/k/ - Weapons, Combat, Outdoorsmanship

wepon

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Captcha
no cookies?
Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


what's a war board without a conflict?


"Safe" Landmines Strelok 02/14/2021 (Sun) 09:30:17 No.13226
As we all know, landmines are a clusterfuck. Any retard with a garden trowel can plant one then forget about it a month later, yet the nasty little cunt will still gib his grandson 4 decades later. Problem is that they are so effective so armies do send every retard with a garden trowel to booby trap fields and now we have nightmares like Cambodia where the locals look like Gammatelier's wet dream. So my question is this: Why don't we have "perishable" landmines? Some sort of killswitch that either detonates or deactivates the charge after a set amount of time. Let's say 5 years. The switch could be based on an internal timer such as a digital clock, a radioisotope, a slow chemical reaction or even a physical process like a wind-up clock. Alternatively, it could be based on corrosion, such as by having an exposed rod of iron or a length of rope that will eventually rust/rot through and disarm the bomb. The latter system, of course, would be much less reliable and would not work in dry environments but it would be much easier to produce.
One really simple design would be to use dynamite as the main charge, but have several "windows" of thin, unpainted steel on the shell. Gradually the "windows" will rust away and become portholes through which moisture would seep in, causing the dynamite to gradually become weaker until it is completely inert and tripping it just causes a surprising "pop" from the primer. Naturally this would only be "safe" in wet environments and these things would probably be active for centuries. Also you would need to match the landmine to not only the country but also the specific terrain conditions since salty or low-lying areas would need thicker windows than inland slopes. But still. It's cheap and simple.
Open file (103.72 KB 1018x568 mine.jpg)
One really simple design would be to use dynamite as the main charge, but have several "windows" of thin, unpainted steel on the shell. Gradually the "windows" will rust away and become portholes through which moisture would seep in, causing the dynamite to gradually become weaker until it is completely inert and tripping it just causes a surprising "pop" from the primer. Naturally this would only be "safe" in wet environments and these things would probably be active for centuries. Also you would need to match the landmine to not only the country but also the specific terrain conditions since salty or low-lying areas would need thicker windows than inland slopes. But still. It's cheap and simple.
>>13228 >>13227 *active for centuries in desert regions Fucking doublepost.
Open file (191.29 KB 1600x664 toepopper.jpeg)
Consider pic related. The primer is screwed into the bottom of the mine and it is detonated when the firing pin is punched down onto it. If the primer was just a few millimeters lower than it should be, the mine would be effectively inert. Imagine the same design for the mine but with a modified primer. The primer charge itself would have a constant downward pressure applied by a tension spring beneath. Retraction of the charge would be prevented by a horizontal steel rod. Surrounding the rod would be a solenoid linked up to a small battery and a computer set to activate the solenoid after 5 years. When the timer goes off, the solenoid generates a magnetic field and draws the rod into itself, allowing the charge to be drawn into the base of the mine and rendering the whole device inert for future streiloks to dig up and play with.
What if I WANT the mines to still be a threat decades later?
>>13226 Most US mines are designed to self-destruct after a set time (official policy is 48 hours, but we can go higher), and they all use battery-operated electric detonators with a lifespan of a few weeks. The self-destruct system has about a 2% failure rate under ideal conditions (i.e. Iraq), and the backup system renders the mine safe enough that it probably won't explode if you hit it with a shovel.
>>13226 >Why don't we have "perishable" landmines? We do. It's why we didn't sign the Ottawa treaty.
>>13234 Well we already have those.
>>13230 >Imagine the same design for the mine but with a modified primer. The primer charge itself would have a constant downward pressure applied by a tension spring beneath. Retraction of the charge would be prevented by a horizontal steel rod. Surrounding the rod would be a solenoid linked up to a small battery and a computer set to activate the solenoid after 5 years. When the timer goes off, the solenoid generates a magnetic field and draws the rod into itself, allowing the charge to be drawn into the base of the mine and rendering the whole device inert for future streiloks to dig up and play with. You would be better off doing the opposite, where it takes constant power to keep the mine in a firable configuration. That should give you a 99%+ fail safe rate.
Speaking of mines, I have a feeling that cluster mines would have great tactical utility, especially fighting around a chokepoint. Just imagine intentionally releasing part of the enemy forces, only to deploy a minefield right behind them. If everything goes well they can't be easily reinforced due to said minefield, and if you managed to let through the right amount of them then their only two options are to surrender or retreat through that minefield.
>>13268 Aren't their minefield breaching devices?
>>13226 >gib his grandson 4 decades later. Maybe the solution is education. As in "don't have kids in a minefield," and similar gems.
>>13282 Don't they lose the signs at some point?
>>13282 That would be unnecessary if there wasn't a minefield in the first place.
>>13234 Stalin pls. >>13257 >2 days Do they have mines set for longer deployments? 2 days sounds great for tactical use but bothersome for fortification or fully disabling supply lines. >>13266 Yeah but I figured a constant power system would drain the power too quick. Perfectly fine for a couple of days or if you're using a beta battery, but could a conventional battery really hold up for months, if not years?
