If you look at the closest Panther tank you can see that the gun mantle has sloped armour. The next Panther tank over you can see that the lower part of the gun mantle has no slope. In the closest Panther that sloped armour on the lower part of the gun mantle is known as a shot trap. Non penetrating hits to this section would be deflected downwards to armour that is very thin, only something like 15ish mm thick and under that armour is the driver, radio operator, gear box and ammo storage. This wasn't corrected for years.
SUSAT sight used on the L85. What where the Royal Marines thinking? And of course the U.S. Army's camo.
That does look awkward, but I've never tried to shoot someone with it so what exactly is the problem with it?
The "pointer" hide anything and anyone bellow the needle point. While you are aiming at someone, say in a second story window, you can't see the guy in the window bellow him aiming at you, for exemple. In the picture you can only see about half of the guy running in front...
Yes and not very accurate when engageing at different ranges. The marines got it right when they implemented the ACOG. It was said to be the biggest improvement to the marines fighting capability since the M1-Garand the cheveron is as wide as an average persons shoulder length at 300 meters along with the other lines at their corrosponding distances. They are also designed around the Bidon Aiming Concept devolped by the founder of the company http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpGSKKgWWks&feature=player_embedded#!
Here is one for you: Go to nearly any deployed location and you'll find everyone dressed in full camouflage and wearing nice, shiny reflective belts. Not necessarily a design flaw, but it sure seems like it wrecks the benefit of the camo.
They only make you wear that crap on the big FOBs. I didn't even bring a glowbelt on deployment with me.
RCOs were great. Not only did they improve accuracy, they gave you a very handy ability to scope out IEDs/Suspicious people at whim....and without having to switch to Binos.
Here's a potentially costly one. http://www.wtkr.com/news/military/w...rriers-report-claims-20120117,0,5414639.story thats not good news if you're building your next gen carrier around this jet.
When I was younger I was working in ship repair. The shipyard I sued to work for, Vickers, in Montreal had government contract for the maintenance of RCN ships. One of those I worked on was the RCN Preserver, a support ship. If you had access to the blueprint you could see that roughly in the middle of the ship there was a space designate as a nuclear shelter... Which in actuality was a space the size of a broom closet... Not saying that the Preserver would have survived a nuclear blast in the first place...
The T-28 military trainer for the U.S. Navy and Air Force had a serious design flaw... the engine exhaust leaked into the pilot's compartment. In more modern aircraft designs, the F-22 has a design flaw in the cockpit drainage and corrosion is already being seen...don't get me going on the OBOGS. Typically the more complex the machine the more room for flaws in the engineering process...we see this in the German Tiger tanks that were over-engineered and were unreliable in the field. Let's look at a great design, the AK-47...the engineering tolerances are loose enough that dirt, dust, sand and moisture don't effect the major operating systems of the rifle..an extremely reliable weapon, that sacrificed precision for durability...in the field this gives a definite advantage.
Italian M11-39 medium tank had a few: first, paper-thin armor, enough that MG fire could penetrate. Second, a very underpowered engine, making it slower than many heavy tanks. Third, the main gun mounted in the chassis, with limited traverse. (The turret held only two machine guns.) Fourth, a crew of only three, meaning the gunner also had to load the 37mm cannon. All in all...a lousy tank on all fronts. The M13-40 was better, but also had flaws: still the same weak armor, it had a more powerful engine, but was about two tons heavier. Not only was the end result it being no faster, but the chassis was now carrying more weight than it was designed to, with predictable reliability problems. It did have the main gun in a turret, but the cannon (a 47mm) was inaccurate beyond about 300 yards. The high-explosive shell it used was cranky and unreliable (and not that effective), and frequently not available. Lastly, the turret had to be traversed by hand, and was only a 2-man turret (the tank commander had to load the gun), making for a poor rate of fire. Possibly the worst medium tank of the war.
Italian guns and ammo were famous for being bad. The Australians captured a lot of Italian artillery and put it to use, but they were generally fired from a slit trench by pulling on a rope.
No, this is not an AK-47. It is the gun that the AK was was patterened after, the Sturmgewehr 44 or "Storm Assault Rifle". In specific, this was a model known as the Krummlauf. This was actually an attachment for the original gun, that came in angles from 30 to 90 degrees. It was designed to either shoot around corners, or for tank crewmen to be able to shoot at areas the machine guns could not reach. Or for use in the Elefant schwerer Panzerjager. This German tank had no machine guns at all. The biggest problems was that the bend tended to cause the bullets to fragment, which reduced it's effectiveness in combat. The barrels also wore out incredibly fast, normally needing replacement after around 200 rounds. And they were incredibly inaccurate. Even the lowest bend (30 degrees) was only able to get shot groups in a 35cm by 35 cm circle at 100 meters. An unmodified StG 44 could get 100 meter groups into a 3 cm by 3 cm circle. "Here is your new weapon. You can shoot around corners, but can barely hit a car sized target across the street. And you can only fire around 8 magazines through it before the barrel is worthless."
Didn't the BMP-1 have a design flaw with the gas tanks being placed in the rear doors of the troop compartment?
I am aware of that. However, the AK was strongly influenced by the StG 44. The firing mechanism was definately created by Mikhail Kalashnikov. But the desire of the Soviet military to create a weapon like the StG 44 is what led to the competition that Mikhail Kalashnikov entered his weapon into. When the advancing Soviet troops were engaged in firefights against the Wehrmacht, they normally came out second best. They learned first hand what the Germans had already realized. That most engagements (especially in urban settings) occured at distances of less then 300 meters. And that rate of fire and large capacity magazines often made more of a difference then accuracy. So when making the request for gun designs, the Soviet Army placed as requirements many of the aspects of the StG 44 that were revolutionary at the time, but common today. Pistol grip, large detachable magazine, fire a high velocity rifle cartridge, and have a capability to fire either semi or fully automatic from a closed bolt position. Before the StG 44, the closest thing to this class of weapon was the "Submachine Gun". Many had these componants, like the Thompson with the pistol grip and large magazine. However, these all used pistol ammunition and were blowback operation weapons, not gas operated. And a great many also fired from the open bolt position. These are good for in close fighting, but are almost useless at distances of more then 50-75 meters. The AK was actually a combination of several weapon concepts, the StG 44 and M1 being some of the largest design donators. It used almost the exact same gas operating system as the StG 44, combined with the bolt operating system of the M1 Garand. Mikhail Kalashnikov however combined them in a way that had never been seen before. And one that the US would wait almost 20 years to copy.
