The Best That Never Was 2 (Prototypes)

[cawest]

just found this on B-1 challenger.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38621/this-stretched-super-fb-111-was-a-low-cost-challenger-to-the-b-1-bomber

[pmulcahy11b]

just found this on B-1 challenger.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...the-b-1-bomber

That really helps right about now, since I'm updating my US Bombers page.

[Vespers War]

Another one for Paul to possibly update when he's doing work on the corresponding page, C&Rsenal got around to doing the Webley-Fosbery automatic revolver. A few things they touch on:

1. There were three barrel lengths - 4", 6", and 7.5".
2. The only military buy was 66 revolvers for the Royal Naval Air Service, all chambered for .455, 60 with 6" barrels and 6 with 7.5" barrels.
3. The .38 ACP Model 1902 had an 8-shot cylinder.
4. The .38 and some .455s were the "small frame" version. There was also a "large frame" .455 that was around half a pound heavier.

They're fascinating guns, but the complicated mechanics and tendency to jam on mud or sand easily explain why they barely saw service.

[Vespers War]

And now for something completely...well, OK, it's a weird gun, and that's pretty much my oeuvre, so here we go...

How small can a gun be and still fire .45 ACP from a grip magazine How about less than 4" overall length and about 1.25 pounds fully loaded. That's how small the Semmerling LM4 is. It's an odd duck, sacrificing everything for a combination of large cartridge and concealed carry. Originally intended for government use as a last-ditch concealed firearm, it never sold for that purpose, and around 600 made by Semmerling entered the civilian market before the tooling was sold. It's a striker-fired .45 ACP feeding from a 4-round magazine. There's no recoil system at all, and it's a manually operated autoloading pistol (I almost called it a manually operating semi-automatic, which would be oxymoronic).

After firing, the barrel is pulled forward. A projection on the left side of the barrel assembly strikes the fired cartridge and ejects it out the right side of the pistol. The next round is drawn forward out of the magazine and tipped upward; sliding the barrel back noses the round into the barrel and returns the gun to battery. The first part of the trigger pull causes a locking lever to seal the action.

In essence, it's a single-action pistol. Everything about it is dedicated to minimal size and high quality - other than the spring, all of the metal parts were S-7 tool steel, and each gun was X-rayed multiple times as part of the assembly process. The tooling was sold to American Derringer, which makes a stainless steel version rather than the original tool steel.

Semmerling LM4 (.45 ACP)
Wt 0.56 kg, ROF SAR*, Dam 2, Pen 1-Nil, Bulk 1, Mag 4, SS 6, Rng 19
*The gun reloads with a single action like an SA, but the manual ejection/reloading action reduces the rate of fire to that of a single-action revolver.

As a normal carry piece, it's terrible. As something small, concealable, and quick in close quarters, it's functional. The original Semmerling-produced tool steel ones should also be more resistant to wear due to the very high-quality materials and manufacturing process.

[Legbreaker]

Range 19 seems a bit long

[Vespers War]

Possibly, but that's what FF&S gave it using TL4 11.5x22.8mm ammunition. It does have a surprisingly long barrel for its size (8.8 cm out of a total length of 13.2 cm) - the more modern Boberg XR45-S is 14.7 cm long with a 9.5 cm barrel.

Paul put the Boberg XR-9 at Rng 10 for a 9mm round, so I suspect the very slightly shorter LM4 with a .45 would be around Rng 11 or 12 if he were to write it up, since a .45 usually gets 2 or 3 extra Rng but a point would be knocked off for the shorter barrel.

[pmulcahy11b]

(edit to add: Tank Breaker was started by DARPA in 1978. In 1986 the Army asked for proposals to replace Dragon. The Tank Breaker developers provided the proposals. TI proposed a missile with an IR seeker, Hughes went for fiber optic wire guidance, and Ford Aerospace a laser beam-rider. The competition shoot-off between TI and Hughes was in 1987-88, and full development of the Advanced Anti-armor Weapon System-Medium that the Army named Javelin commenced in 1989, with the contract going to a joint venture between TI and Martin Marietta. Full-scale production of Javelin started in 1997).

So your average missile gunner in the beginning of the Twilight war would be issued earlier iterations of what came out of the Tank Breaker program, like the Tank Breaker in the BYB (though I'm guessing Dragons would still be common, perhaps even upgraded variants). Special ops might have limited numbers of Javelin they receive before things break down entirely.

[Raellus]

Not the Same

I'm not sure why, but I'd assumed that the IRL Javelin was what T2k's Tank Breaker was supposed to be (i.e. the game designers anticipated the weapon system's technological development but didn't correctly predict its name).

-

[Raellus]

Nerf Anti-tank Footballs

Worth an entry, Paul M

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37631/the-army-tried-to-turn-nerf-footballs-into-hand-grenades

So that scene in Three Kings wasn't so outlandish after all...

-

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And another one found on War Is Boring, the US M25 repeater rocket launcher.
However, being about three times heavier than the M20 Bazooka, it needed a tripod mount and at a time when it really needed a more capable warhead to counter the more heavily armoured Soviet tanks then being fielded, it fired the same round as the M20. So naturally enough, the US Army declined the weapon.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-army-had-a-lever-action-rocket-launcher-44fafb5b47f5

[Vespers War]

And another one found on War Is Boring, the US M25 repeater rocket launcher.
However, being about three times heavier than the M20 Bazooka, it needed a tripod mount and at a time when it really needed a more capable warhead to counter the more heavily armoured Soviet tanks then being fielded, it fired the same round as the M20. So naturally enough, the US Army declined the weapon.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the...r-44fafb5b47f5

It only had a 2 round magazine (plus 1 in the tube), so it's arguably worse than having 3 M20s, since they're the same weight, easier to transport since the load can be split, and can engage multiple targets simultaneously.

The technical manual for the M25 is TM 9-297A. According to the manual the front barrel of the M20, M20B, and M25 were interchangeable. A tripod was designed for it, but it could also fit on an M1917A1 tripod or an M74 mount.
Weights:
Launcher w/o front barrel or magazine: 43.5 pounds
Front barrel: 3.5 pounds
Magazine: 11.5 pounds
Cradle: 9.0 pounds
Tripod: 13.25 pounds
Total: 80.75 pounds

That's unloaded, and since each rocket weighed 8.9 pounds, a fully loaded M25 weighed 107.05 pounds.

Also, now I know where the game Heavy Gear got its Repeating Bazooka design. It's very visually similar, and I'd never been able to place its inspiration.

[Legbreaker]

So that scene in Three Kings wasn't so outlandish after all...

-

With the tiny amount of explosives on that thing in the movie there should barely have been a puff of smoke!
And then there's the small issue of the apparent lack of a detonating mechanism of any shape or form.
So. Much. Bullshit.

[shrike6]

B-1B gets spooky

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/could-we-really-build-a-b-1b-gunship/

[pmulcahy11b]

https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/could-w...-b-1b-gunship/

The B-1B is just too fast to make an effective gunship.

[shrike6]

The B-1B is just too fast to make an effective gunship.

I agree. The maintenance costs of a Lancer vs a Hercules has got to be significantly different as well. With that being said Boeing IRL has patents on retractable B-1B bombbay cannons. I find the concept interesting in a teenage fan boy way.