Well it works well enough in modern warfare 3, though slightly noobish...
Military technology: Magic bullets
51–60 of 93 posts
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#52Ah, the XM25. Last publicity blitz we saw on this was a year ago, and Gary Breacher called them out on it: http://exiledonline.com/xm25-gee-whiz-how-can-we-be-losing-w... (Even the file photo is the same!) The XM25 autocannon is neat. Absolutely nobody denies this. It's also pretty useless, because any insurgent who engages security forces in a conventional gun battle is going to die. Nine times out of ten, they're d…
My understanding was that it isn't being deployed to win battles, more to test it in theatre in preparation for future wars or export.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect it would be easier to make the front spin and fin-stabilise the rear than try to make a rotating core. That being said, given a known muzzle velocity I don't understand why it's not a simple timing problem.
Muzzle velocity varies quite a lot based on ambient temperature, air pressure, altitude, and propellant grain size.
Ah, so knowing the muzzle velocity might actually be a red herring - the turns per metre travelled is going to be a more stable metric.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#54I guess our economy will never completely bottom out as long as we can export death. Just wait 'til your local police get these for "domestic terrorism crowd control" (aka protesters) with the shrapnel replaced by "less lethal" rubber bullets while drones fly overhead for more accurate targeting. Oh it would never happen, right? What if a congressman owns stock in the company?
ATK contributes large amounts to politicians. They spend millions on lobbying and hundreds of thousands on individual PACS.
http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/alliant-techsystem...
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not entirely true. There are still plenty of gunfights and ambushes being staged in Afghanistan, especially outside of the major cities.
yes its just a replacement for the existing under barrel launchers M203 and the venerable Vietnam era M79 this gives that gives you a few more tactical options.
"A few more tactical options" is playing down something that can be monumental.
The howitzer only offered "a few more tactical options", mainly being the ability to lay down accurate indirect fire whilst still being able to offer direct fire and defensive fire.
I mean why bother inventing gunpowder or rifling or any other weapons when an arrow killed people too. I mean sure the rifle was more effective and less competent soldiers could use it skilfully, but what was the point when we already had bows and crossbows?
So why bother inventing an accurate method of firing a frag round at 500ft when the M203 has a max range of 400ft and effective fire at only 150ft. Granted the AK47 is only effective at 250ft, but that still means the soldiers will be spraying and praying with grenade fire.
The whole point of making a weapon more accurate and effective is to increase the enemy combatant losses whilst decreasing civilian losses and soldier risk.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#56Ah, the XM25. Last publicity blitz we saw on this was a year ago, and Gary Breacher called them out on it: http://exiledonline.com/xm25-gee-whiz-how-can-we-be-losing-w... (Even the file photo is the same!) The XM25 autocannon is neat. Absolutely nobody denies this. It's also pretty useless, because any insurgent who engages security forces in a conventional gun battle is going to die. Nine times out of ten, they're d…
My understanding was that it isn't being deployed to win battles, more to test it in theatre in preparation for future wars or export.
The accuracy of a rifle with a frag round have a lot of potential. I mean, if you're taking fire from a window you range find to the wall the window is on, add a foot and fire it through, the round will explode a foot or two from the combatant. Know there's four enemy in a vehicle, range find and aim for a side window.
It will certainly change the way soldiers will fight, but the advantage is that the insurgents and less developed nations won't have the technology and likely won't have the understanding of it. Everyone knows grenade launchers lob the round. However, it's going to be very different when it's got the range and the level trajectory of a rifle.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article says that the grenade's travel distance is measured by counting its rotations, implying that the barrel is, in fact, rifled. (Maybe that doesn't technically make it a rifle, but it doesn't seem like a terribly inaccurate term.)
Technically true; however, in practice, you must rifle the barrel of any grenade launcher, or else have tail fins on the grenades to prevent aerodynamic tumbling. Tank guns, cannons, howitzers, and the like typically have rifled barrels but we don't call them rifles. (Mortars, on the other hand, use finned ordnance.) AFAIK rifles are usually defined to have a caliber at most 20mm.
Ah, but we do. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle .
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#58My stab at how the bullet measures its own rotation: Suppose the bullet leaves the muzzle rotating at 300,000 RPM (quite reasonable for a rifle). That is 5kHz. It's easily within the capabilities of a Hall Effect sensor to measure a 5kHz rotation and so I'd make the very centre of the bullet contain a free rotating magnet. The rifle itself sets the magnet spinning at some known rate opposite to the rifling. When the…
That's a plausible explanation!
It may also be a small accelerometer able to calculate the rotation. The free rotating theory seems very correct though.
I'd go with magnet but, I think it ma all be solid state so, accelerometer came to mind.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect it would be easier to make the front spin and fin-stabilise the rear than try to make a rotating core. That being said, given a known muzzle velocity I don't understand why it's not a simple timing problem.
Muzzle velocity varies quite a lot based on ambient temperature, air pressure, altitude, and propellant grain size.
Still easier to have temperature and pressure sensors at the weapon( they fit in a wrist watch so there should be no problem to do the same at a high tech gun) and send a rectified time input to the bullet IMHO.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes its just a replacement for the existing under barrel launchers M203 and the venerable Vietnam era M79 this gives that gives you a few more tactical options.
"A few more tactical options" is playing down something that can be monumental. The howitzer only offered "a few more tactical options", mainly being the ability to lay down accurate indirect fire whilst still being able to offer direct fire and defensive fire. I mean why bother inventing gunpowder or rifling or any other weapons when an arrow killed people too. I mean sure the rifle was more effective and less compe…
The American battle rifles aren't a weakness, they serve their purpose well. The military should be focused on things like IED detection, preventing brain damage from concussive force, battlefield intelligence, social programs (hearts and minds)... the stuff we are having a hard time doing.