76th Anniversary of Hiroshima Bombing

[Silvanus]

More ordinance was dropped on Vietnam and N Korea than in Germany or Japan, at the very least in terms of concentration, and it really isn’t even close.

Minor nitpick, but you mean ordnance, rather than ordinance. Ordinance refers to laws and instructions and such, and dropping ordinance would look like dumping a pile of paperwork on them.

 

[Lykosia]

No. An anti-tank rifle is supremely unsuited to AA: it doesn't have the ability to flood the sky with bullets, or provide mid-air explosions, either of which was usually required to take out a plane. Specialised AA was thus done by autocannons or sorts of specialised artillery, although regular machine guns could also be effective if the planes were low enough.

Finns turned some of L39 Lahti anti tank rifles into full auto double barrel AA guns. It was one of the design goals behind the gun. A gun that could be used both in anti tank and anti air role.

 

[Gergar12]

When I was little my response to why we needed nuclear was implied to be in case of aliens attacked, and we needed to all kill ourselves, and some of them to stop them from enslaving us.

Of course, if they really wanted to they could kidnap one or two of us, and reverse engineer a human via artificial insemination or cloning with small parts of our DNA. Then they could clone one million of us, and make us into slaves or zoo animals. But of course, they likely have simulations, and AI so why would they do that?

Also, nuclear-powered rocket rockets are a thing as well as nuclear bomb-propelled rockets.

 

[Agema]

But ammunition can be used in more than one gun. They adapted .50 BMG for single shot rifles, but never saw fit to adapt anti-tank rounds to machine guns.

Okay, but the argument is weapons that are still around in some form, not the ammo.

It is somewhat semantic, but that's kinda why I picked that kind of gun, an anti-tank rifle isn't just a high-penetration rifle. It's a tool with a highly specific purpose. They didn't make anti-tank rifles to penetrate armor, they made anti-tank rifles to disable tanks.

They didn't just use the to disable tanks, though. The British Boys AT rifle was also used it against lightly fortified positions, armoured cars and other vehicles. It was replaced as an anti-tank by the wonderful and bizarre (if surprisingly effective) curio that was the PIAT, and for everything else by the M2 Browning.

Finns turned some of L39 Lahti anti tank rifles into full auto double barrel AA guns. It was one of the design goals behind the gun. A gun that could be used both in anti tank and anti air role.

Sure, but after that coversion it's not a rifle any more, it's an autocannon.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Okay, but the argument is weapons that are still around in some form, not the ammo.

The ammo is the weapon, and that's me extending a lifeline because flat out anti-tank guns aren't around anymore period.

They didn't just use the to disable tanks, though. The British Boys AT rifle was also used it against lightly fortified positions, armoured cars and other vehicles. It was replaced as an anti-tank by the wonderful and bizarre (if surprisingly effective) curio that was the PIAT, and for everything else by the M2 Browning.

Somewhat because it was already bad at it's job when it came out. It was approved in 1937 and by 1939 it couldn't reliably penetrate tank armor. It was designed as an anti-tank round (and gun), but all they made was an anti-material round (and gun). By this point in the war, traditional armor piercing techniques that would work against light armored vehicles bounced off of tanks, everyone that was still trying to make anti-tank rifles were using what amounted to shaped charges to make single use thermal lances. Even then, most anti-tank rifles didn't work that well, but German panzerfausts did, and so the whole idea of a man portable rifle for killing tanks died and they went to recoilless rifles and down that path.

But an anti-tank rifle is a rifle designed to disable or defeat tanks, there are even terms for what way you disable a tank. There are 0 man portable rifles capable of defeating contemporary tanks today, and nobody is trying. Note, an APC is not a tank, just saying there are rifles capable of defeating APCs doesn't mean there are anti-tank rifles.

Sure, but after that coversion it's not a rifle any more, it's an autocannon.

They well and truly just took an anti-tank rifle, swap out the fire control group, and put it on a mount to make an improvised AA gun as their military doctrine. But the Finnish, like the Russians, are somewhat excepted from things because a lot of the Finnish military was ad-hoc and made up mostly with what they could steal borrow.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm getting this thread right back on track. Enough with the stupid ammo, weapons, and anti-tank rifles.

​

 

[Silvanus]

Quite glad to see opinion seems to have changed on this forum. I remember about 2 years ago (?) being very much in the minority arguing that the nuclear bombing (and particularly the second) was an unnecessary atrocity.

 

[BrawlMan]

Quite glad to see opinion seems to have changed on this forum. I remember about 2 years ago (?) being very much in the minority arguing that the nuclear bombing (and particularly the second) was an unnecessary atrocity.

People will be arguing forever about whether either or both bombing were necessary. While I am not sure myself, I do feel the 2nd bombing was just curb stomping on a wounded leg. I do dislike nuclear weapons though and rather see them all gone.

 

[CM156]

Quite glad to see opinion seems to have changed on this forum. I remember about 2 years ago (?) being very much in the minority arguing that the nuclear bombing (and particularly the second) was an unnecessary atrocity.

My opinion has changed on the topic over the past few years. I went from being sure to much less so. I think this is a debate that should never quite "end", as we always need to have it so unilateral use of atomic weapons will be questioned for generations.