>>33489 You should take up lurking and learn how to use the catalogue.

>>33489 >Just learn to carry legal weapons and fuck bare-handed combat ideology? yes >do I take up wing-chun? no >krav maga? can you afford to pay people to let you gouge their eyes out like krav maga actually demands? if not then no. >boxing plus sambo? i dont know shit about sambo but you should learn how to box or kick box. also just get a gym membership so you can get big so nobody thinks of you as an easy target in the first place. outside of that do this >>33497

>>33489 Boxing/Kickbocing is really good, but don't rely solely on it.

>>33489 >do I take up wing-chun? That's for women and men who do refined sparring, not for street >krav maga Effective but even in 3rd world shitholes there's rules and "honor" in non-economical aggressions/brawling, the moment you do the jewish fist and gauge an eye with your thumbs, kick someone in the balls or in the ground it will be the moment everyone will jump you for being a faggot. >boxing plus sambo? Sounds good but i would up the game to Kickboxing and some grappling, which practically is military Muay Thai (Muay Boran) the problem with actual MT is that it demands your nerves to be busted and tons of shin conditioning which takes some time, normal KB is more effective to learn in quick time but lacks some grappling that MT has, if you combine it with Sambo then i think it's quite integral. >Just learn to carry legal weapons and fuck bare-handed combat ideology? More like learn to carry legal (or ilegal if no one notices) weapons and learn bare-handed combat, you still fight under a system when carrying a knife, a man who knows when to cut, kick and grapple you is more dangerous than a man you know will use the knife only. Savate, both french and dutch or at least the complete ones that are actually that, show how to fight with knife, hard stick/baton and kickbox so if you can somehow find a gym or academy that shows that then go ahead, gyms that teach kickbox or muay thai rarely go into the weapons systems. Also stamina/cardio is extremely important, either to run a lot if caught by many slowfags or to withstand more time on alert in a fight, most winners in street brawls are those who are the less gassed and thus the more alert to strike the good hit or simply withstand the ordeal. Brawling for respect/things not related to getting mugged are also ironically an opportunity to get friends as many end up appreciating your actions there, taunting and hitting from the back will end up making many bitter while being respectful (not striking in the ground and letting him get up, not hitting when opponent is stumbling, etc, being silent and not looking someone down) will often make the loser or the receiving party to be more considerate. It's dumb but it happens a lot. A small gangbanger who 1v1 you will not grow that much resentment if you don't poke fun at him if you beat him, of course this all applies to kin, if you are brawling ghetto niggers who don't care at all about the folk then yeah go ahead and stomp his head if you can or go Bronson and pretend to be innocent only to bait them into a dark corner and shoot them several times.

>>33489 >Just learn to carry legal weapons and fuck bare-handed combat ideology? Yes. You have to know that bare-handed combat was never a thing historically, martial arts have always been about enhancing your skill with a weapon. Being not completely defenseless when not holding a weapons for a short moment was just a nice accidental bonus but never the goal. People understood that you should have always a weapon with you. Nobody in medieval Europe was truly without a weapon, peasants would own sticks, clubs and knifes to defend themselves, commoners and free people were allowed to carry daggers and the aristocracy owned swords to carry even when dressed up for the court. And when you look at the Asian Martial Arts, they all head their own weapons even if they are not trained anymore and almost all their exotic weapons exist to skirt around some historical Asian weapons law.

>>33567 >id like /k/omando input Use the catalog. Gardening: >>17689 Survival: >>5569 /out/doorsmanship: >>10262 Sports thread: >>27993

>An enemy group with a white flag entered the road leading from the bridge, where the evacuated civilians were received, deep into Azovstal - the Russian military moved forward to meet them as parliamentarians. The first personal contact since the blockade of Mariupol. >All women, children and the elderly were evacuated from Azovstal, Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk reported. I don't know if they mean the Azovstal complex above ground, or the bunker below ground, for many rescued civilians from Azovstal turned out to be from above ground areas so far.

>>33936 And it looks like Popasnaya fell to the russians. Also can somebody maje a new thread? I am too lazy.

>>33937 >new thread We still have almost 150 posts left ITT Strelok.

New thread >>33939

>>33938 Aiming to do it at roughly 800+ instead since the threads autolock at 1000.

>>20228 Yep, America' first, oldest, and greatest ally.

>burger tourists find an unexploded shell in occupied Golan Heights >they decide UXO is a great souvenir >when their trip ends they try to go through Israeli airport security with a literal fucking bomb Sasuga burger tourists.

