Explosive radio bullets...
Offline I was initially going to put a link to this article in the science section but I thought it might be worth putting it in here.
So it turns out the US Army has developed a system which allows you to determine the distance to an obstruction - say the wall below a window that a sniper is hiding in - and then program the ammunition to explode 1 to 3 metres beyond that distance, effectively allowing you to fire just over the obstruction and hit the troops hiding behind it.
I'm torn between my liberal-limp-wristed-indoorsman sensibilities of wishing people would stop developing guns, and my testosterone-laden-game-playing-blowing-things-up-action-movie-loving-manishness. I wish things like this didn't exist but my animal brain thinks it's awesome sauce.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
- Login to post comments
I am curious as to how reliable this high tech weapon system will be when actually exposed to prolonged combat conditions like dirt, mud, and repeated impacts such as being dropped to the ground or violently slammed against hard objects ( ie, inside of armored vehicles, concrete walls..) when its operator is hastily seeking cover ?
Have hand-held electronics reached this level of durability ? Just wondering.
Edit: just remembered the web-site by the Federation of American Scientists ( http://www.fas.org/index.html ) that is usually a good source of reliable info about the word's different weapon systems and the politics behind them. At the top of the homepage is a tab entitled "programs" which will take you specifically to the various weapons descriptions found on the left side of the page. )
Well, the XM 25 is being developed by Heckler and Kock and they by reputation do not make garbage. So I would tend to think that they will perform well.
That being said, there is another weapons system already on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan that can do the same thing. The General Dynamic Mk 47 can fire 40mm smart grenades in full auto mode at up to 300 rounds per minute. Now I call that a bucket of awsome sauce.
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl23-e.htm
=
old technology with a new coat of miniturization! When they stop using grenade shells and start using bullets, THEN ill be impressed
What Would Kharn Do?
Being a lowly civilian makes products like that, well shall we say, inaccessible to me ?
I did used to own an HK model 91 ( .308 cal, semi-auto ) that was alot of fun and reliable to boot. In fact I would still prefer it to my Springfield M1A ( also .308, etc ) which is actually a pretty good rifle but it is too sensitive to stoppages caused by magazines that are in less than perfect condition.
Well, a weapon which is being developed for the military and is not even live in the field yet would meet my definition of inaccessible. However, in a year or two, with troop rotations, there should be ranges that have access to them.
That being said, I am a revolver guy myself. I suppose that there is no accounting for taste or something along those lines. I just like a huge thump and lots of reliability. One of my “before I die” list items is to find a range where I can try the Taurus Raging Bull .454.
I do have a friend from another forum though who has an interesting system for semis. He loads his clips with two each of five different loadings, with the lightest coming out of the gun first. The theory is that since the specific situation is not possible to know in advance, he can take out a skinny drug addict with minimal overpenetration but there are more powerful rounds further down should they be needed.
=
Wow, nice to see another firearms aficionado who is also an atheist. I believe we are a minority within a minority ?
I love revolvers, too.... ie, a Smith and Wesson .357 mag ( model 686, 4" barrel ), a Smith and Wesson .44 mag ( model 629 V-comp with 5" barrel ) and a .50 cal mag ( model 500, 6.5" barrel. It weighs five pounds when loaded and when firing 400 grain bullets has over 2,600 ft/lbs of muzzle energy..... by comparison a typical 44 mag has "only" around 900 ft/lbs of ME )
They're lots of fun to shoot but people usually don't want to stand next to the fifty at an indoor range because when the gun is fired the concussive blast can be distracting
for anyone standing next to it. You hear it and feel it !!!
Yes, the new automatic grenade launcher from HK should be an awesome replacement for the MK 19 Mod 0. Incidentally, grenades used in NATO shoulder-fired weapons ( such as the M203 ) are low velocity rounds that have traditionally been 40x46mm. Grenades that are used in NATO crew served versions ( like your link documented ) are high velocity rounds and are usually 40x53mm.
( Sorry, I realize that you may already know these stats forwards and backwards, heh, heh
, I just get carried away by my enthusiasm. )
PS, I have seen on youtube a single shot, shoulder-fired weapon prototype that used the more powerful 40x53mm but it's recoil was almost unmanageable and even knocked down one of the more diminutive test firers.
I like big guns...
=
Wait wait wait... did the narrator just commend the guns accuracy?
YOUR SHOOTING NUKES??!? HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU MISS?!?
What Would Kharn Do?
The various tactical nuclear weapons that were brought to the prototype phase in the Cold War were a sort-of neat novelty, but ultimately impractical. Must feel nice to shoot something with that much punch, though.
The push for increasing 'smart' weapons systems is puzzling to me. It's not like they substantially improve their lethality, and the resource-to-kill ratio drastically drops. I recall seeing a white paper for a small arms projectile that had a small rocket booster attached to the bullet; upon exitting the barrel of the gun, a delayed fuse would be triggered that would a few seconds later ignite the booster. The tremendous increase in velocity would result in rounds that could theoretically glass just about any target they were fired at.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I love it when life immatates art...
