[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now open. Apply here!


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 1658_rd.jpg (54 KB, 530x412)
54 KB JPG
durying the ww2 a british theoretical defense to the V2 was to just use a fuck ton of fuck to intercept the balistic missile.
would it work with modern tech?
>>
Ya having a stroke there OP?
>>
Sure, but you're firing a fuck ton of fuck into the air which needs to come down somewhere. Russians are already complaining about their car engines being hit by drone defence rounds.
>>
Yes
>>
>>65200121
Those don't look much like Tommies to me
>>
>>65200133
OP meant U2, the Brits were considering sending Bono back in time to sing shitty songs
>>
>>65200121
>If the UK had modern tech in WW2 could they intercept a primitive missile
Are you so fucking retarded that you couldn't think of a logical answer to that statement yourself?
>>
File: 1779192384360941.jpg (312 KB, 866x847)
312 KB JPG
>>65200121
what in the fuck did you just write?
>>
>>65200141
using flak with modern radar, warhead, propelant,... would it be possible to shoot down balistic missiless
>>
Back of the envelope, a V2 approaches at around 1.5 km/s and the effective ceiling altitude of 40mm Bofors is ~4 km, giving you 2.6 seconds time to intercept. With a big handwave of ~1km/s projectile velocity your round travel time to intercept is around 1.5 seconds at the start of intercept and going down from there. With WW2 era Bofors, you have time to shoot about 4 rounds total for the entire intercept.
Let's just say there's a reason gun-based ABM is not a thing.
>>
>>65200153
It's a fuck ton of fuck. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
>>
>>65200153
Rico le cute.
>>
>>65200217
>Let's just say there's a reason gun-based ABM is not a thing.
I'd say it's entirely possible to make an effective gun based ABM system that would be effective against ICBMs... but the design choices you'd need to make move it swiftly from sensible procurement and into "The nocturnal emissions of Frank Tinsley"
>>
>>65200121
Possible? Yes
With modern tech much more so. In fact I would say your chances go up from like .00001% to .001% on a typical strike.
>>
>>65200139
surely that's a war crime of some kind
>>
>>65200121
Zamynnn. That solider on the left is huffing some huge weird looking bong, lmao.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.