Hmm the one fundamental issue i see with this...which im sure they have genius solution for is that you have yourself at one end and Mr Taliban at the other end of the Road...you poke your head out looking down your scope,you pick your target then you judge and do the nessary 2-3meter input for the bullet to hit/explode over the mark..all of which im sure will take no longer than afew seconds....however its still long enough for Mr Taliban to take your head off with a traditional weapon.
Now as the evolution of the sniper rifle......I see the possibilities.
did you see the example pic? exploding over a trench. or shooting through a window and exploding inside. doesn't look like it'll be a direct hit type of weapon but more of a splash damage round. Hits more targets that might not be kills, but good enough to take a person out of the fight and require another combatant to aid them. that is if they even give a damn about wounded comrades.
Why the hell do you need an explosive *bullet*? A .50 caliber has enough energy to explode softbodies with a near miss nevermind actual contact.
Because the word 'bullet' means a projectile, and this is an airburst grenade.
Bronco, you handle it the same way you do this
or any other special weapon. You dont have the guy carrying it walk alone down roads with enemy combatants on the other side. Or the same way they handled the old 'how do men with crossbows fight men with swords?' idea. They dont.
its cool..but 15000$..for the targeting system and 3000$ for the weapon..I bet the troops would just be happy with an m-16 that was sand proof (I just pulled those numbers from a google..but I'm sure the cost falls nowhere inthe realm of practical)
I dunno if its application on a sand-village's local population would warrant those price tags, but I sure know an ex-american president or two who deserved the honour of that :P For that sort of job, I suppose its good. Still a sinful waste of money. Also its a really boring looking gun. No one is gonna want to model that in 3D :P
most probably, this thing won't even work half the time.
the TOW missile, which got about the same functionality, has a fail ratio of 26%.
this being a new system, will probably be more along the 40% fail range.
there's problems with laser range finders too. smoke will scatter the laser, borking the tracking,
the fins could get jammed, the CPU might have production faults (especially since the US army goes for the lowest bidder), in addition, dirt could cover up the laser, and bumping the rifle grenades into stuff could cause malfunctions.
oh and cost. the TOW missile, which got the same functionality, but in a much larger scale,
is 180 000$,
a javelin missile is 86 000$
Sounds like a real life Bolter. Now all we need are genetically altered super soldiers in power armor carrying a version of this rifle that's twice as big and heavy.
did you see the example pic? exploding over a trench. or shooting through a window and exploding inside. doesn't look like it'll be a direct hit type of weapon but more of a splash damage round. Hits more targets that might not be kills, but good enough to take a person out of the fight and require another combatant to aid them. that is if they even give a damn about wounded comrades.
Someone in the science lab has been playing far too much Quake and UT!
This system isn't new, its just been altered over time.
The original version of this was a 7.62mm battle rifle with an underslung/detachable 25mm caseless smart round launcher/rifle. I think I first heard of that in like 2003. I figured they'd have to separate them simply for weight considerations
I don't believe Americans will ever be able to successfully revolt ever again. National Guard would slaughter everyone that stood up before enough momentum was ever gained, and the rebels would be labeled terrorists by Bush cronies. It would be totally sucky.
Yeah the first time the American populace held a revolution the government had to ship their main force across an ocean by sail power. Really the difference between then and now is like playing chess by mail and playing Starcraft.
"Hey George. We you ain't the boss of us anymore."
<wait 1 month>
"Oh yeah? Well take this!"
<wait another month>
"Alright guys the war is here."
The trouble really would be getting a revolution started and or organized. A violent revolution would be at a severe disadvantage technologically, but it would still be possible if done right.
Frankly if you could organize enough people into a revolutionary force here you could organize more than that to vote your candidate of choice into whatever office you wanted. :Shrug:
A revolution is still very possible. It would be lead by politicians and generals. Basically you would just need enough generals and prominent political leaders to form the revolt. At least the fictional me thinks so haha.
Sounds like a real life Bolter. Now all we need are genetically altered super soldiers in power armor carrying a version of this rifle that's twice as big and heavy.
Yeah the first time the American populace held a revolution the government had to ship their main force across an ocean by sail power. Really the difference between then and now is like playing chess by mail and playing Starcraft.
"Hey George. We you ain't the boss of us anymore."
<wait 1 month>
"Oh yeah? Well take this!"
<wait another month>
"Alright guys the war is here."
The trouble really would be getting a revolution started and or organized. A violent revolution would be at a severe disadvantage technologically, but it would still be possible if done right.
Frankly if you could organize enough people into a revolutionary force here you could organize more than that to vote your candidate of choice into whatever office you wanted. :Shrug:
thats true. but as fast as the government can react today, the populace is well connected as well, with internet, mobile phones, and such.
basically things will just go quicker now than back then.
the revolution could be over in a month.
