Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Absolutely no idea!

 CptJake wrote:
Brother, on my tank I set the headspace and timing on MY .50, and I cleaned and loved her and sang her lullabies before putting her in the arms room. Always cleaned my own weapon and helped with the crew serves.

Heck, I also did maintenance on my vehicles.

I should have said "non-combat arms" instead of "non-infantry" as I know Tankers, Air Cav, and Artie will have the same pride of arms as we do. I meant no offense.

I'm trying to understand how an automatic revolver works.
So a single action just does one thing, sends the hammer forward to hit the firing pin. Ok fine.
Double action does two things, sends the hammer forward and recocks it so it's ready to fire without manually cocking it. Ok fine.

So how does an automatic revolver work? I'm assuming it uses the recoil to push the hammer back, but wouldn't that just make it a more complicated single action revolver, as the trigger pull would just send the hammer forward?
Why didn't they catch on? I know the prevalence of improved semi-automatic pistols are a factor (automatic revolvers were developed back when semi-autos were still pretty primitive, iirc), but were they just too expensive to make outside of some niche markets and designers?

In a single action revolver, the user must first manually cock the hammer, which also rotates the cylinder to the next position, then pull the trigger to fire. Single action trigger pulls are very short.

In a double action revolver, pulling the trigger both cocks the hammer and rotates the cylinder into position and at the very end of pull fires the hammer. Double action trigger pulls are long and more resistant.

An automatic(semi-automatic technically) revolvers uses the recoil energy of firing to both cock the hammer and rotate the cylinder instead of having the user do it so all they do is pull a very light trigger. The first shot of an automatic revolver would require the user to manually cock the hammer, much like you need to chamber the 1st round of any semi-auto pistol.

Exactly how the very few automatic revolvers do this depends on the specific one in question. I believe some are gas operated actually, but there are a few that are actually "direct blowback" analogous. I'd look up a video of the specific revolver in question for details.

The reason they didn't catch on was basically everything was wrong with them. They were expensive and overly complicated, prone to jamming occasionally just like semi-autos at the time, but no detachable magazines to make up for it.

It was basically a half-assed stop gap between semi-autos and revolvers with the disadvantages of both and only half the advantages of semi-autos.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

What good is the A-10 when no one drives tanks on a battlefield?

Quite as bit, as long as the enemy is actually *on* the battlefield.

I seem to recall the A-10 out performing the garbage that the Airforce wanted to replace it with in *all* CAS roles.

I'll grant, it may, in the future, be out of date, but it's fantastic for dealing with the threats of the 'here and now".



It's this sort of 'The Future' thought that led to Battleships being pulled repeatedly, and costing tens of thousands of servicemen their lives, when there was no equivalent platform present for fire support. A problem that has once again suddenly dawned on the USN that it once again has, and are scrambling to find any solution but the one that they know works.

I had never heard of semi-auto revolvers, and then two things at once

 BaronIveagh wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

What good is the A-10 when no one drives tanks on a battlefield?

Quite as bit, as long as the enemy is actually *on* the battlefield.

I seem to recall the A-10 out performing the garbage that the Airforce wanted to replace it with in *all* CAS roles.

I'll grant, it may, in the future, be out of date, but it's fantastic for dealing with the threats of the 'here and now".



It's this sort of 'The Future' thought that led to Battleships being pulled repeatedly, and costing tens of thousands of servicemen their lives, when there was no equivalent platform present for fire support. A problem that has once again suddenly dawned on the USN that it once again has, and are scrambling to find any solution but the one that they know works.

My understanding is that the A-10 is only functional in environments of air supremacy, and it is heavily outperformed by other platforms if forced into a stand-off role because it has longer sortie times (its slower so rearming takes longer). It has a role in counter-insurgency operations against massively inferior forces but they would never be able to use the gun in a conflict like Ukraine and it just becomes a slow, vulnerable strike craft in those conditions.

