Would Gallium/Mercury tipped bullets be useful against aircraft frames that predominantly use aluminium alloy?
A couple of hits across the body and it should be unairworthy after a couple of days and start falling apart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veKr6NRRXOY
It might not be useful as an Air to Air weapon for obvious reasons but what about in the belts of an AA gun, or maybe even used as shrapnel in a Missile?
>>30466090
Current AA missiles work fine. They kill their targets immediately.
>should be unairworthy after a couple of days
>a couple of days
lol
>>30466090
so let me get this straight
you want to fly a plane extremely close to another plane so that you can shoot it with some special bullets that might cause the plane to suffer some damage several days later, but only if it's made of a certain kind of material?
just shoot a missile at it. the missile will blow up the plane when it hits the plane, and you don't have to fool around with flying close or having special bullets or waiting around for it to take effect. you just fire the missile, and a few seconds later, the plane is dead.
>>30466118
>>30466137
>HUUUH IT HAS TO HAVE IMMEDIATE EFFECT
>JUST USE A MISSILE
you guys are retarded
>>30466153
>HUUUH IT HAS TO HAVE IMMEDIATE EFFECT
Yes, that's correct.
>>30466153
>implying a military would reuse an airplane that had normal bullet holes in it
Hur-dur retarded....
Could be a special forces round for the Anti material rifle, but that's about it. Anything else would be too unreliable.
>>30466215
>Could be a special forces round for the Anti material rifle
Or you could just fire a normal bullet at your target.
>>30466210
>implying a military would reuse an airplane that had normal bullet holes in it
Hur-dur retarded....
>implying a military would reuse an airplane that had normal bullet holes in it
>would reuse an airplane that had normal bullet holes in it
You're retarded too
>>30466230
>HUUUR JUST USE NORMAL BULLET OMFG
fuck yourself and get out
>it's another /k/unt has a retarded idea and gets angry when people point out his stupidity thread
>>30466254
>It's another retarded autuist who doesn't like different ideas
>>30466242
What possible advantage could using a bullet that doesn't kill its target have over one that does?
>>30466090
Let's start sending our troops into battle with little poison-tipped darts that kill the enemy after a few days if they don't remove them.
>>30466263
Its ok to have different ideas, just make them a little more feasible (ie. less stupid)
>>30466269
IT DOES faggot, it just does it after a while, the reason why this is advantageous is the damage could just be seen as a regular shell impact and be overlooked until it's too late.
>>30466275
>What are biological/Chemical weapons
Also is the captcha really playing up for anyone?
>>30466090
desperate for (You)s?
>>30466297
>could just be seen as a regular shell impact and be overlooked until it's too late.
and why is that better than just killing the fucking thing
>>30466297
>IT DOES faggot, it just does it after a while
Several days later, long after the plane has accomplished its mission, whatever it was.
>why this is advantageous is the damage could just be seen as a regular shell impact and be overlooked until it's too late.
Or you could fire a missile at it, which destroys the target immediately, and prevents it from completing its mission.
>>30466297
>>What are biological/Chemical weapons
Those are intended to incapacitate or kill their targets within seconds of exposure.
They're also not very good weapons, which is why they're never used.
>>30466353
>>30466342
>>30466338
>>30466353
>They're also not very good weapons, which is why they're never used.
No, it's because their usage is considered a warcrime. It's a simple, honest attempt at making warfare something better than hell.
>>30466362
that's my problem with the 'spectrum'. no, they're just an over-indulged retard.
>>30466369
no, they're also shit.
>>30466373
> they're just an over-indulged retard
that sounds pretty retarded too tbqh senpai kill yourself desu
>>30466385
>>30466353
>They're also not very good weapons, which is why they're never used.
>no, they're also shit.
>>30466385
>>30466385
>kill everyone who inhales the gas or even if it comes to contact with skin
Do you think we stopped developing chemical weapons at mustard gas?
>>30466369
>No, it's because their usage is considered a warcrime. It's a simple, honest attempt at making warfare something better than hell.
No, they actually are pretty terrible weapons.
They're difficult to control, difficult to handle and use safely, persist in the environment for a long time (which makes the terrain they're used in impassable to friendly troops), and the only group they're actually effective against are civilians, who lack both the training and the equipment to recognize, defend against, or treat the injuries incurred by them. To an even half-prepared army, biological and chemical weapons are a nuisance, not a serious threat.
