h a l f b a k e r yWe got your practicality ... right here.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
This is called "indirect fire", and is Baked and WKTE. |
|
| |
The classic example is the deployment of MMGs in WW1 to provide interdiction fire beyond direct fire ranges. On one occasion, one million rounds were fired. <link>. This required a large number of guns and corresponding personnel, operating over many hours (The accepted maximum rate of fire of a Vickers MG is 600 rpm, the practical achievable rate is substantially lower). |
|
| |
//so the shooter must rely on pure skill to hit the target// at those
ranges, I think the odds devolve more to "pure luck" |
|
| |
//At these degrees of elevation the scope of the rifle shows the sky// Look up "volley sights". |
|
| |
I am glad I posted this for many reasons. |
|
| |
1. I had no idea that machine guns were used as " rifle-calibre fire employed as ultra-short artillery" although it makes sense. Maybe because it was specific to WW1? Maybe because I am ignant? |
|
| |
2. The wikipedia article describing this use and the resistance to it focuses on WW1 and then stops. Were there machine gun units in subsequent wars that used this technique? Was it obsolete after WW1? Certainly there were infantry battles in WW2. |
|
| |
3. Artillery uses math and forward spotters / maps. My read of the wikipedia is that these gunners were also firing at theoretical, unseen targets. My proposal is for target shooting. |
|
| |
4. Volley sights - also super interesting and thank you FT. Reference is made to shooting at the "grey mass" and so they gave up on accuracy. |
|
| |
For my proposal one would use an accurate but low power bullet - something that can fly straight but not far. |
|
| |
5. //so the shooter must rely on pure skill to hit the target// at those ranges, I think the odds devolve more to "pure luck". I am sure you will credit skill when you hit the target, lurchly one. Have hope - the target is actually the very distant broad side of a barn. |
|
| |
I think you should add the target size and low power
bullet to the description. That makes much more sense.
Actually, with a sufficiently large target, full power
rounds could be pretty impressive. I think the one
remaining problem is that it's hard to see where a shot
went that misses the target. I recommend that every
bullet be a tracer (at least during initial training). At
high levels of competition it may be impressive to see
these people shooting up in the air and holes magically
appearing in the center of the barn wall. |
|
| |
And my thanks as well to [8th of 7] for the link. That was
interesting. |
|
| |
// Maybe because I am ignant? // |
|
| |
We consider it much more likely that you are merely ignorant, and lack spelling skills ... |
|
| |
// Was it obsolete after WW1? // |
|
| |
Not entirely, but the development of the mortar as a portable close-support infantry weapon capable of high-arc indirect fire, and delivering much more powerful ordnance at a rapid rate, superseded the technique to a great extent. |
|
| |
I had a vision of a device affixed to the rifle that was like a spirit level but would show angle of elevation. Because this device would be mounted on the side of the rifle it would hard for a shooter to look at it with rifle to shoulder (although easy if you put the butt on the ground and fire it like a mortar). The spirit level device would have a flip out mirror to allow a shooter with gun at shoulder to read degrees of elevation. |
|
| |
Also I envision a bunch of salvaged industrial windows up against the side of the barn. These windows are painted white but the barn is not white. On successfully hitting the barn, a window pane would break revealing barn color behind, easily visible through a scope. One could also use inflated balloons as is done at the fair. An advantage to windows is that they can be left up outside for weeks or months but balloons likely would last only a day or 2. |
|
| |
// affixed to the rifle that was like a spirit level but would show angle of elevation // |
|
| |
It's called a panoramic mortar sight. Baked and WKTE. |
|
| |
Please, do try to keep up, there's a good chap. Otherwise, we'll have to ... well, just keep up, that's all. For your own good. |
|
| |
I was pondering this concept on considering how one would fire a shotgun slug made of a hypothetical element with MW 300. I think the slug would drop pretty fast. One would need to shoot high, possibly in an arc and so we arrive back here, but this time with large, shotgun-like weapons firing massive projectiles. |
|
| |
//a hypothetical element with MW 300. I think the slug would drop pretty fast// |
|
| |
Indeed true, except for a couple of details: |
|
| |
(1) MW is molecular weight; you want atomic weight |
|
| |
(2) It wouldn't. Assuming you designed the gun to give the slug the same muzzle velocity as a lead slug, and assuming you fire upwards, it would actually drop slightly less fast - because with its greater density, air resistance would be relatively less, so its upward velocity would drop off a little less quickly. Conversely, a wooden bullet would drop slightly sooner, because air resistance would drain its upward velocity faster. |
|
| |
I wonder if that can be abbreviated. If I abbreviate it AW people might think I am embarrassed. |
|
| |
/Assuming you designed the gun/
I was pondering this after watching a video channel which features all sorts of weird and wonderful special slugs fired out of a shotgun. As far as I can tell the shotgun is standard and the charge piece is the same for each. I suspect that a shotgun slug charge imparts as much energy as possible without risking the barrel exploding, and so if using a standard gun one would use the same charge for the AW300 slug. Muzzle velocity would be slower than for a lighter slug but as you say the increased mass means velocity at a distance will be increasingly greater than the case for a lead slug. |
|
| |
Also the analogy to archery is rather misheaded. Modern archery uses direct sights rather like rifle sights (I have seen a telescopic sight on a modern compound bow). Even with longbow shooting, the target is usually sighted directly, with the tip of the arrow placed offset to compensate for parallax, windage and drop. |
|
| |
I have played archery golf and similar games where the aim is to drop the arrow down onto a horizontal target rather than shoot it into the face of a vertical target. |
|
| |
And finally, I will offer the suggestion that the "arch" in archery is nothing to do with the curved flightpath of the arrow, but actually comes from the Greek, signifying the archaic origins of this activity. |
|
| |
Pomloc I am pretty sure your "archaic" comment was gentle trolling of the sort beloved to me. Which succeeded in bringing out my pedant. To the OED! |
|
| |
archer, n.
Forms: ME archeer, archar, ME archere, archier, ME– archer, 15 artcher. |
|
| |
Etymology: < Anglo-Norman archer, Old French archier < Latin arcârium, < arcus bow. |
|
| |
which ends with Latin arcus; the same root word as arch in the curved flightpath or in the architectural sense. |
|
| |
meta-pedant: Are you sure it said "arcârium", not "arcârius"? "arcârium" sounds like a place, rather than a person (you know, as "aquarium" is to "aquarius"). |
|
| |