I don't believe Americans will ever be able to successfully revolt ever again. National Guard would slaughter everyone that stood up before enough momentum was ever gained, and the rebels would be labeled terrorists by Bush cronies. It would be totally sucky.
There are apparently more guns, trained citizens and disgruntled ex-forces/police to out number government backed authorities by quite a considerable number in the USA; violent action is the excuse they all want (note that's "want" and not "need").
I read/heard that it only took 1% of the population to revolt that last time, however they didn't have instantaneous mass media to content with which would most certainly be used as a 'weapon'. But there'd have to be a critical mass where the authorities would kill so indiscriminately that it'd turn even their supporters off what they were doing.
Slightly OT, what the heck is that guy holding in the first photo above?
my first reaction to that picture on that page was that the soldiers shoulder was badly rigged and was collapsing on it's self......stupid game art skewing my interpretation of the real world.
I'm no history buff, but I'm pretty sure the Civil War wasn't really so much a revolution against the government as it was a conflict between factions of the government (or two governments, however you want to look at it).
The American Revolution was a private militia against a larger government army, but that was before guerrilla tactics were the norm for fighting wars, so the revolutionary forces had a pretty big edge by using them.
That was also when, like, everyone (all of them) had guns too. And there was no mass media of any kind to overstimulate the vast majority of would-be revo fighters into a perpetual haze of confusion and complacency. You can ask any given American today who their favorite Idol contestant was from the past few years, and there's about an 80% chance they'll give you an informed answer. Ask them about who their city or state elected officials are, or who was running in the last (non-presidential) election, or what specific information they know about what's been going on with "the economy" lately, and see if they can make a coherent sentence. (I probably couldn't, and I actually care)
Also: Holy crap, those are some expensive weapons. Who even ends up with all that missile money? If they'd run it back through the lower end of the economic wormhole, the country's money issues would be solved. But what do weapon moguls need to buy from the non-wealthy?
Damn, I remember watching a documentary about some similar bullets some time ago, but they didn't explode and shit, they just had a fin that was steering the bullet in small degrees, definitely not around corners though. Still, crazy shit.
The title of the article is a bit misleading, even stating in the article that you could "shoot around corners" which is never actually mentioned about the actual weapon, or it being "laser guided" seems just totally false. All it is, is a distance based explosive charge, you cant shoot it around corners or anything else retarded like that. In reality this is a pretty simple advance on current weapon systems like the FN2000 (computerized range finding, chip in the grenade to shoot the correct distance) / HK OICW project.
OICW:
The central idea of the program was to develop a rifle that enabled the attacking of targets behind cover by using airburst munitions. The munitions were to be much smaller than pre-existing grenades and grenade launchers, but large enough to be effective. The idea was refined into a combination of a short assault rifle and semi-automatic, low-velocity cannon firing air-bursting munitions. The OICW aimed to use advances in computer technology in a weapon that fired grenades automatically pre-set to explode above or beside targets hidden from view. Fragmentation from the exploding grenades would defeat the target when normal rifle fire would be ineffective.
So what do we have here? Some minor advance on exsisting, relatively cheap(not anywhere near as expensive as you guys would be lead to believe) technology. Also, the thought that these would be given to every grunt is well, misguided at best.
The title of the article is a bit misleading, even stating in the article that you could "shoot around corners" which is never actually mentioned about the actual weapon, or it being "laser guided" seems just totally false. All it is, is a distance based explosive charge, you cant shoot it around corners or anything else retarded like that. In reality this is a pretty simple advance on current weapon systems line the FN2000 (computerized range finding, chip in the grenade to shoot the correct distance) / HK OICW project.
So what do we have here? Some minor advance on exsisting, relatively cheap(not anywhere near as expensive as you guys would be lead to believe) technology. Also, the thought that these would be given to every grunt is well, misguided at best.
Damn you EQ and beating me to this.
What I don't get is why this gun doesn't have a rifle as well for those instances when your target blunders around the corner to shoot at you while you're busy dialing shit in. The OICW's underslung gun or something like the AICW where the whole thing is just mounted to an Aug seems like a better idea.
If they make it as easy to use as the barrel mounted airburst rocket in Battlefield 2142, nothing bad could come of this! That thing was a pleasure to use. Switch to secondary fire, activate the scope when aiming at your target, and it sets the distance to explode at automatically. Mousewheel up or down to increase or decrease the distance at which the rocket will explode, then fire. In other words, if some moron with a machinegun is hiding just around a corner; Zoom in on the corner, mousewheel up one notch, fire. Rocket flies through the air, passes two meters past the corner then explodes mid-air. Works even better on people who are ducking behind objects because they can't run away when they hear it coming!
