Sharing threads

Another stupid idea:
A grenade launcher that shoots a round with two charges.
When the round impacts the front charge is set off immediately. Behind the front charge there is a protective buffer for the secondary charge. The first explosion sets off a timed fuse in the secondary charge, which detonates a few milliseconds after impact.
The explosion of the first charge propels the second charge away from the impact point, giving you a cheap airburst round without any electronics.

Attached: serveimage.jpeg (1000x1000, 68.22K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GP-25#Ammunition

I knew a Rhodie that used to use wax slugs out of shotguns to kill leopards after the communist government took away his rifles. Worked quite well apparently, couldn't shoot too far with the bead sight though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_bread_basket

The issues I see with this are that, since you're having to split the warhead into two parts, you're cutting down on the killing potential of the weapon itself. So your 40mm grenade (normally less than 1/10th a pound of HE filler) is going to have the destructive quality of an even smaller round. Secondly, I'm having trouble seeing exactly when this is going to be useful. If you're firing at an enemy within a location such as a window, you've got three possibilities:
In this case your airburst round will likely do less, since the detonation of the primary warhead has been moved away from him. I could see maybe if you hit just above the windowsill you might get a fragmentation effect through the window, but that seems iffy to me.
At this point you're already getting the airburst effect, since the round is detonating from an elevated position. And again, when you lose some of your HE filler, you lessen the effect of the round itself
I think this is what is for.

Finally, I'd like to bring up this thing. It's a hand grenade weighted in such a way that when thrown, it orients itself upwards, before a charge pops it into the air then detonates.

Attached: Rheinmetall-Airburst-Hand-Grenade-1.jpg (930x768, 67.24K)

Also, forgot to pitch my ideas. First one is pretty stupid, while I think the other makes sense, if rather expensive.

Attached: fdavbc467.jpg (1198x696 116.04 KB, 88.68K)

Fucking ruskies.

You know I was more inspired by modern american CBUs, but instead of using parachutes and rocket engines employing spin stabilizing fins.

The idea is not to shoot at enemies that are hiding in a roofed area, but at enemies that are in a foxhole or just prone on the ground. Even a shallow hole can serve as cover from ground level frags, but elevating the explosion from ground-level to 1 or 0.5 meter(s) or so will increase killing potential on prone targets.

I like the idea of a bouncing hand grenade, but aren't thrown grenades used in rather short ranges (within throwing distnace)? You can already get them as close to the target as necessary for even a ground level explosion to do the trick.
I mean, in the end it all comes down to how to negate cover, right? Either you blow through it or you go around it.

The first idea is actually used already in a similar fashion. It's called "buddy lasing" for laser guided weapons. One plane drops a bomb, the other holds the laser on target, especially useful if you are flying an in area where you want to dodge behind cover as soon as you dropped the pickle to not get blown to bits, while the other plane flies at standoff range. You could adopt the same system for visual radio control too.
I kinda like the second idea, but missiles are expensive and vertical launch ones even more so. You could achieve the same effect with a mortar, or the two other ideas I had:
First: launch a mortar shell high up. A gyroscope keeps track of which direction it is rotated in. After it reached a certain height it will start a secondary propellant, which launches the payload to the side.
This has some problems:
A: range/effect is severely limited by the size of the mortar shell
B: accuracy is limited by the gyroscope and original orientation.
C: gyroscope failure will cause the payload to be launched in an unpredictable direction

Now, my second idea fixes most of those.
Essentially it's two rockets glued together, but facing each other.
The lower rocket engine is completely non-controlled. It is just there to generate thrust and rotation to get the payload to go as high as possible.
As the lower engine burns out the high drag fins, which are still providing spin stabilization, will cause the lower part to be pulled away from the more aerodynamic top. If you really want to, you could add some tiny side-mounted engines to assist in this, but in theory drag should be enough.
The upper part of the missile will coast until it has reached it's highest point, and then deploy it's airbrakes on the "top". The former front/top of the missile will now be the rear/bottom of the missile, as the second engine kicks in. It doesn't have to be strong. It's already quite high and only uses it's engine for extra range. The laser sensor can pick up the guidance of the designator. The airbrakes will be used to steer the missile into the target.

