Regardless of the tactical implications of this particular weapon... the fact they're now making computerized bullets makes me wonder where else this path will lead.
Military technology: Magic bullets
61–70 of 93 posts
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
The M4 is accurate, but lacks the power of something like an AK-47, which hits harder and has a larger round. It's great for clearing a room or working in tight spaces, but it's not nearly the same as this.
Additionally, they are working VERY hard to improve IED detection, and in fact are making quite a bit of headway in that regard. The same goes for every other issue you raised.
There's no reason you can't improve offense while simultaneously improving defense.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#63Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#64Ah, 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…
There's a real use for this weapon. If it works, it's not a pointless economic stimulus tech demo. US troops get into plenty of firefights with insurgents. Artillery and air support must be around if we plan to win those firefights with low casualties. The XM25 makes artillery and air support less of a necessity, which means we could save money and gas.
Saving gas is important. If you're shipping gas or ammo by truck, you're creating targets for IEDs. Our casualty rates would be significantly higher if we couldn't use foreign drivers. The DARPA self driving car challenge was a response to the IED turkey shoot that's our supply line. At least we can avoid casualties.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#65$25 bullets and $25000 rifles are insanely expensive. And I don't see how better rifles will bring an advantage - most coalition casualties are from mortar fire and improvised explosive traps - rebels have already lost preference for gun standoffs. But I'm sure H&K and Alliant will love to sell lots of these to whatever army is corrupt enough to buy them. Also... aren't exploding bullets illegal under the Hague conve…
It's very affordable when you compare it to air strikes and artillery bases.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I thought that tank guns these days are usually smoothbore rather than rifled - with the notable exception of the British Challenger 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2
The British have been trying to replace that rifled gun with the German L/55 smoothbore, too, but they don't have the money. It wasn't clear at the time the tank was designed, but the rifled barrel turns out to have been a mistake. The round for which it was primarily designed (High Explosive Squash Head, or HESH) hit a sort of technical dead end with the introduction of spall liners and layered composites in tank armor.
Read the comment by Steven Den Beste, who explains the situation pretty well (aside from getting the HESH acronym wrong):
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/20...
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#67$25 bullets and $25000 rifles are insanely expensive. And I don't see how better rifles will bring an advantage - most coalition casualties are from mortar fire and improvised explosive traps - rebels have already lost preference for gun standoffs. But I'm sure H&K and Alliant will love to sell lots of these to whatever army is corrupt enough to buy them. Also... aren't exploding bullets illegal under the Hague conve…
It's really a misnomer to call this thing a rifle. Yes, it has a rifled barrel. But it's a grenade launcher, not a rifle in common parlance. It replaces the 40mm grenade launcher in use.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#68Sounds like a good way to counter this sort of weapon would be to have human shields. I'm not sure if that's an improvement on the situation if they start to adopt those sort of tactics.
Enemies will simply adapt to new weapons they face. Much like a bucket of paint would be quite effective against and remote control mini tank.
Whilst the engineering feat is impressive, it is still important to note that at the receiving end of such ingenuity is a writhing half dead corpse so it is with hesitation I would ever celebrate such innovation.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#69Ah, 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…
Brecher (not "Breacher") doesn't know any more about war or geopolitics than you or I.
The fact that this particular weapon isn't useful in an IED attack doesn't mean that it's not useful for what it's designed to do. You seem to be under the impression there's no shooting going on in A-stan. This is definitely not the case.
Re: Military technology: Magic bullets
#70My 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…
You don't need a separate magnet, the earth's field would be adequate.