Battleships are another example where they were obselete against peer opponents long before they ceased to be useful against inferior opponents. They got pulled because they were very expensive to operate and vulnerable to air power and submarines. WWII was clear on this- battleships were used for shore bombardment mainly when the Allies had air superiority. They were useful in the Atlantic a bit later than the Pacific (the Atlantic is a stormier ocean and battleships could operate in bad weather that aircraft could not) and you could probably have made a practical AA/missile battleship but its too many eggs in one basket compared to a distributed defence spread out over smaller vessels.

If you just need shore bombardment and otherwise have naval and air superiority, monitors are much more efficient than battleships. If you don't have naval and air superiority battleships won't cut it either.

 Haighus wrote:
My understanding is that the A-10 is only functional in environments of air supremacy, and it is heavily outperformed by other platforms if forced into a stand-off role because it has longer sortie times (its slower so rearming takes longer).

That's also true of all rotary-wing aviation. The real issue with the A-10 is that in a near-peer conflict it would be highly vulnerable to modern MANPADS and SAMs, and the 30mm gun it's famous for was never the 'tank killer' it's made out to be. It's essentially a long-loiter missile bus that saw continued service as an unexpectedly capable COIN aircraft owing to a good integral anti-materiel armament and high survivability against light AAA and small arms.

The controversy over its replacement is because it's supposed to be replaced with the F-35, which would be perfectly reasonable for its original mission profile (anti-tank against a near-peer in contested airspace), but wholly inappropriate for the CAS role that the A-10 has been performing fairly well for the last two decades. The battleship is a good comparison; by Vietnam the Iowa-class was wholly obsolete in its intended role of naval surface superiority, but for the role of gunfire support it was reasonably well-suited and no better replacement existed.

AFSOC now operates the Super Tucano (A-29) in a light attack role, and USSOCOM recently selected the AT-802U Sky Warden for the Armed Overwatch program. I expect we'll see further development in that direction for low-intensity conflict while the main focus shifts to near-peer.

They basically want the F-35 to be able to do everything. Which isn't a bad idea on the face of it, buuuuut I personally don't think it is. Nothing wrong with a multi-role fighter, but the US military can afford to specialize.

IMO we should have 3-4 different fighters. F-22s for super stealth air superiority, F-35s for general stealth capable multi-role, a non-stealth CAS focused aircraft to actually replace the A10 and not shunt its role onto the F-35(basically a small ordinance truck to go with the B-52 big ordinance truck), and finally a non-stealth air-superiority fighter.

Stealth is strongest when you have distractions, so having some flashy non-stealth aircraft will enhance the capabilities of the stealthy ones.

And given the insane flight capabilities of the F-22, surely they had to make some compromises in performance to keep it stealthy. I just wonder how scary it would be if you took that away, go for pure performance. Give me a screaming freedom daemon that you can see coming but can't do anything about

I'd also point out we can differentiate between multi-role and all-role.

I think that, at least from the sidelines, there sure looks to be a case that an all-role fighter is kind of an absurdity. I understand the want but different roles have different needs and different needs demand different design considerations. A one-size-fits-all fighter is a tall order.

And the F-35 is costing more than $2,000,000,000,000 and has nearly gone 100% over budget as of 2024.

If I remember, the A-10 was gonna provide CAS even with a crap ton of SA-7s/14s and multiple 23mm ADA platforms at the Soviet tactical level. Hence the weight spent on armoring the cockpit and the ability to take lots of damage and get the pilot home. It was designed to take hits, but deliver more/stronger hits. I've had A-10s as air support, and I've had F-16s as air support. The A-10s ability to stay a bit and lay scunion is pretty nice. I'll also notice that an A-10 driver as a TACP was a dude who knew what it meant to provide support to ground pounders where the typical Zoomie was more concerned about hot showers (or the lack there of).


Can an F-35 provide the support? Maybe. But I'm guessing the pilots don't feel the love for the grunts that the A-10 guys do.

The conventional narrative is that the USAF has hated the A-10 since it was made but the Army loves it and every time the Air Force talks of scrapping them, the Army offers to take them over. This would of course break the rules over who gets what, so the A-10 trudges on.