Of course this system has disadvantages too, but the advantages over the gyro-mortar idea are clear
A: range and effect are only limited by the capacity of the missiles
B: accuracy is as good as your guidance package allows
C: failure of one stage doesn't mean that a dumb payload may impact and explode on your own
D: laser guidance means that targets can be switched before impact

The disadvantages:
A: cost
B: size
C: weight
Missiles will always be more expensive than shells. This is just due to the materials required for the engine nozzles.
Two rocket engines, plus electric guidance, plus payload. It won't be a small system.
All the fuel will weigh a lot, so it could not be carried by infantry.

Attached: shit2.png (1000x1000 38.05 KB, 66.61K)

that's the spirit

Your second idea would work well with ATGMs if you used it together with a drone or a "cherry picket". You could develop a package that just adds the other engine to the front. Of course the standard rocket engine might be wastefully for this application, but I don't think that it's really a problem.

A tank gun, mounted on a tank, but instead of the gun being bolt action, make it revolver like

My dream weapon would have to be a missile that's just a normal-ass missile that does everything a normal-ass missile does except with much less expense and complexity.

I want to containerize the Pershing 2 missile. Over Mach 8,with a range of 1100 miles.

Attached: 1101830131_400.jpg (3000x1500 185.67 KB, 462.78K)

A HMG, but instead of firing bullets it fires miniature thermobaric rockets

A Nork ICBM carrying a small nuke inside a stealth glide bomb that is deployed upon reaching the upper mesosphere/lower thermosphere.
Could the bomb reach Hawaii?

A rifle, but smaller than a normal sized rifle for use inside a structure. Oh but such a gun exists, you say? Not in my state, friendo

A long chainsaw but the blade is surrounded by double barrel shotguns on each side, it would have one trigger that fires one barrels at a time, the barrels would be long enough and slightly pointed outwards so as not to destroy the blades. I could keep rings of shotgun shells along my arms for easy reloads. It would also be nice to keep a small 1911 in the handle.

These two bitches lol

Attached: image.jpeg (640x480, 130.18K)

A waterproof bridge laying tank that, instead of actually laying a bridge, simply drives into the water with an articulated platform on top.
It's just a normal tank, but instead of a turret you slap on a hydraulic platform. This platform can be "leaned" forwards and backwards to allow the tank to climb steep river banks.
It features a command bridge on the platform as well, so that nobody has to actually be inside of the underwater tank when it drives into the water.
The engine is supplied with air via a long tube that is attached to a buoy. Exhaust is either vented directly into the water with sufficient pressure to prevent backflow, or pumped out through a pipe.
You could also attach a quick deploy road to the front of the vehicle, so it could deploy a road underwater. This would allow it to drive on it's own road and prevent too much soil to be displaced by the current, which would make navigating the waters difficult. Adding a sonar to the system would allow it to "see" even in murky conditions.
This would allow your tanks to cross rivers that are wider than the width of one of those hydraulic bridges. They would be independent from actual bridge ferry systems or amphibious vehicles, which are often completely unarmored.
Your mobile bridge would also be nearly impossible to kill without dropping bombs into the water. AT missiles can't hit something that is under water. Tanks can't hit something that is under water, not even infantry could get close. When an enemy decides to attack your bridgehead the driver of the bridge vehicle could use an air tank, lower his cabin into the water and be completely safe until he gets informed via radio that he is good to come up. If there is currently a tank parked on top of the bridge vehicle he could deliver it to either side and then dive down. The actual tank stays intact under water.
The biggest problem I can see is the weight of the vehicle and uncertain terrain under water. Tanks are already quite heavy. Try putting one tank on top of the other and then driving through the worst terrain and in a strong current.

The problem with ICBMs is reentry. The bomb has to withstand massive dynamic air pressure, deceleration and wind forces, as well as possible thermal buildup.
It's like trying to stealth the space shuttle. Only ones who would be satisfied with the end product would be Boeing and Lockheed.