>>33336 Why are people so retarded?

>>33344 Americans (not all but enough) have a mentality that if they play dumb and hide shit they can get away with anything. It's embarrassing, honestly.

>>33336 >with a literal fucking bomb More like literal evidence of undocumented war crimes lol

>>20480 Only 15% of the US' war production was tied down in the Pacific. It wouldn't be possible.

>>20506 Anon's impossible scenario would lead to huge allied casualties. So America would be hard pressed to push more troops on the European front or risk losing gains in the Pacific.

>>20510 The impossible scenario might lead to relatively less western front casualties with no Normany landings and most ground fighting happening between smaller concentrations of Allied and Axis troops in Africa after the Soviet Union's surrender, tough the Allies have the problem of being in a stalemate over western Europe in terms of airplanes but unable to contest regular Axis missile attacks on the UK. FDR was certainly bent on removing the Axis with no survivors, but I wonder if Truman's approval ratings could stomach Hitler ordering a reset of this twisted game by launching V2s carrying picrels filled with Sarin instead of Amatol at New York from submarines right on the eve of Operation Downfall, doubly so if it's in retaliation for a "war-ending" Allied nuclear strike in Europe.

I have a hard time believing that Roosevelt & co were such interdimensional shogi masters that they predicted how getting their old battleships sink at Pearl Harbor is the best idea ever, because aircraft are the future. However, it is quite obvious that they were preparing for a war against Japan that they wanted. Is it more realistic to say that they deliberately made Hawaii a naval base knowing that it might get attacked, but thought that it's fine, because even if they somehow lost everything they could just outbuild Japan; and the carriers being out at sea during the attack is just a matter of pure luck?

>>33266 Most of the USN's leadership didn't think the IJN could reach Hawaii without first taking the Philippines. Of the few who did, nobody thought they'd be able to sink battleships at anchor (Pearl Harbor was "too shallow for torpedoes" so surely a Taranto-style attack could never happen here).

>>32756 >The posse members weren't looking for trouble either, so they made me promise I would never do it again, and then sent me on my way with two watermelons.

>>32611 thank you news anon.

>>32546 >does a rifle in 6.8 count as a battle rifle? I haven't seen any data but it should be something like .270 WIN+P in a real fucking NATO sized case. That sounds like a battle rifle to me.

>>32982 This makes me happy, im tired of pussy rifles. >but muh more ammo Yeah but with a bigger caliber you can be actually effective at urban warfare.

>>32982 Something along the line of what .280 Bong was supposed to be.

>>30185 Where can I find these memes?

>>32479 https://saucenao.com/search.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fanon.cafe%2F.media%2Ft_36d15e71bb05db1b652233afd862ab17a09da3775257611ca85b25ce8d70946f Either Twitter or Pixiv. Both seem to be kept well up to date with each other, but there are some exceptions given Twitter's sensitivity.

>>32462 Specifically do you know the name of that extra thick monk staff/cudgel you see some times?

>>32875 The one with a metal ornament on the end? I think it's just called a monk's cudgel or a Zen stick. The flat fat sticks (d in pic related) is called a Keisaku 警策/"awakening stick" since it was traditionally smacked hardly on someone's head to wake their ass up if they were dozing off.

>>32930 I think it's called something like Chin Kang Gun or Jin Gang Gun or Qun Yang Gun. I'm not sure if those are three different transliterations of the same weapon or what. It might be called a Shepherd's Staff in english. It's a stubby but thick staff weapon.

>>22765 Strelok, the largest American Railguns were Mach 7 railguns firing ~6in projectiles, I'm not sure I'm supposed to be impressed by a Mach 6, ~3in projectile. Yes, the Jap railgun could be fired more frequently than the largest of the American ones and the barrels last a lot longer, but that's purely an advantage of the far lesser heat generation and charge rail fatigue that comes from firing a smaller projectile. The Americans have ~3in class railguns that have around the same performance, and smaller 20mm grade ones that are virtually Mach 6 CIWS units. >Can you even use explosives in something that accelerates that fast Yes, the US has High-Explosive Railgun rounds. They - in classical American style - only spent more money developing them than they did the actual railguns themselves (around $400 million out of a ~$650 budget) and then wondered why the railguns weren't as advanced as they could have been. It was all kind of pointless, though, considering the fragmentation round they had developed less than a year into the program (all the way back in 2008) had the same practical effect downrange. >Or would the high kinetic energy make up for their absence? Against sufficiently hard targets, such as bunkers, bomb shelters, armored aircraft hangers, and the like, yes. Unfortunately, these sorts of targets are not the norm for gunfire support, naval or not; and there aren't that many cases of missed opportunity either. Against the soft (relative) targets that make up the super-majority of potential targets, the KE round will do practically nothing unless it directly hits something important, which is statistically unlikely even with the guided shells. There comes a point where there is too much kinetic energy involved and the projectile just punches a (projectile diameter) hole in the target and keeps going. They saw this phenomenon quite often with battleship caliber AP shells fired against unarmored targets such as Destroyers, the shell would simply pass right through the destroyer and the fuse would set it off far on the other side, practically harmlessly. That is where the Fragmentation round the US designed came into play, since it basically shotgunned ~10k tungsten pellets at the last second spreading the kinetic love out over 15 or so meters, punching 10,000 (much smaller) holes in the general area instead of just 1 hole. A much higher chance of hitting something important.