That's why they're not used, not because some fake law somewhere said so. If these weapons were actually good at contributing to victory, they'd be used all the time. Nuclear weapons are ten times more awful, but they're not a war crime. You know why? Because unlike chemical and biological weapons, nukes are actually militarily useful.
>>30466090
Current missiles use tungsten spikes that are liberate when they detonate near the aircraft. Some AA bullets also use tungsten cores iirc. Tungsten is the same material used in most non APFSDU rounds against tanks.
I think we have enough.
Plus, if you have enough armor to withstand 5000RPM gunfire, you're either too heavy to fly or fly slow as fuck.
>>30466428
>which makes the terrain they're used in impassable to friendly troops
>and the only group they're actually effective against are civilians, who lack both the training and the equipment to recognize, defend against, or treat the injuries incurred by them.
Why are you contradicting yourself?
>>30466448
In what way is that a contradiction?
>>30466435
Finally some constructive criticism, thank you!
>I think we have enough.
And i agree with you on that from what you have just explained
>>30466448
>Every single group has NBC protection and wears it at all time
>Every single group has gas masks and airproof suits to protect them against biological and chemical weapons
>>30466463
>Finally some constructive criticism, thank you!
You really are retarded, aren't you?
He just posted the exact same thing that everyone else has been trying to tell you for a dozen posts.
>>30466463
You are still a fucking idiot for not wanting to destroy the target immediately and instead wait for it to "be damaged" a few days after.
Fuck off.
>>30466455
If the terrain is impassable to friendly troops, then it must be impassable to the enemy as well and thus has value as a weapon.
>>30466467
Severely degrading combat capability and lowering morale. You've got 10 seconds maximum to get your mask on when an attack starts, so you have to be prepared 24/7.
>>30466467
Yeah, basically this.
Not all parts of the army are 100% NBC-proof all of the time, because it's a pain to do that. The vast bulk of your army (like truck drivers, waterdogs, etc) won't be protected.
It doesn't make any sense to try and clear out your enemy with a crappy weapon that doesn't work that great except for making things really difficult and annoying for your follow-on support troops.
>>30466472
no one cares fuckwit
>>30466475
you too, just fuck up already
>>30466428
>Wearing a MOPP suit in the desert is a nuisance
>>30466478
>You've got 10 seconds maximum to get your mask on when an attack starts, so you have to be prepared 24/7.
What if you don't know the terrain is contaminated?
It's like saying you can clear mined terrains. Sure you can, but how do you know which one is dangerous or not?
>>30466489
I'm the guy who gave you "constructive criticism, thank you!"
>>30466400
>>30466418
>>30466425
sperging
>>30466496
>Wear super heavy super hot suit
>Start sweating heavy as fuck
>Dehydration even faster than normal
>Die in desert
>Fine
>>30466506
i think you are the one sperging the most
>>30466478
>If the terrain is impassable to friendly troops, then it must be impassable to the enemy as well and thus has value as a weapon.
not if it's impassable to your own forces you stupid cunt
>so you have to be prepared 24/7.
like...in the military?
>>30466478
>If the terrain is impassable to friendly troops, then it must be impassable to the enemy as well
OK, I see that you're extremely confused about the point I'm trying to make. Let me rephrase this in a way you will understand:
Front lines move. They move as you take more ground. They move towards the enemy, and away from your original lines. The terrain that you take as this line moves is terrain originally occupied by the enemy. This is the terrain that you will be shooting B/C weapons into. This is the terrain that your troops will occupy.
Why would you want to dirty up that terrain, which you are about to move into, with B/C weapons? Especially given that B/C weapons are not very good at killing the enemy to begin with, and that you have plenty of other, better, conventional weapons to do it with? Weapons that won't make like difficult for your follow-on forces.
I think what you're driving at here is that B/C weapons could have some use as a scorched earth weapon, but if you're implementing a scorched earth policy, you're already losing the war, so it doesn't really matter what you do.
>>30466242
Holy crap, you seem upset. Is everything alright? Anything you want to talk about?
>>30466520
>n-n-no you are!
you have to be 18 to post
>>30466496
>He thinks a MOPP suit in the desert is comfortable
>>30466540
And i'm surprised you have the mental capacity to do it with that much pure autisim
>>30466505
>What if you don't know the terrain is contaminated?
That's what the NBC troops are for. As well as different states of alert. If there's a risk of NBC attacks, everyone wears their CBRN gear, with the gas mask ready to be put on your face.
>It's like saying you can clear mined terrains. Sure you can, but how do you know which one is dangerous or not?
By either seeing it being mined, or driving / walking to it, then reporting it upwards.