How would you hold it without flaying your arms though? Besides that, perfectly possible and easy to do.

Literally who?

Attached: more shit.png (1000x1000, 32.05K)

Attached: aweapontosurpassmetalgear.jpg (800x826, 274.34K)

The idea is to drop the bomb at an altitude where it doesn't have to go through reentry but can still glide for several thousand miles without being detected, so it'd have to be dropped below the Karman line.
Even if the bomb doesn't have to go through reentry would atmospheric friction from being launched at several machs be an issue at 80km altitude?
How much range would such a bomb have?
The ICBM itself would keep flying towards space after dropping its payload and then self-destruct, fooling the US into thinking it was another failed missile test :^)

Attached: Rap_Music.mp4 (1280x720, 8.73M)

I wonder how much crossover between Zig Forums and /tg/ exists.

The atmosphere at 80km ASL is so thin that any glide effects the stubby wings on a bomb (which would have to fit into a fairing of an ICBM) would have are near 0. Even a sub 100km ASL missile will reach speeds that make a "reentry" vehicle necessary, despite the missile never leaving what is considered the atmosphere.
Honestly it depends a lot on the launch profile and especially v(t) and h(t).

But the real question is: why? You could just build a slightly more powerful missile that pushes the payload into space where it can literally coast all around the globe for almost unlimited range.

I know why. Because this is the stupid ideas thread. Thank you, stelok.

As for the reason for all this sillyness, I was curious if there was a way for North Korea to nuke Hawaii without Burgers noticing until it's too late.
There were threads earlier this year where streloks would fantasize about high altitude supersonic glide bomb spam with 1000km range, saying that glide bombs would have very low IR+radar signatures making them difficult to detect for an unprepared chair defence.
Since North Korea doesn't have any Tu-160s or similar supersonic bombers I figured one of their Dongs could substitute for that.

Attached: a_world_with_only_male_drivers.mp4 (400x224, 1.24M)

Glide bombs do have rather low IR signature, that much is correct.
The part about low radar signature is bullshit though. The very design of a glider (wide wings, lots of lifting area) means that it will always have a larger radar cross section than a powered aircraft.
Also: high altitude gliding is a massive meme that only works at super high velocities (near orbital). If you did it right you could probably reach the US west coast, maybe even Nevada from Korea. The space shuttle would enter the atmosphere a long way west of the Rockies and had to actively perform braking maneuvers to slow down enough before it reached Florida. It's a ton easier to build a larger rocket for more than twice the range with the same payload that to build a glide bomb that somehow has to fit into the missile and accept a massive loss of payload capacity. On top of that comes price. A fleet of 100 of these fucks with your magnificent stealth coating (which doesn't work and Norks don't even have) and more expensive atmospheric guidance would burst any budget.

You almost gave me a stroke, user. Stop reminding me of my old age.

Attached: 1317574393888.jpg (333x279, 20.93K)

18 inch gun fixed at 45 degree angle on a light cruiser hull for shore bombardment duties with those neat drum and fin propellers that can thrust in any direction.

Attached: a.png (500x366, 141.05K)

I want to be the first person to have a privately owned nuclear weapon. I lust for the family atomics.

seems easier to just put a proximity fuse on a regular frag round, one second delay to get clear of the ground and then regular airburst at thirty metres or so

now if you replaced the grenades with antipersonnel mines…

Ork detected.

A nuke that can wipe out Israel and the US at on e,

Embrace boomerhood. It'll be easier if you just accept it.

Attached: sip bois.jpg (640x480, 218.4K)

It's juvenile as fuck but I really want a DMR from Halo Reach

Attached: Designated_Marksman_Rifle.png (1000x398, 253.81K)

Don't care if they don't go bang, I want me a flashlight

Attached: 1428675098785.jpg (1150x640, 118.39K)

BR55 is best gun 9.5x40mm three round burst, drains covie shields in first two hits, and then the third… well

how about an over-barrel shotgun?