Is there a point in making a capital ship any faster than an Iowa, or would that be just a waste of money? Also, with nuclear propulsion practically eliminating fuel as something you can run out of, should capital ships try to hurry at full speed ahead everywhere the moment a war starts, or wear-and-tear means they should still stick to a comfortable cruising speed nearly all the time?

>>32215 That depends on your doctrine and, much more importantly, your escorts. In general, the speed a capital ship will move is the speed that the fleet they are in moves, which is the cruising speed of their slowest escort. A lone capital ship is a dead capital ship, the escorts are paramount to the survival of the capitals. A lesson that most navies except the Asians seem to have forgotten, but it remains true regardless. This is actually one of the reasons why the US experimented with Nuclear Cruisers and Nuclear Destroyers back in the height of the Cold War, in order to allow the Nuclear Carriers to just race around at top speeds when in strategic transit. They ended up determining that the cost of said nuclear escorts was not worth the strategic advantages and reverted back to conventional escorts; I personally strongly disagree with their conclusion, but that was their conclusion. So in short, the highest speed that has any practical value to a capital ship is the top speed of the slowest escort the navy intends to assign to them. Given the practical speeds of most ship hulls today, escorts included, the Iowas are still essentially the point where diminishing returns becomes no returns.

>>32246 Would in a proper apocalyptic ww3 scenario warships just fight until they run out of supplies, as supply ships would be most likely hunted down and returning to port would take too much time? Or it would be such a short conflict that it doesn't matter? Alternatively, could cargo submarines resupply a surface group, or is that just plain retarded?

>>32412 In short, it's extremely unlikely. You have to consider, most modern VLS systems - the primary armament of most warships anymore - are designed for the ship to return to base in order to reload. Returning to port isn't a question of if it would take too much time or not simply because they do not have a choice. That aside, nobody has the fleet composition required for commerce raiding to be a viable strategy anymore as it is; the only area that it can truly be effective is their own A2AD zone, were no enemy supply ship is going to go in the first place.

>>32809 Another two Gazprom execs? at first i thought it was the russians but after five of them we might as well think it's someone else

>>32809 Man, Gazprom execs really like to commit suicide by three shots to the back of the head nowadays. If I was one, I'd be sweating that I might feel a sudden urge to jump naked out of my window after beating myself up.

Good to see he's just IP hopping now.

>>32820 New thread.

>>32677 I did in fact get the joke and I'm well aware of the maymay (disgusting as it is). It's simply unfunny, and who GAF if they are discussing faggots on their globohomo media regardless?

>>29941 >SBR killed the submachine gun? Depends on the barrel length and caliber. A short barrel 5.56 is nearly worthless. 5.56 was intended for a 20" barrel for a reason. If you're going short barrel, go with the 300 Blackout. I'd prefer a 9mm MP5 in full auto over both, but I like having range so I own a 20" AR.

>>31189 Even then I can't help but think that the best PDW would simply be a largeish machine pistol with a bigger than average capacity.

>>31189 >That first gun. What is this? Search engines don't bring up anything relating to "AR-T Explorer" and neither does reverse image searching for the picture.

>>31463 it's a henry AR-7, takedown .22lr rifle that was meant for backpacking or survival kits. modern ones can have the action stored in the waterproof stock that's buoyant so you don't whoops your squirrel getter into the lake

>>31463 I held one in a store recently and it felt cheap overall. I'ld take something of similar size with nice wood furniture and a comfortable sling than that awkward piece of shit but if for whatever reason the ability to stow away your rifle in its stock is appealing it's good at that. Of course in a pinch you're fucked unless you're carrying a pistol.