Comments by "mpetersen6" (@mpetersen6) on "Forgotten Weapons" channel.

  1. 317
  2. 93
  3. 85
  4. 75
  5. 59
  6. 56
  7. 54
  8. 51
  9. 35
  10. 32
  11. 26
  12. 25
  13. 21
  14. 19
  15. 18
  16. 18
  17. 18
  18. 17
  19. 17
  20. 17
  21. 16
  22. 16
  23. 15
  24. 14
  25. 14
  26. 14
  27. 13
  28. 13
  29. 13
  30. 13
  31. 12
  32. 12
  33. 12
  34. 12
  35. 12
  36. 11
  37. Even for a "simplified version" beautifully made. My father served in an independent artillery battalion in Italy (173rd Field Artillery). Made up of part of the 32nd Infantry's division artillery that got split off when the division went from a square to triangular formation. When in Italy they managed to pickup some intesting pieces of equipment. One time he said they got their hands on some of these. He said compared to the M3 Grease Guns they had the Barettas were a Caddilac compared to a Model T. He said it was very easy to shoot with your left hand just supporting the stock behind the magazine. A lot of people make fun of Italian manufacturing (1) but over the years they have produced some very good machinery. Excellent machinists and foundry skills. 1) I think a lot of it has to do with their automobiles. Properly cared for they drive great. Just a little too lightly built for they way most Americans treat their cars. Especially in the days before imports tipped Detroit a new one. At one time if you wanted to buy machinery in certain industries you went to certain countries if you wanted the best. The UK for printing presses. Germany or Switzerland for really high quality machine tools. Italy for textile machinery. The US for machining lines capable of putting out millions of specific parts over decades. Or high quality grinders and gear cutting machinery. Not that other countries weren't able to produce good machinery. But there is always somewhere that's just a little bit better than the rest of the world.
    11
  38. 11
  39. 11
  40. 10
  41. 10
  42. 10
  43. 9
  44. 9
  45. 9
  46. 9
  47. 9
  48. 9
  49. 9
  50. 8
  51. 8
  52. 8
  53. 8
  54. 8
  55. 7
  56. 7
  57. 7
  58. 7
  59. 7
  60. 7
  61. 7
  62. 7
  63. 7
  64. 7
  65. 7
  66. 6
  67. 6
  68. 6
  69. 6
  70. 6
  71. 6
  72. 6
  73. 6
  74. 6
  75. 6
  76. 6
  77. 6
  78. 6
  79. 6
  80. 6
  81. 6
  82. 5
  83. 5
  84. 5
  85. 5
  86. 5
  87. 5
  88. 5
  89. 5
  90. 5
  91. 5
  92. 5
  93. 5
  94. 5
  95. 5
  96. 5
  97. 5
  98. 5
  99. 5
  100. 4
  101. 4
  102. 4
  103. 4
  104. 4
  105. 4
  106. 4
  107. 4
  108. 4
  109. 4
  110. 4
  111. 4
  112. 4
  113. 4
  114. 4
  115. 4
  116. 4
  117. 4
  118. 4
  119. 4
  120. 4
  121. 4
  122. 4
  123. 4
  124. 3
  125. 3
  126. 3
  127. 3
  128. 3
  129. 3
  130. 3
  131. 3
  132. 3
  133. 3
  134. 3
  135. 3
  136. 3
  137. 3
  138. 3
  139. 3
  140. 3
  141. 3
  142. 3
  143. 3
  144. 3
  145. 3
  146. 3
  147. 3
  148. 3
  149. 3
  150. 3
  151. 3
  152. 3
  153. 3
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. 2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208.  @lostalone9320  If the RN and the Marines absolutely needed a SVTOL airframe it's my opinion they really should have just upgraded the Harrier. Face it nobody is going to be putting an amphibious force ashore in the face of air superiority. If all that's really needed is a close support airframe a STOL version of the Turcano would probably do. I also happen to think that the Marine MAUs should have a better option for gun fire support. Let's say the US needs to put a MAU ashore in the Hormuz Straight region (I'm not advocating it. This is hypothetical). The first thing the US Navy is going to do is to eliminate any potential threat from Iranian aircraft and SSMs. Second is any sub threat. Once the MAU is ashore if they need fire support they need it now. Now in the 5 or 10 minutes it might take to get the air raft there. This is one thing the LCS might have been good for. It's also another thing modularity might have been good for. If the Freedom LCS class had been built with the modularity concept built in base the modules on 40 ft standard shipping containers. These containers could have different configurations. One of which could be an integrated 155mm gun with its accompanying ammunition load carried in the container. The gun system could be based on a navalized version of the M-203 or the German PZz1000 (?). Additional containers could be carried onboard the accompanying replenishment vessel. Another design option for the containers could be accomodation space for troops assigned to the vessel for shipping security such as off the East African Coast or the Straits of Malacca.