The A-10's role has evolved a lot. It was designed in a Cold War CAS role when integrated air defenses were less sophisticated and it's purpose was to whizz overhead and obliterate Soviet tank concentrations.

It proved useful against the Iraqi Army a couple of times, and for COIN it works great because it can just loiter in a low-threat environment. It is also remarkably durable - my unit used to fly them and there's a chunk of an engine cowling on display showing where the SAM hit it.

Going back a bit to the longbow thing, I want to note that my post about sanitation and health is actually quite germane to the discussion because longbowmen need to be healthy to use their weapons. There are accounts of English armies that have no combat-effective bowmen (or very few) because everyone is sick. A sick guy can still load and fire a musket, though.

Word to the alive: be extremely careful with the pepperbox. When that was invented, it was using a much less powerful form of powder, you put an equal charge worth of current day power, and you are folding a stick of dynamite. Just be careful. Hate to see anyone make that mistake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The conventional narrative is that the USAF has hated the A-10 since it was made but the Army loves it and every time the Air Force talks of scrapping them, the Army offers to take them over. This would of course break the rules over who gets what, so the A-10 trudges on.

The A-10's role has evolved a lot. It was designed in a Cold War CAS role when integrated air defenses were less sophisticated and it's purpose was to whizz overhead and obliterate Soviet tank concentrations.

It proved useful against the Iraqi Army a couple of times, and for COIN it works great because it can just loiter in a low-threat environment. It is also remarkably durable - my unit used to fly them and there's a chunk of an engine cowling on display showing where the SAM hit it.

Going back a bit to the longbow thing, I want to note that my post about sanitation and health is actually quite germane to the discussion because longbowmen need to be healthy to use their weapons. There are accounts of English armies that have no combat-effective bowmen (or very few) because everyone is sick. A sick guy can still load and fire a musket, though.

Hey, as a line infantry officer, I hated that thing. It literally can't tell friend from foe in a shoot out, and it's main weapon is an area affect weapon with a kill radius of 50m. So that means if you have one on site, it's more likely to hit your guys than anything else.

Fun Fact: The A-10 has killed more friendly troops than any other weapon system in history. It was an incredibly stupid design by Pierre Spray and the Fighter Mafia, that wanted to get away from using "costly, advanced weapon systems, like Smart bombs, and go back to guns only".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Word to the alive: be extremely careful with the pepperbox. When that was invented, it was using a much less powerful form of powder, you put an equal charge worth of current day power, and you are folding a stick of dynamite. Just be careful. Hate to see anyone make that mistake.

*Camera zooms in on .58 Duckfoot Pistol*. "Wait till he gets a load of me..."

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Fun Fact: The A-10 has killed more friendly troops than any other weapon system in history. It was an incredibly stupid design by Pierre Spray and the Fighter Mafia, that wanted to get away from using "costly, advanced weapon systems, like Smart bombs, and go back to guns only".

This is complete bs, because "any other weapon system in history" would include chemical gas and biological weapons.

I will guarantee you that Chlorine alone has probably killed more friendlies.

And after the F-4, and the spectacular failure that was the Air Force's effort to go 'missiles only', they were absolutely right to start looking at guns again.

I am intrigued by the A10 concerns. I've done a bit of light googling, and while it appears they do have the highest number of casualties compared to other ground attack craft, its like 35 versus 19, so same order of magnitude.

It also looks like the incidents were primarily caused by miscommunication and misidentification of targets. The fact that the thing has a gun doesn't seem to be the main issue. If the ground controller and pilot have crossed purposes, then whatever platform in the area is going to struggle.

The primary weapon of many CAS aircraft is likely to have lethal effects out to 50m. A 2,000lb JDAM dropped in the wrong place is gong to wreck your day just as much as an A10 burst.

I've never been anywhere near anything like this in reality (and really hope I never have to), so not trying to deny anyone's experiences, just interested in what it is about the platform that appears to have made it more susceptible to this issue.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Hey, as a line infantry officer, I hated that thing. It literally can't tell friend from foe in a shoot out, and it's main weapon is an area affect weapon with a kill radius of 50m. So that means if you have one on site, it's more likely to hit your guys than anything else.

