|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:46 am
Trench Guns had bayonets on them.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:25 am
Desert_Fox_Rommel Ok since nobody else asked I guess I should. Isn't there supposed to be a high chance of the bayonet getting badly damaged by projectiles as they leave the barrel? I'd think it more likely that the bayonet would damage the projectiles, but in any case, I've seen mag tube extensions stick out about a foot beyond the muzzle before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:29 am
ArmasTermin Man of the Demoneye ArmasTermin Okay, you have to stop this madness! Some things don't need bayonets! You do realize you only encourage me, don't you. Also, why not? Well it's one thing to use a bayonet mount, or to make one, but that looks like you just welded a piece of steel onto a knife and stuck the other side into the end of the magazine tube. Is it even solid? I don't mean to call out your gun modding skillz, but come on... Maybe I should have explained it a little better (or at all). The thing is sandwiched between the magazine end cap and the piece coming off the barrel via a screw that was already there. Don't worry, I have plenty of thread still. There is nothing welded, with the exception of the two pieces of metal. The weld that you see is only on the piece of aluminum that I used as a test piece a while ago. Seeing as how I'm short on 1/4" at the moment, I figured that it would do and I would take it off and smooth it out later. The blade is held in place by cliping onto the notch I ground on the end, so it is entirely removable. It is also wedged against the piece coming off the barrel. It is pretty sturdy and I can push down on it kind of hard with no give. Though it may not look like it right now, it did turn out well. It just looks like crap because I have not had time to finish it off since it is cold, windy and raining outside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:33 am
Fresnel Desert_Fox_Rommel Ok since nobody else asked I guess I should. Isn't there supposed to be a high chance of the bayonet getting badly damaged by projectiles as they leave the barrel? I'd think it more likely that the bayonet would damage the projectiles, but in any case, I've seen mag tube extensions stick out about a foot beyond the muzzle before. At that close distance the wad is still holding the shot together and has not had time to spread out, so it is almost like a solid projectile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:03 pm
Thdark Man of the Demoneye ArmasTermin Okay, you have to stop this madness! Some things don't need bayonets! You do realize you only encourage me, don't you. Also, why not? Slap a bayonet on a bayonet.
I dare ya. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:03 pm
"So this is how liberty dies..."
Dude!
[Nice carpet.]
I don't understand the point of having a close-quarters weapon on a close-quarters weapon. Other than if you run out of ammunition for your shotgun, you can stab them. Other than that, just shooting them seems a lot quicker way to get the obstacle out of your way.
"... with thunderous applause."
Padme Amidala, SW Episode III: RoTS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:40 pm
Chivalric Knight "So this is how liberty dies..."
Dude!
[Nice carpet.]
I don't understand the point of having a close-quarters weapon on a close-quarters weapon. Other than if you run out of ammunition for your shotgun, you can stab them. Other than that, just shooting them seems a lot quicker way to get the obstacle out of your way.
"... with thunderous applause."
Padme Amidala, SW Episode III: RoTS If he's close enough to stab, why waste one of your 5-7 shells on him when you could just as easily gut him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:13 pm
Fresnel Chivalric Knight "So this is how liberty dies..."
Dude!
[Nice carpet.]
I don't understand the point of having a close-quarters weapon on a close-quarters weapon. Other than if you run out of ammunition for your shotgun, you can stab them. Other than that, just shooting them seems a lot quicker way to get the obstacle out of your way.
"... with thunderous applause."
Padme Amidala, SW Episode III: RoTS If he's close enough to stab, why waste one of your 5-7 shells on him when you could just as easily gut him? Yup, I'll agree to that. Also;  ^.^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:15 pm
Fresnel Chivalric Knight "So this is how liberty dies..."
Dude!
[Nice carpet.]
I don't understand the point of having a close-quarters weapon on a close-quarters weapon. Other than if you run out of ammunition for your shotgun, you can stab them. Other than that, just shooting them seems a lot quicker way to get the obstacle out of your way.
"... with thunderous applause."
Padme Amidala, SW Episode III: RoTS If he's close enough to stab, why waste one of your 5-7 shells on him when you could just as easily gut him? So you can kill while you kill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:18 pm
Desert_Fox_Rommel Fresnel Chivalric Knight "So this is how liberty dies..."
Dude!
[Nice carpet.]
I don't understand the point of having a close-quarters weapon on a close-quarters weapon. Other than if you run out of ammunition for your shotgun, you can stab them. Other than that, just shooting them seems a lot quicker way to get the obstacle out of your way.
"... with thunderous applause."
Padme Amidala, SW Episode III: RoTS If he's close enough to stab, why waste one of your 5-7 shells on him when you could just as easily gut him? So you can kill while you kill. Yeah, I wonder how redundant and potentially gruesome it would be to jab someone with a bayonet and then shoot. Yeah, that's probably messed up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:38 pm
OberFeldwebel Desert_Fox_Rommel Fresnel Chivalric Knight "So this is how liberty dies..."
Dude!
[Nice carpet.]
I don't understand the point of having a close-quarters weapon on a close-quarters weapon. Other than if you run out of ammunition for your shotgun, you can stab them. Other than that, just shooting them seems a lot quicker way to get the obstacle out of your way.
"... with thunderous applause."
Padme Amidala, SW Episode III: RoTS If he's close enough to stab, why waste one of your 5-7 shells on him when you could just as easily gut him? So you can kill while you kill. Yeah, I wonder how redundant and potentially gruesome it would be to jab someone with a bayonet and then shoot. Yeah, that's probably messed up. Well, it would easily dislodge the bayonet...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:21 pm
Desert_Fox_Rommel Thrice Damned Mick ArmasTermin Okay, you have to stop this madness! Some things don't need bayonets! In the immortal words of the Japanese, everything needs a bayonet. Everything. Even teddy bears. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they also commit suicide over trifle issues like capture, defeat, and dishonor? I especially mean the defeat thing. So you lose and you kill yourself. Even if we had not used nukes in WWII they were so suicidal we would have won anyway because they would have been so short handed. My point is I don't trust the Japanese when it comes to tactics. Actually, you're wrong. The reason an atomic solution was sought after was because projected casualties for an invasion were through the roof. Only a fraction of Japan's infantry was deployed abroad. They still had over 4 million troops ready to meet an invasion. Furthermore, the fighting promised to be on terrain similar to Okinawa, against an enemy even more determined than they had been at Okinawa. This is bad because casualties at Okinawa were about 21000 for Japan and about 28000 for America. There is no reason to believe such a ratio, or even a worse ratio (for America) of casualties would have occurred in an invasion of Japan. Then we go back to those 4 million Japanese troops. America could not move enough men across the Pacific to bring about the 3-1 ratio necessary to produce a victory against an entrenched enemy. As powerful and big as the US Navy was, moving 12 million troops overseas into a combat zone just wasn't possible with the resources they had. Not to mention how hard it would have been to find 12 million men while occupying Germany. This isn't to say America would have failed to beat Japan, it's just that such a victory was in no way guaranteed. The only way to assure victory would have been to ask Stalin to intervene. He would have (He did invade Manchuria, after all, and would have loved a role in the peace negotiations once Japan was finally beaten.), and that would have led to an allied victory, but it would have given the Soviets the right to cause all sorts of hell for Japan (think a divided part Communist, part Democratic Japan with a partitioned Tokyo), and made the Cold War that much likelier to get very, very bloody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