Replies
Now as the evolution of the sniper rifle......I see the possibilities.
john
crazy shit though.
[ame]
did you see the example pic? exploding over a trench. or shooting through a window and exploding inside. doesn't look like it'll be a direct hit type of weapon but more of a splash damage round. Hits more targets that might not be kills, but good enough to take a person out of the fight and require another combatant to aid them. that is if they even give a damn about wounded comrades.
Because the word 'bullet' means a projectile, and this is an airburst grenade.
Bronco, you handle it the same way you do this
or any other special weapon. You dont have the guy carrying it walk alone down roads with enemy combatants on the other side. Or the same way they handled the old 'how do men with crossbows fight men with swords?' idea. They dont.
Kind of a shame we're going to have to do it the hard way with thinking and voting and shit.
i can think of about a million other better things that the r&D money that went in to this could have been better used for.
the TOW missile, which got about the same functionality, has a fail ratio of 26%.
this being a new system, will probably be more along the 40% fail range.
there's problems with laser range finders too. smoke will scatter the laser, borking the tracking,
the fins could get jammed, the CPU might have production faults (especially since the US army goes for the lowest bidder), in addition, dirt could cover up the laser, and bumping the rifle grenades into stuff could cause malfunctions.
oh and cost. the TOW missile, which got the same functionality, but in a much larger scale,
is 180 000$,
a javelin missile is 86 000$
science? pah, this is hardly even rehash engineering.
all they've done is scale down a TOW guidance system into a rifle grenade.
Slowpoke.jpg
I figured this out when I saw the active denial system.
The original version of this was a 7.62mm battle rifle with an underslung/detachable 25mm caseless smart round launcher/rifle. I think I first heard of that in like 2003. I figured they'd have to separate them simply for weight considerations
is anybody here aware
this happened?
they don't even need body armour, those puny 5.56mm bullets the army uses simply doesn't have enough power to punch through all that lard.
and then these guys will start fucking shit up as well.
"Hey George. We you ain't the boss of us anymore."
<wait 1 month>
"Oh yeah? Well take this!"
<wait another month>
"Alright guys the war is here."
The trouble really would be getting a revolution started and or organized. A violent revolution would be at a severe disadvantage technologically, but it would still be possible if done right.
Frankly if you could organize enough people into a revolutionary force here you could organize more than that to vote your candidate of choice into whatever office you wanted. :Shrug:
With a chainsaw attachment (obviously).
thats true. but as fast as the government can react today, the populace is well connected as well, with internet, mobile phones, and such.
basically things will just go quicker now than back then.
the revolution could be over in a month.
I read/heard that it only took 1% of the population to revolt that last time, however they didn't have instantaneous mass media to content with which would most certainly be used as a 'weapon'. But there'd have to be a critical mass where the authorities would kill so indiscriminately that it'd turn even their supporters off what they were doing.
Slightly OT, what the heck is that guy holding in the first photo above?
The American Revolution was a private militia against a larger government army, but that was before guerrilla tactics were the norm for fighting wars, so the revolutionary forces had a pretty big edge by using them.
That was also when, like, everyone (all of them) had guns too. And there was no mass media of any kind to overstimulate the vast majority of would-be revo fighters into a perpetual haze of confusion and complacency. You can ask any given American today who their favorite Idol contestant was from the past few years, and there's about an 80% chance they'll give you an informed answer. Ask them about who their city or state elected officials are, or who was running in the last (non-presidential) election, or what specific information they know about what's been going on with "the economy" lately, and see if they can make a coherent sentence. (I probably couldn't, and I actually care)
Also: Holy crap, those are some expensive weapons. Who even ends up with all that missile money? If they'd run it back through the lower end of the economic wormhole, the country's money issues would be solved. But what do weapon moguls need to buy from the non-wealthy?
OICW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_Weapon_program
So what do we have here? Some minor advance on exsisting, relatively cheap(not anywhere near as expensive as you guys would be lead to believe) technology. Also, the thought that these would be given to every grunt is well, misguided at best.
P.S - EQ whut do u no ?
Damn you EQ and beating me to this.
What I don't get is why this gun doesn't have a rifle as well for those instances when your target blunders around the corner to shoot at you while you're busy dialing shit in. The OICW's underslung gun or something like the AICW where the whole thing is just mounted to an Aug seems like a better idea.
Also nthing the "title is misleading as fuck"
yeah just need to send in the silly nade monkeys from COD4 multiplayer into the frontline
Real life is starting to get really scary.