>>30466525
>not if it's impassable to your own forces you stupid cunt
What if you're defending? What if you simply want to destroy an enemy unit in a certain area. What if you're a mechanized unit with CBRN gear and NBC protection in your vehicles?
>like...in the military?
>wearing hot as fuck CRBN gear at the ready continuously and having to fight with your gasmask on
>same thing as general readiness
Have you ever worn a gasmask?
>>30466537
>Especially given that B/C weapons are not very good at killing the enemy to begin with, and that you have plenty of other, better, conventional weapons to do it with?
What? Heavy thermobaric weaponry? Artillery is not effective against dug in positions, nor can it reach inside bunkers.
>>30466525
Tactical denial of access routes is a big and useful deal, senpai. NATO intended to use this to stop the Soviets
>>30466505
>What if you don't know the terrain is contaminated?
It will be very obvious when your troops begin to show symptoms.
There are also systems for detecting the presence of these weapons.
If you're using chemical weapons in war, it won't be a secret. You will figure it out extremely quickly, and you will take precautions against them.
>It's like saying you can clear mined terrains. Sure you can, but how do you know which one is dangerous or not?
Well, when your lead vehicle hits a mine, you'll know. There is also minesweeping equipment which can detect mines or just clear them as you go.
If you're using mines in war, it won't be a secret. You will figure it out extremely quickly, and you will take precautions against them.
It's strange to me that you need to have this explained to you. Chemical weapons and mine warfare have been a part of war for a century. You're not really arguing at this point, you're just asking us to explain to you how the world works.
>>30466505
>fimfiction
I would make fun of you, but they've got some pretty good erotica
>>30466514>>30466543
Both of you are retarded, that was obviously sarcasm.
>>30466505
>/mlp/ in tab and minecraft
A-are you fucking with me dude? be hounest
>>30466153
>it has to have immediate effect
Yes, if you don't want to die it is better to kill your enemy immediately rather than a few days later.
>>30466563
>Artillery is not effective against dug in positions, nor can it reach inside bunkers.
There are plenty of artillery types that can destroy bunkers and dug-in positions. If you need an example, you just listed one.
B/C weapons aren't any better at dealing with these types of targets, so I don't know why you think we need to bring them out. I mean, do you realize that a century of warfare has already happened without the widespread use of B/C weapons, and armies have managed just fine?
This is a solution desperately in search of a problem, proven to be superfluous despite a century of testing and refinement. They're just a bad weapon.
You should probably admit your situation. There would be more dignity in it.
ITT: Autist calls others autists and flips shit for not humoring his impractical idea
OP is trolling or 13, either way everyone in this thread is bad and should feel bad
>>30466571
>It will be very obvious when your troops begin to show symptoms.
Which will be way too late, as the symptoms you will see are mostly death.
>If you're using chemical weapons in war, it won't be a secret.
Okay. I've got nuclear weapons in my country, no secret.
Now, do you know where they are hidden? Where I will send them? If I can move them? No. You don't know shit about them.
>There is also minesweeping equipment which can detect mines or just clear them as you go.
You're really retarded if your minesweepers are driving at the front of your force, or if they're even being deployed during an offensive.
>>30466563
>the NBC troops
There aren't special "NBC troops". There are normal troops who are given NBC protection gear.
>>30466592
i could say the same for biological weapons
>flips shit for not humoring his impractical idea
>not
am i missing something?
Okay, let's get out an idea out of OP's shit stack that may actually work. Loading belts. Let's say T is normal tungsten rounds and G is his special snowflake rounds. We could load something like:
T-T-T-T-G
This way, the guns keep killing power, and due to ridiculous RPM, still get several Gallium rounds on target in case the enemy doesn't get shot down. That will work better.
>>30466588
>I was about to say my argument was wrong!
>But I then realized you browsed other boards and played certain games! Haha, though luck.
>>30466626
>Which will be way too late
Wars last a long time. They last weeks, months, or even years. They involve millions of people.
All it takes is 1 person in 1 minute, and the cat is out of the bag, and then for those additional weeks, months, or years, the many millions that make up your army will know to be cautious.
Wars aren't won by a single use of an unusual weapon.
>You're really retarded if your minesweepers are driving at the front of your force, or if they're even being deployed during an offensive.
They are if you expect to encounter a minefield.
In Desert Storm, for example, the very first troops sent across the border went minehunting, both to clear the mines and find safe paths through the minefields.