Next thing you'll be telling me is that they have invented raildrivers!
What Would Kharn Do?
"Resource-to-kill" (another WWZ reader--Awesome!) is great for dealing with zombies, because you have to kill every last one, but if you can effortlessly defeat the best and brightest the enemy has to offer, fear sets in the enemy ranks and organized resistance crumbles. A weapon or weapon system that can neuter the effect of an air force, like the AWACS in the First Gulf War, can make an enemy think twice, given that his most expensive weapon (and theoretically his best) is gone. There was (supposedly) a time when battles could be decided by a duel between single champions chosen from amongst the participating armies; I assume the reasoning was similar.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Personally, i cant think of a time when such a thing was dominant, but i do recall numerous instances across history where such things took place. None of which are close together in measurement of years or even geology.
What Would Kharn Do?
Well, I question even the possibility, but there are histories that record such events, however lacking in reliability they may be (I'm looking at you 1st Samuel). I've even heard tell of Chinese battles being settled by the opposing generals playing a friendly game of chess. Once again, I doubt there's any truth to it.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
While that's a very sound argument for fighting a conventional army, there really isn't much of that going on at present (or terribly likely to be happening in the future). The modern militaries of the world are, for the most part, just enaging guerrilla militias using vastly outdated hardware; as a result, many of the smart weapons being developed are high tech solutions to low tech problems, rather than decisive battlefield technology (like AWACS). I mean, the munitions described in the OP are addressing the issue of enemies that have ducked behind things. It boggles my mind that someone decided they needed to develop a new piece of hardware as a 'counter' to something like that. It's wasteful.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Chess? heh
Im more inclined to believe the 3 on 1 duel between Zhang Fei, Guan Yu, Liu Bei, v Lu Bu actually took place, before i would believe that any generals decided the fate of their army, over a game of chess
What Would Kharn Do?
I'd argue that a remote detonation round like the one described in the OP is exactly what you'd want for fighting guerillas, given their propensity for using civilian structures for cover and concealment. You're correct that guerillas are less likely to be put off by high tech weapons than convential troops, but their tactics make the tech just as necessary. People can bitch all day about Predator drones accidentally waxing a funeral or two, but we'd have killed thousands more people with conventional methods.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
Contructing a specialized muntion that kills in pre-defined ways, Not a waste
Constructing a specialized weapon in whos only purpose is to fire a specialized muntion to kill in a pre-defined way... THAT is wasteful
What Would Kharn Do?
Well, let's forget about civilian collateral damage here; you're right - no matter what weapons you'll be using, war kills undeserving people.
So you take your radio-detonated munitions into the city you're trying to occupy, and then you get ambushed by snipers or an IED trap (because your enemy has far more control over the environment than you do fo a variety of reasons), and by the tiime you've managed to kill your intended target you've probably traded somewhere in the ballpark of several thousand to one in terms of RtK (I realize that the term is science fictional, but it does have real world parallels that are significant). So instead of inventing new toys to 'defeat' centuries old practices like ducking for cover inside of buildings, why not take a look at the play books of successful generals like Sun Tzu that advocate for non-occupational approaches for besieging cities (surround them, cut off their supplies, wait for them to surrender to you after they realize how much they want to continue eating and drinking)? Direct approaches for invasion and occupation do not work well when there are not obvious targets of opportunity to destroy or capture, yet modern militaries have maintained essentially a static doctrine for waging war since WW1.
I guess I should phrase it this way:
I don't get why you would invent new weapons designed for fighting in a stupid fashion.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Actually, let me put that into an historical context for you. All artillery has a certain amount of inaccuracy. Especially the older stuff like that cannon was compared to. Think of it like a really long isosceles triangle with the sharp point right at the muzzle. The farther you are trying to shoot, the bigger the base line will be. Since nuclear munitions have to be shot quite a long way for the safety of the gun crew, being able to know where the weapon is likely to hit is of more importance than you are probably thinking.
Additionally, most people hear the word nuclear and they automatically this big freaking bomb that destroys whole cities. Honestly though, most people don't realize just how little damage might come from a nuke.
Let's take Hiroshima as the standard. Sure, you have heard about the thousands of people who died but that only paints part of the picture. One of the people who survived was only a bit under 350 feet from the point directly under where the bomb was detonated. It probably helped that he was in a basement at the time but even so, he did survive. In fact, Hiroshima is in an earthquake zone and many of the buildings that were constructed to withstand earthquakes survived the blast.
=
Actually, they have. Further, they have been built by regular people like a teenager in Brazil:
http://www.powerlabs.org/
=
I've always held the theory, that the invention of the raildriver (electro-magnetic railgun) would be the death of the "Air Superiority" fighting...
a sizable EM railgun purposed for AA defence would litterally snipe aircraft out of the sky...
No more 4 barrel 4,000,000 round spray and pray AA
No more $250,000 seeker missles
No more explosive flak batteries, that hurl pounds of metal into the air before exploding like a shrapnel grenade
Just 1 shot, 1 slug that could destroy any next generation fighter crafter the US Airforce pumps out
What Would Kharn Do?