That makes no sense. It's not like they have GI-seeking bullets. They also do deep interdiction with them where there are no friendlies around.

If mean, if they're that dangerous, why call them in?

Fun Fact: The A-10 has killed more friendly troops than any other weapon system in history. It was an incredibly stupid design by Pierre Spray and the Fighter Mafia, that wanted to get away from using "costly, advanced weapon systems, like Smart bombs, and go back to guns only".

Not even remotely close. I'm thinking of the heavies who killed 200+ GIs in the St. Lo. breakout in a single errant run would have that honor.

And if it was so beloved of the Air Force, why did it take so long to roll out the C-model upgrades? The fact was that the AF has hated them forever, tried to retire the fleet multiple times, and the upgraded C-models had superb sensors and effectively new cockpits with all the latest toys. They were basically used as ISR platforms with some teeth.

The Fighter Mafia is all about the F-22, and wishes the Warthog would just die already.

UPDATE: Interservice rivalries aside, the discussion of firepower sent me running to Battles and Leaders of the [American] Civil War, and short commentary by Henry Hunt, who commanded the reserve artillery of the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg.

Apparently, prior to Lee's advance on the final day, Hunt gave strict orders that no batteries were to fire without his permission. Hancock countermanded this order, and guns in the II Corps area returned fire for a time.

Hunt's contention is that had II Corps followed his instructions, none of the Confederate troops would have made it past the road, and Hunt notes that the only point where this happened was where a pointless gun duel reduced the ammunition supply - II Corps.

I think artillery is a bigger deal that people give credit, and the development of rifled cannon so extended their range and accuracy as supersede any gains by rifles.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
The Fighter Mafia is all about the F-22, and wishes the Warthog would just die already.

FWIW the 'Fighter Mafia' he's referring to is a defense contractor clique from the 60s-70s, of whom Pierre Sprey (e, not a) was a part, that is famous for A. bullshitting their level of involvement in the various weapons systems attributed to him/them, and B. being wrong about basically everything. They wanted the F-16 to be a radar-less gun-only fighter, for example, and Sprey was a vocal detractor of both the F-15 and the Abrams (for some reason). He also asserted credit for the A-10 program when all evidence points to him being, at most, an unwanted fly on the wall (he wasn't even working at the company that developed it). The Fighter Mafia would have hated the F-22 too; it's the opposite of the P-51-with-a-jet-engine that they thought would dominate the sky.

Anyways, the fact that the A-10 isn't suited for its intended role is a significant part of why the Air Force wants it gone. I remember reading a report from the 1980s estimating that in the event of a Soviet invasion of Europe, the entire A-10 fleet would be combat losses within two weeks. I know they've retrofitted newer variants with updated RWR and countermeasure capability but the general consensus is that it's not suited to contested airspace.

Edit: Oh yeah, and that 'it literally can't tell friend from foe in a shoot out' is categorically untrue. The A-10 has had LITENING pods since the early 2000s, providing the same IFF capability as any fast-mover, plus helmet cueing since the late-2010s for GPS validation. It can't easily identify infantry, but neither can anything else, so that's why you have FACs/JTACs/TACPs/CCTs/ALOs to manage your CAS mission.

So the IFF pods in modern smart attack aircraft have redunency to not let the pilot release a weapon IE, Yell "pickle" and drop a 2k JDAM on a troop transport of friendlies. The transponders and BFT beacons help with that. Guess what doesn't listen to transponder beacons and BFT IFF signals? The trigger of the A-10 main gun. If the pilot wants to, all they have to do is switch to ground attack, select the main gun, and pull the trigger. There is no IFF Lockdown system on the Gau-8. If an F-22 accidentally locks up a friendly, that pilot can't possibly let one of their AMRAAMs off, the plane won't let it off the rail. That's why the A-10 is a liability. There is no "OSHA" equivalent preventing A-10 pilots from making extremely stupid mistakes.

