. If ever a population had too many weapons, it is yours.

Famous last words for a redcoat or a redcoat wannabe tresspassing in Kentucky. Beware the injuns and bears.
Electrically aimed weapons of various kinds are nothing new,
and neither are the manually aimed variety. Grabbing the muzzle of a weapon in the hands of another, to take it from them and pull it to yourself automatically by your own action
is likely to bring the weapon to bear on yourself, and to cause actuation of the trigger. Interesting how the mechanics and philosophy are in agreement in such a proposition by nature.

Quote:

Then again, our population HAS been disarmed, while in several key areas large sections of the population are being subjected daily to illegal, immoral and increasing brutality from Police, it has to end, or it will be ended.

Bold talk for the helpless. Where do the gang raped go to recover their virginity? Does a hard lesson seen in the distance coming your way need to be awaited arrival with empty hands ....or is it better met along the way on your own terms? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

vulture - 9-2-2011 at 15:30

Quote:

(b) not for public consumption

But SABOT rounds and fire support with squad based weapons are?

Quote:

not something I intend to share with idiots (please feel free to be offended).

You whine and whine and whine about your discussions being curtailed but you withhold information when you see fit?

Perhaps you should step back and wait for your brain to recover from self-righteousness poisoning before posting again.

anotheronebitesthedust - 9-2-2011 at 16:44

aliced25 - 9-2-2011 at 18:34

Clever, now go find the details on what happened up in the NT & Nth QLD... I dislike paranoids, they are ill-disciplined and unwilling to listen. Then again, I see a very dark future for your Country - too many weapons too many agendas. Have a good look at the continued deaths in custody, at police firing at will into a crowd and avoiding trial because their colleagues "mistakenly" forgot to charge them within the period allowed. A VERY, VERY different problem. Thank you for trivializing the same.

DDTea - 9-2-2011 at 19:47

Quote: Originally posted by aliced25

...they are ill-disciplined and unwilling to listen.

Pot: Hey Kettle, you're black!

aliced25 - 9-2-2011 at 20:11

Ok. Vulture has spoken, I'll bow out.

I departed from my own rule about arguing with obnoxious little arsewipes who are pathologically incapable of arguing fairly. I paid for it.

As for the amateur chemistry and at-home instrumentation, the Company is started and I have work to do. Conceptually I'd hoped to provide a discount for this and other sites, but I'm not only disinterested in so doing, I'm also aware that the use of the Company to attempt to design/build a simplified digital C2-type sight is contrary to the morals (or otherwise) of the units here. So as not to offend them, I'll not offer anything here.

[Edited on 10-2-2011 by aliced25]