>>30466595
>B/C weapons aren't any better at dealing with these types of targets
Except that momentary exposure is enough to turn you into a casualty.
>I mean, do you realize that a century of warfare has already happened without the widespread use of B/C weapons, and armies have managed just fine?
Because states have agreed to not use them. The FDF for one still trains and expects NBC weaponry to be used during a possible war against Russia.
>The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is the most recent arms control agreement with the force of International law. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. That agreement outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in The Hague.[9]
>The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, is an International treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva June 17, 1925, and entered into force on February 8, 1928. 133 nations are listed as state parties[7] to the treaty. Ukraine is the newest signatory; acceding August 7, 2003.[8]
>>30466629
>There aren't special "NBC troops"
There are in the FDF, you dingus. There are also ordinary troops given NBC training so companies would have organic support.
>>30466626
>You're really retarded if your minesweepers are driving at the front of your force, or if they're even being deployed during an offensive.
"Hey Bob, we know that it's pretty likely that the enemy has mines up ahead. Should we call up the minesweepers?"
"No Jim, we should send our entire assault force straight into the minefield."
"Why?"
"Well, some guy on the internet said that we'd be retarded to do otherwise."
>>30466672
>Wars last a long time
But battles last a short time. When your main group begins showing symptoms, you can expect them to be out of action within this short time and hence lose the battle.
Wars aren't won by a single use of an unusual weapon, but they can very well be lost that way.
>They are if you expect to encounter a minefield.
And how do you know where exactly the minefield is?
>>30466656
>This way, the guns keep killing power, and due to ridiculous RPM, still get several Gallium rounds on target in case the enemy doesn't get shot down. That will work better.
I proposed this in my original post you dumbfuck! when i suggested putting it in the belts of AA guns, Jesus Christ! Shit like this >>30466505 makes me question if your being serious or not
>>30466708
>And how do you know where exactly the minefield is?
When you drive into it or your scouts report they've seen an unit placing mines into the ground.
>>30466682
>Except that momentary exposure is enough to turn you into a casualty.
Unless you're in a MOPP suit, in which case they will have no effect.
>Because states have agreed to not use them.
Because they're bad weapons. Just read the thread.
>The FDF for one still trains and expects NBC weaponry to be used during a possible war against Russia.
You seem to be confused.
The reason that they train to deal with these weapons is not because they are super-effective bunker-destroying weapons, or whatever. The reason that they train is to make these weapons ineffective in actual use.
Which isn't difficult, because they're bad weapons.
>>30466672
>Wars aren't won by a single use of an unusual weapon.
yeah, sometimes you have to use them twice
i have the feeling if we had more we would have dropped a 3rd one
>>30466690
>Hey Bob, we don't know if the enemy has mines ahead, and we're about to launch an attack on a well fortified enemy position. Should we call up the minesweepers?
>Yeah, put them at the front of our force
>Why? They'll just get killed.
>Cause some guy on the internet said we'd be retarded to do otherwise.
>>30466708
>But battles last a short time.
You can lose a battle and win the war. You can win a battle and lose the war.
It's OK if you lose a battle. It's OK if people die. Wars last a long time. Even if you lose a battle, or even if people die, you can still be ultimately victorious.
The cost you pay in a few lives to discover the minefield, or the chemical weapon, or whatever, is repaid in the lives you saved by becoming aware of the minefield or the chemical weapon or whatever.
>>30466630
Yes and that's one of the many reasons biological weapons are shit.
>>30466719
>Unless you're in a MOPP suit, in which case they will have no effect.
At which point you're far less effective in combat.
>Because they're bad weapons. Just read the thread.
>international treaties to ban the usage of bad weapons
Really, anon? That's probably why the Ottawa treaty exists as well, right. Because AP mines are so worthless.
>Which isn't difficult, because they're bad weapons.
If they require the training of all troops to defend against them, clearly they are not bad weapons.
>>30466729
You send both, idiot.
>>30466760
this is like talking to a parrot
>>30466772
The whole reason nations agree to ban certain weapons is because they are bad weapons.
>>30466779
howso?
>>30466772
>these weapons are SO GOOD that they can be defeated by wearing special pajamas
>that's why they're banned
>but people still train to use them anyway, because they're so good!
It's like talking to a crouton.
>>30466750
>Discover minefield
>Discover where NBC hit
>Whole regiment KO
Yeah, no. You should always try to minimize losses, and sacrificing units just to let them die and lose them is idiotic.
>>30466803
>>Whole regiment KO
From hitting 1 mine?
>>30466796
howso?