And I just want to say, as a bit of a snob, I think we need to stop ourselves every time we try to mimic something Russian. (The A-10 is the American Su-25). Althought, the Mig-29 gave us the F15, which still sets the bar for greatest F/A platform of all time.

I could be wrong but isn't that the other way around?

The A10 came before the SU-25.

 LordofHats wrote:
I could be wrong but isn't that the other way around?

The A10 came before the SU-25.

Yes, the A-10 was first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I would look at the Ruski's initial copy of the M-72 LAW as an example of how well they mimic/reverse engineer US tech.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So the IFF pods in modern smart attack aircraft have redunency to not let the pilot release a weapon IE, Yell "pickle" and drop a 2k JDAM on a troop transport of friendlies. The transponders and BFT beacons help with that. Guess what doesn't listen to transponder beacons and BFT IFF signals? The trigger of the A-10 main gun. If the pilot wants to, all they have to do is switch to ground attack, select the main gun, and pull the trigger. There is no IFF Lockdown system on the Gau-8. If an F-22 accidentally locks up a friendly, that pilot can't possibly let one of their AMRAAMs off, the plane won't let it off the rail. That's why the A-10 is a liability. There is no "OSHA" equivalent preventing A-10 pilots from making extremely stupid mistakes.

And I just want to say, as a bit of a snob, I think we need to stop ourselves every time we try to mimic something Russian. (The A-10 is the American Su-25). Althought, the Mig-29 gave us the F15, which still sets the bar for greatest F/A platform of all time.

Mig 29 went into service in '83 with the first prototype making its test flight on Oct. 6th, 1977 while the f fifteen eagle went into service in '76 with the first prototype flying in July of 1972. Your information is flat out wrong.

I wouldn't want drag on the F-35 too much. Yes it went way way overbudget, what airforce project doesn't?

Sure, it isn't a great multi-role fighter, at least not if it wants to keep its stealth up. But it gets the job done. And despite the budget overrun the per unit price is actually very very cheap thanks to basically the whole western world moving to adopt them. In the long run its a fine aircraft that will make its budget back thanks to exports. It may even get competitive with the F-16 on per unit pricing eventually.

We should just design another aircraft purely to fit the ground attack role. A basic ground attacker that can bring ordinance to the field, as opposed to the F-35 which is a fighter that can do ground attack things.

But this probably merits its own thread, not to drag down this one off topic.

The dakka fighta bomma thread.

All we need is for someone to claim to own one, and it fits right in

 Flinty wrote:
All we need is for someone to claim to own one, and it fits right in

Wait, you guys don't own your own A10?



Amateurs

 Flinty wrote:
All we need is for someone to claim to own one, and it fits right in

I do own one, but it's red and turns into a robot.

I own one in War Thunder lol, where its actually a funnily effective dog fighter.

Pictures coming in an edit later on, but i've worked a fair lot on my Falcor today:

Edited with pics of my learning progress.

Flame blued all the screws and the swivel that need it.



Waxed the stock and hand guard slightly



Fitted the handguard's pieces in it

Reassembly and check to see if it seems to work.



Made the rail on the barrels straight-ish.



Preparing of the barrels for cold bluing, I'll do it tomorrow. It's currently, at 21:17 Ambrières time, taking a bath of vinegar to degrease. Witing a few hours and then i'll rinse it properly.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now tackling cold bluing proper

And closing this week end's session, the finished barrel.



I hope it'll retain this colour, on close inspection with light it's not quite perfect, but that's actually better than what I thought I'd achieve. I'll see tomorrow if it has changed. I left a healthy dose of pil on the barrels and only slightly wiped the excess, just to avoid it dripping on the floor, but no more.

You know what I reckon would be cool?

A theme park type attraction featuring historical firearm reproductions the visitors can shoot. A hands-on trip through time, even if some designs need extra, non-historical safety additions on account being sued for someone being blown up sucks.

I mean, I assume it sucks. I’ve never actually blown anyone up, nor do I hope to. But a safe assumption, I trust you’ll agree.