    2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. I really don't think the US Army Ordinance Board did not realize the benefits of a smaller round able to do the job required of it. Frankly to kill or wound a human being by means of massive wound trauma. I think what happened is that having read the after action reports regarding the ranges at which most combat took place they did a "what about" in regards to those actions that took place at longer range. It is my opinion that they really did not to give up the capability of troops to engage the enemy at longer ranges. I also do not think the Ordinance Department expected the average rifleman to engage and hit targets at ranges out past 600 yards or meters. Just how many rounds were fired on average during WWII to one casualty (1). If you can force the enemy to take cover and stop him from doing what he wants but rather force him to react to what you do you are a fair way there to winning the fight. I really do think the Ordinance Board screwed up though. A smaller round that can do the job required of it that weighs less means a larger ammunition load per man for the same weight. It means lower recoil, potentially better shooting on the part of the rifleman (2) and other benefits to the infantry. (1) This also might have played into Ordinance Department thinking. Increased volumes of fire means increased strain on logistical system, the production system, costs (the increased costs are mainly going to be in the materials area. There will be a slight increase in costs man hours but mainly it's in the materials. Do you sufficient supply of copper and zinc for brass etc) Plys for the US you are looking at everything has to be produced, transported to a port, loaded on a ship, sailed across potentially hostile seas, unloaded and moved through the logistical system. (2) In reality just how many of the members of the average infantry squad, platoon or company really engaged the enemy with useful fire? 20%, 25%, more or was it less?
    1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. Depending on the alloy used in the receivers the heat treating process would involve heating to the Austenizing temperature (1200 to 1400 degrees F depending on the alloy if memory serves and then quenched in either water or oil). This is the temperature at which the steel undergoes a phase change and goes from a face centered cubic structure to a body centered cubic structure. What this means is the alloying elements (the Carbon, Vandium, Chrome or what ever is in the specific alloy) go from being on the faces of a cube made up of 8 iron atoms to being inside the cube of 8 iron atoms. The quenching process drives the temperature down fast enough that the steel is unable to go through the phase change back to the face centered structure. However this process also introduces stress into the structure of the steel. This were the second part of the heat treating process becomes involved. The tempering or drawing back of the steel that reduces its overall hardness but also decreases its brittleness and increases its resistance to shock loads. And this is where I suspect the heat treatment process of the steel in the receivers was flawed. The temperatures involved in the tempering process vary by alloy but often also involve bring the steel to a prescribed temperature and holding it at that temperature for a certain period of time. And then letting the steel cool slowly. Over heating the temper will make the steel too soft for the intended use. And under heating will leave the steel harder and more brittle than the specification call for. Unfortunately the Rockwell Hardness tester was not invented until well after the Springfield '03 production started which would of allowed for spotting the problem early on.
    1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362.  @dakkadakka9189  Until that German investor stepped forward BMW would either have been bought out by Mercedes, Rover or AMC. Or gone under. Yah, AMC. Actually at the time AMC was lightyears ahead of BMW and Rover in terms of body technology. Engine technology they were a pretty average US manufacture. AMC at the time was looking for European partner for assembly to break into the European market. Producing cars that were smaller than the average American car IMO they would have been well placed to be a major factor in the European taxi market. The reason that BMW was in such deep trouble was their insistence on being upscale. Such an arrangement would have been beneficial to both parties. BMW would have benefited from production technology. AMC from BMWs engineering expertise. This would have gained BMW an established US dealer network and AMC access to the European market. Remember this was at the time that AMC was developing their aluminum block inline six". They had tested OHC versions of the 196 and would test OHC versions of the later big bore short stroke 199/232. These were rejected for further development for cost reasons. OHC engines may or may not have fewer parts. Plus they may or may not be less expensive to manufacture. "The ultimate failure of the aluminum block engine in the market place had more to do with owner neglect than poor engineering. The engine required the head to be re-torqued every 6 or 8 thousand miles due to thermal expansion issues that nobody really had a handle on at the time. Plus due to the aluminum block it required proper coolant mixes. Typically most owners never read the owner's manual.
    1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1