>>13287 The self-destruct timer is adjustable, presumably up to the end of the battery's lifespan (2-6 weeks officially, probably double that in real life). US mine doctrine seems to run on the assumption that any symmetrical war will be over in a month or two, or else assumes that we have limitless resources and can afford to replace all our mines twice a month. Probably both. That being said, battery-powered mines are generally designed with easily replaceable fuzes. It wouldn't be that hard to retrofit some mines with a longer-lasting fuze if the US still had a functioning procurement system, which we don't >could a conventional battery really hold up for months, if not years? Absolutely, the timer takes barely any energy and you only need to generate one little burst of current to activate the solenoid or electric primer or whatever.
Open file (3.37 MB 3600x2400 1495757003716.jpg)
>>13268 That is the SOP for bombing airfields, as seen in Desert Storm.
>>13316 >(2-6 weeks officially, probably double that in real life) One shot long life lithium batteries often have a 10 year shelf life, that being 90+% charge at 10 years. Pico-amp electronics can be used to create useful, efficient circuits which draw less power than a copper top can produce before it corrodes. A properly designed electronic trigger will last a minimum of 10 years in a stable environment. If you were to take it further, a mini seebeck unit linking the top to the bottom could power it indefinitely. This is not science fiction, and most of the parts are available off the shelf. Using custom silicon would only improve efficiencies until the limiting factor is the lifespan of the outer-casing, at which point you could jacket the core components with teflon and encase them in a single piece of thick borosilicate glass. But then you could modify that teflon casing into the explosive material itself by impregnating it with aluminium. Of course you would have to use old bond wire technologies, because the modern, cheaper copper bond wires cause ICs to self destruct after 10-20 years. PP/PE jacket -> Silicone padding -> hermetically sealed glass case -> Teflon+Aluminium explosive body and compartments for the minor electronics -> lead-tin solder instead of rohs shit. BOOM 100 year ELECTRIC mine with complex logic.
I think electronic safeing systems are just too complicated and unreliable. For the purpose of demilitarizing a minefield to make it harmless to civilians even a 1% or 2% failure rate is too high. It might even be more dangerous in practice because because it will cause people to let their guard down because they think it's 100% safe. I think the best solution might just be a chemical safeing mechanism. Use some sort of explosive as a secondary detonator that becomes naturally unstable after a certain amount of time and self detonates.
>>13936 >Teflon+Aluminium explosive body Could you make something like pic related, but with that mixture? This grenade is just a block of explosive with a fuse on the top and a layer of paint on the outside.
>>14077 Yes. But only if you don't care about the neurotoxic gas byproducts. Don't burn teflon kids!
>>14086 >Don't burn teflon kids! Explain? Isn't Teflon-coated cookware commonplace?
>>14087 They stopped because it basically gave you super cancer. They may still market stuff as teflon, but it's not actual teflon.
>>14086 Wouldn't neurotoxic gas be a lethality bonus?
>>14098 Yes but it would be a violation of the Hague Convention and others. Plus you really just don't want to fuck around with fluorine anyway.
Jungle fag here, have seen some crazy shit. Just dropping a bit of knowledge to help you out. >stockpiling is a huge thing Major powers have MILLIONS of land mines just stacked in warehouses in case a war breaks out- and that nature of land mines is such that they will likely remain in storage indefinitely rather than being recycled or destroyed. you may get some models stored without explosives, but the dynamic is the same that even though new landmines are made the old ones will be deployed anyway. >most of the UXO fatalities post conflict aren't actually related to someone actually setting off the mine. People die trying to disarm them and many are with traps for those attempting clearance operations, but overwhelmingly the land mine fatalities are from civilians trying to do retarded things with UXO like salvage metal, use the explosives for mining. The reality that valuable arms and equipment is also often discarded in these areas encourages salvage operations. Is that a helmet? is it a can of ammo? in the time UXO is hazardous it's far more likely to kill a cow, for a peasant to hit it with a rock or put it in a fire than it is to actually be stepped on. You also get murder by landmine, where villagers try to assassinate each other or move UXO onto each other's lands, which makes sense if you think about it. "You raped my cousin when she was getting firewood, I'm going to put a landmine in your field, have fun looking for it" >Despite the rhetoric and papers politicians sign, nobody actually wants self disarming landmines. They are area denial weapons, area as in "some place" and denial as in "never go there again". When the US dropped mines on Laos they were trying to deny smuggling routes, those routes are still being used as we speak. You don't use mines to win wars, you use them for long term denial of areas you don't want anyone moving through or living in. Lets say you are a COINshit force in Afghanistan, and you identify an area of a valley you really don't want to be ambushed in. So you drop mines to stop anyone moving in and setting up ambushes, they set off a mine and you know they are there. Well this also works because you don't want anyone building a fucking village in that spot after you leave do you? If I've just bombed a mountain fort, I will use mines to hinder anyone trying to rebuild it (slighting). I don't want anyone rebuilding that fort in 100 years, because the ground is still going to be a place I don't want to be ambushed from in a hundred years time. I've been innajungle and actually found UXO, I saw this thing and I was like "oh shit a metal tin" and I was almost going to dig it up before I was like.....wait a minute that's probably UXO- and I still really wanted to dig it up just to see if it was or wasn't. People do that.
