I guess this might actually have some kind of use, even beyond being your go-to tool for post-apocalyptic cinder block breaking, but the video was hilarious.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mftFHuRbhjQ
I guess this might actually have some kind of use, even beyond being your go-to tool for post-apocalyptic cinder block breaking, but the video was hilarious.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=mftFHuRbhjQ
I guess this might actually have some kind of use, even beyond being your go-to tool for post-apocalyptic cinder block breaking, but the video was hilarious.
It would of been more fitting when we had people equipped in plate armor. But having a survival hammer? I don't know what sort of purpose those could hold in surviving in the wilderness.
It would of been more fitting when we had people equipped in plate armor. But having a survival hammer? I don't know what sort of purpose those could hold in surviving in the wilderness.
One of the more obscure and interesting developments in terms of camouflage was the Desert Night-Vision Camouflage. In development since '83, it saw its first usage in the First Gulf War back in '91. Judging by the last image, with it being in he same photograph as the three-color desert pattern seen in the Middle Eastern deployment of the more recent Bush Administration makes me think it may have seen use in Afaghanistan and Iraq around '02/'03.
The idea was to create a camouflage that would conceal special forces units from the increased threat of hostiles with night vision as more technology became more commonplace around the world. The results were the odd two-color grid pattern you see there. The idea isn't a bad one, I have to admit, but if you're thinking "that will never work as concealment from infrared night vision," you're right. Trials that compared its effectiveness through the US's AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles to be inferior to the "chocolate chip" six-color pattern used by the military for desert environments at the time. It was more noticeable than the mass-produced standard issue through night vision at the time, and I can only imagine it's ineffectiveness with today's night vision. So it didn't work at its intended purpose, and it failed at being a conventional camouflage. http://yarchive.net/mil/night_camo_clothing.html
The test seems to have been done after its first usage, but its usage past then (if my assumptions from the pictures is correct) is beyond me. Probably because they simply had it on hand, as suiting up an army is far from easy or cheap. Though you'd think they'd use the camo patterns that were more effective at day and night.
I actually saw this stuff (the pants) at a local army surplus store near where I was living at the time. I've considered buying it for the sake of history and it's obscurity.
One of the more obscure and interesting developments in terms of camouflage was the Desert Night-Vision Camouflage. In development since '83, it saw its first usage in the First Gulf War back in '91. Judging by the last image, with it being in he same photograph as the three-color desert pattern seen in the Middle Eastern deployment of the more recent Bush Administration makes me think it may have seen use in Afaghanistan and Iraq around '02/'03.
The idea was to create a camouflage that would conceal special forces units from the increased threat of hostiles with night vision as more technology became more commonplace around the world. The results were the odd two-color grid pattern you see there. The idea isn't a bad one, I have to admit, but if you're thinking "that will never work as concealment from infrared night vision," you're right. Trials that compared its effectiveness through the US's AN/PVS-5 night vision goggles to be inferior to the "chocolate chip" six-color pattern used by the military for desert environments at the time. It was more noticeable than the mass-produced standard issue through night vision at the time, and I can only imagine it's ineffectiveness with today's night vision. So it didn't work at its intended purpose, and it failed at being a conventional camouflage. http://yarchive.net/mil/night_camo_clothing.html
The test seems to have been done after its first usage, but its usage past then (if my assumptions from the pictures is correct) is beyond me. Probably because they simply had it on hand, as suiting up an army is far from easy or cheap. Though you'd think they'd use the camo patterns that were more effective at day and night.
I actually saw this stuff (the pants) at a local army surplus store near where I was living at the time. I've considered buying it for the sake of history and it's obscurity.
Fun fact: Force Recon during Iraqi Freedom were using woodland gear for their vests on top of standard Desert camo. Why? Because that's what they had on hand for them at the time.
The shovel was basically the multi tool of WWI. It was a tool and a weapon. But a shield? You could probably use it to block a club the way you would with a sword or something, but specifically a shield? That's new.
The entrenching tool works a bit like a one handed axe as a close combat weapon. It can quite effectively parry strikes from knives and clubs, but making the head as big as a full shield would make it far too bulky and heavy to carry all the time. Historical battle axe heads weren't very big either.
On the bare head, definitely, but unless the other person is wearing some kind of armour a blade has a lot more speed and versatility. A knife can quickly stab and slash any part of the body, while a hammer can only perform slower strikes to break bones. War hammers were only briefly popular in the age of full plate armour, since, unlike a blade, they can inflict serious damage through armour by blunt trauma. We don't live in the age of full plate armour any more, so a hammer is an odd choice of melee weapon over a knife these days.
True, but let's be realistic: the kind of sperg that'll buy it because 'tactical' won't have the upper body strength require to endanger anyone beyond possibly dropping it on their toes.
On the bare head, definitely, but unless the other person is wearing some kind of armour a blade has a lot more speed and versatility. A knife can quickly stab and slash any part of the body, while a hammer can only perform slower strikes to break bones. War hammers were only briefly popular in the age of full plate armour, since, unlike a blade, they can inflict serious damage through armour by blunt trauma. We don't live in the age of full plate armour any more, so a hammer is an odd choice of melee weapon over a knife these days.
I'm sure you've seen it in Call of Duty or Battlefield, in real life it was a design the Russians bought with the idea to have it replace the AK-74, but in reality it quickly became known as a highly expensive and overly complex and fragile weapon that got extremely limited use and sent to units with no chance of seeing real combat according to some.
First off, from the front the magazine bends ever so slightly to the right
This is due to some weird ass feeding mechanism (supposedly VERY similar to the G-11's) and it threw off the balance and recoil of the weapon
But also like the G-11, the entire goddamed barrel, gas tube, receiver, and bolt carrier all exist as a single component group moving back and forth across the interior with every shot. It was done to reduce recoil, which it kind of did, but it also made the whole thing extremely prone to equipment failure due to the highly complex design and precision work needed to manufacture. And if there's one word Russian manufacturing never really gets paired with, it's precision.
The Russians would later make the AK-12 as the future gun de jour, which is all around regarded as a much better successor to the AK-47 and 74
It is, but it still lacks the versatility of a knife as both weapon and tool, which is why all modern troops are issued a survival knife but not a hammer. Even if we're only talking about use as a weapon, which isn't even the main use of either, a knife can kill by cutting any major artery, while a hammer has the single option of a hefty strike to the head. A knife, even a big one, also moves much faster due to the point of balance being closer to the handle, so it's a lot easier to land a strike on an aware opponent.
A hammer is a fair weapon, especially taking someone by surprise, but it's easy to see why it wasn't used often except in the days of full plate armour.
For the Mall Ninja in your life...though this one looks like it would be as dangerous to the person carrying it as it would be to anyone else. Oh, right. For the Mall Ninja in your life.
I'm just trying to figure out how the fuck you'd be able to effectively hurt someone with that thing. Do you just sort of press your knuckles up against them and drag them around?
Here's one of the worst pieces of field gear issued to the US Army: the M1928 Haversack:
They were issued in the early days of WWII and the troops hated them. To take anything out of it, say, a fresh pair of socks, you had to take the whole thing off, undo the straps holding everything together, get your socks out, and repack it from scratch.