>>30466786
>anti-personell landmines are bad weapons
Yeah, whatever you say.
>>30466801
>can be defeated by wearing an impermeable suite and mask that make you sweat like a stuck pig and make you unable to breathe properly
>getting caught without this suit will turn you into a casualty
>>30466817
So you're just trying to be retarded? You think missiles that kill your enemy instantly are stupid but a weapon that might disable the ma few days later all the while they're shooting back at you is a good idea.
Okay pal.
>>30466803
>You should always try to minimize losses, and sacrificing units just to let them die and lose them is idiotic.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Do you even know what a scout is? It's a special unit of very small size which is sent out to find things and watch the enemy. Scouts often get killed, because this a very dangerous job. But it would be suicidal for the army as a whole to not send scouts out, because they wouldn't be able to find the enemy otherwise.
People die in war. Most of the time, those people die so that greater numbers of people may live. This is the whole point of having an army. I don't understand what's so hard about this for you.
>>30466816
You really expect someone to go through a field infected with NBC and come out fine?
Unless they're immediately isolated, biological weapons will fuck them up.
Unless they're protected or somehow don't need to breathe, chemical weapons will fuck them up.
>>30466843
>might disable the ma few days later all the while they're shooting back at you is a good idea.
Different anon, but you're a fucking retard. Modern chemical weapons disable you in a matter of seconds, if not minutes. You'll be a twitching, dying mess without a heartbeat in a moment.
>>30466843
So you're just trying to be retarded? You think missiles that kill your enemy instantly are stupid but a weapon that might disable the ma few days later all the while they're shooting back at you is a good idea.
Okay pal.
>>30466851
>You really expect someone to go through a field infected with NBC and come out fine?
Armies don't send their entire force through an unsecured area without checking it first.
The scouts you send first will detect the presence of minefields or chemical weapons, and inform the army.
>>30466843
well you're being retarded too so i don't really see what's wrong here
>>30466857
No you're the fucking retard for not even reading the posts I replied to before making a fool of yourself by talking about a completely different thing.
>A couple of days
>>30466873
How am I? If you're in a plane fighting another fucking plane you're actually telling me you'd rather use a weapon that would make the enemy inoperable after a few days instead of a weapon that will make them dead immediately?
I can just imagine you at home, a nigger breaks into your house so you reach for a weapon, you ignore the shotgun and go straight for the dirty syringe you found outside a few days ago. Run up and stab the nigger with it, knowing that he will likely die of an infection in a few days. And you are safe once again. Is that right?
>>30466263
>>30466263
It's a underage &b wannabe /k/ommando frogposter
Get the fuck out of here.
>>30466556
well that's a brilliant come back, you sure showed me.
>OP: I'm an autistic faggot
>Anon et al: You're an autistic faggot
>OP:N-n-no you're autistic faggots wow you are so autistic!
>>30466570
>Tactical denial of access routes is a big and useful deal, senpai. NATO intended to use this to stop the Soviets
is that an appeal to authority? because if it is then that same authority gave up on chemical weapons in the end because they're a clusterfuck. so...what's your point?
>>30466626
>Which will be way too late, as the symptoms you will see are mostly death.
No the first symptoms you'll see are the gas shells. After that everyone will know what's going on.
>>30466682
>FDF
Seriously, who cares about the fucking FDF. Literally what.
>>30466779
No, it's actually like talking to a fucking retard (You) who won't listen to what is being said or, you now, go and read something.
>>30466873
>well you're being retarded too so i don't really see what's wrong here
>n-n-no ur being retarded!
>>30467724
>>30467706
>>30467618
>>30467426
samefaggot
now kill yourself
>>30467750
>now kill yourself
No and no.
>>30467823
bullshit
>>30466090
Why dont they use USB-stick tipped weapons loaded with computer viruses?
>>30467669
>Gas shells
>Soldiers know immediately which shells contain chemical material when they're streaking across the sky at Mach 4
>>30466090
>Gallium tipped bullets
>Gallium melts at room temperature
>>30466090
>walk down street
>come acrosss a mugger
>pulls a gun on you
>shoots you in the leg
>grabs your wallet
>starts running away
>"WAIT"
>pull out a subway laced with laxative
>"I WANT YOU TO HAVE THIS"
>mugger comes back
>takes your sub
> walks off eating it
>tfw you know he'll have bad diarrhea later
>>30468459
>>30467896
>>30467724
dude, why are you going to such lengths to try and discredit me? you obviously know jackshit about how NBC weapons work and you keep spouting out the same meme over and over again "HUUR HERES AN ANALOGY ABOUT HOW IF U KILL SOMEONE WITH POSION DEY KIL U LOLOLLL ANON BTFO"
Holy fuck the autism in this thread is off the charts
>>30468526
Hahaha I love how you react.