>>14113 >Plus you really just don't want to fuck around with fluorine anyway. Two words for you: Fluorine Battery. Here's a protip: Take any natural mineral deposit, then look at what it's core components are. If it's a salt, you've got a viable battery chemistry, or explosive. All you have to do for the latter is attach some hydrocarbon chains to the halogen. If it's an oxide, you've got an explosive or fuel that can produce high temperatures. All you have to do is reduce or smelt it. >>14113 >Yes but it would be a violation of the Hague Convention Nobody gives a shit about rules. You don't want to use ptfe based things around people because you'd have to wear CBRN respirators to do anything. If you didn't have to worry about all toxins you could have AP-INC-HP rounds for any cartridge. 20mm sabot smoothbore rifled anti-material rifles are unironically the future.
>>14091 Wrong. They reformulated the coatings, and it still causes poisoning when heated past it's breakdown temperature. Cheap teflon has lower sublimation temperatures. It's still used all over the place in commercial food prep. >>14087 Burning it creates byproducts which are extremely toxic and long lived. They are neurotoxic and can cause cancer. A lesser known side effect is that diets high in teflon causes dicks to not grow properly. So if your mother made you scrambled eggs every day using teflon cookware, especially teflon from the 90's, and you have a small dick, you can blame her. If it wasn't for it's toxicity, and a few pesky laws, we would have teflon based gunpowders instead of nitrocellulose.
>>13268 ive heard of cluster mines dropped by planes but is it possible to use artillery to drop mines? shelling an area where the enemy is advancing through/already advanced through with the same intent as this post
>>13936 seeback unit? care to give a quick grug friendly explanation?
>>14169 ROCK HAVE TWO SIDE ROCK TOP TOUCH HOT ROCK BOTTOM TOUCH COLD HEAT MOVE TO COLD HEAT MOVE MAKE ROCK MAKE SPARKS SPARKS MAKE FIRE GRUG SHOW WOMAN FOR SNU SNU GRUG SLEEP WARM
>>14166 With rocket artillery it is m8. I know atleast the bundeswehr has something like this.
>>14146 Is there an alternative material that we can mix with aluminium powder to make similar explosives but without the toxicity?
>>14419 >>14414 And it's not as cheap or effective as teflon composites. Nor does it have the same shelf life, moisture resistance, or chemical resistance, and it's far more difficult to produce than teflon and aluminium powder.
>>14143 >20mm sabot smoothbore rifled anti-material rifles >Smoothbore rifled Am I missing something here? Or is that actually a stroke-post?
>>14422 In that case, is it already being used by anyone? And is it the kind of thing that you just shouldn't inhale if you don't want to die a few years sooner, or is it bad enough to be considered a nerve gas? Can it get into the water supply?
>>14695 It looks like certain varieties of the Hellfire missile do use it, but it's not used in infantry weapons. http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=7769 >SMAW-NE; PBXIH-135 (HMX, Al) >Composition PBXIH-135(or PBXN-113) >• 45% HMX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMX >• 20% Binder Material(hydroxyl terminated polybutadiene binder) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyl-terminated_polybutadiene >• 35% Aluminum I have no idea if you could use a solid block of this stuff as a hand grenade.
>>14696 Looks like hmx is just next step rdx, slightly more powerful, same touch and friction-sensitivity. Mix with tnt to get a powerful cast explosive. >Hand grenade Hand grenades are for people who don't value their life. I prefer shelling my enemy with a mortar from a mile away
>>14665 It may seem like a stroke post but it's a real thing. Do a search for "Progressive Depth Rifling". >>14696 Not the same thing. >Infrared Spectra of Aluminum Fluorocarbon Polymer Compositions to Thermal Signature of Jet Engine And that's just one formulation. Mix some Tungsten in there and you've got a different beast. Change the ratio of Aluminium to PTFE and you've got another. Protip: It's used in WP smoke substitutes. And what do you know: >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016703720305962 >Most of the World’s large tungsten deposits are genetically related to fluorine-rich granitic magmas, their ores contain fluorine minerals, such as fluorite and topaz, and their host rocks have commonly undergone fluorine metasomatism to form greisens.
>>14702 Huh, why does it seem that all the good things are buried beneath mediocre shit? I really want sniper rifles with progressive rifling now >>13230 good idea, but i think the solenoid should rather be a solenoid valve, that keeps a hole in the casing closed. After a certain time period has passed, or if the battery runs out of juice, the valve will open, and moisture can get into the mine, rendering the explosive effectively inert. just an idea.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?