>>30468526
Kekking Every Kek
I am thinking its not a bad idea at the heart of it. But instead of bullets, how about the bombs used against airfields? If you don't destroy a plane totally, you render its parts almost useless to be used again to repair other planes. And if they did not get the airfield cleaned up, the residue would be around and get kicked up onto the planes and they would rot in place long after the raid itself. Not understanding the mechanics of it totally but interesting...
>>30468580
If you are able to get a shell of something onto their airbase, would it not be better to just blow them to smithereens using explosives instead of relying on something to do it over 3 days when the enemy can react to it and mitigate the damage? It's the same thing as the bullets in my view,
>you see your target
>we are logically assuming that we can hit that target with some kind of weapon
>first weapon has the option to deal all of its damage upfront and kill the target
>nothing is salvageable unless you are willing to go into enemy territory for it
>the other relies on the enemy overlooking it to do its damage as argued by >>30466297
>if this process is noticed, which is will be very soon after the first time it works and fromthere on out, much of the craft is salvageable because you are giving your enemies a matter of days to react
>meanwhile the mission that that aircraft was on it made much easier because of weaponry that will not stop them during the mission
If the chemical weapon ends up being a great deal cheaper than the traditional one then that's an argument for it, but I doubt it would be
>>30468580
If the bomb pierced the hangar and touched the planes, it's already fucked beyong repair.
>>30468857
And by it, I mean the planes.
>>30466153
Yes you dumbfuck it has to have immediate affect. Its not like anti-personnel mines where a crippling injury is part of the plan, missiles/AA are a response to dispatch an otherwise very apparent and dangerous threat.
Its a fucking aircraft, you don't give it fucking chlamydia to fight it, you shoot it down.
This is a perfect example of why people shouldn't ask stupid fucking questions on /k/.
Because they get hyperdefensive when their idea gets trashed and otherwise disproven.
http://www.wideopenspaces.com/want-gallium-tipped-bullets/
Fucking Google your shit before you ask stupid fucking questions.
>>30466828
>Yeah, whatever you say
>entirely defensive
>static
>difficult to set up
>somewhat obvious to set up
>incredibly obvious when used
>easy enough to defeat
>more dangerous to little Achmed gathering sheep crap twenty years later than to Private Asswipe
Yeah, they kinda are bad weapons.
Hijacking the thread
How well would an artillery shell work against a jet if it fired a shell filled with magnesium ball bearings?
Instead of flack. Figure a bb would get sucked into the intake and blow the turbine up from the inside.
>>30470005
I don't think you could load enough balls inside a shell to cover a significant portion of the airspace where that plane could be in, and then sync it so that it detonates and releases the balls just before the plane flies through.
Maybe with smaller, more diffuse substances that could damage the engine's insides and would stay floating for a while over a large area? A giant corrosive smoke grenade.
>>30466369
Please tell me about the bans on chemical weapons in ww2.
They're shit weapons. With better modern alternatives.
>>30472190
Why didn't the Nazis fire v-2 missiles with nerve gas at London?
They did have nerve gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_agent#During_World_War_II
>>30472389
Hitler disliked the use of gas in war since he himself was a survivor of gas attack.
That and fear of GASSY retaliation by the enemy kept gas use to a minimum by all sides.
>>30466574
This, just imagine/edit the stories to be less homo
>>30466505
>/mlp/
>minecraft
>fucking undertale
What are you, 10?
>>30466090
Issues with this are most planes just use panels. A shot up aluminum panel is replaced. Heck a decent birdstrike gets a panel replaced...
Issue two, bullets are a shitty delivery system those coke can cracking videos they scratch oxide off, apply gallium and let it leech in for hours... A zippy bullet is gone or lodged deeper.
Issue tres: the aluminum is already alloyed and possibly bonded to other shit. The gallium would thus have less of an effect.
Issue 4, a more cost effective and threat stopping solution is explosive or incidiary rounds.
I could see sabotage of this manner, but in battle delivery is dumb. It's like taking an acetylene cutting torch into battle as AT defense because "lol tanks are steel".
War works the way it does for reasons.
>>30466682
They never said anything about other bioweapons like fungi or viruses
Would not the bullet melt your own plane first?
