It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seven unbelievable military weapons most people have never heard of

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Sorry if it's bad form to repost from other sites, but I thought this was kind of unusual, definitely worth sharing. Most of the stuff is mundane my today's standards, but each has some historical merit, especially when viewed in hindsight.

Business Insider is pretty good in general, to give credit where it's due.

www.businessinsider.com...

static3.businessinsider.com... " target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

1. The Bat Bomb
2. Anti-Tank Dogs
3. Submarine Aircraft Carriers
4. Nuclear Artillery
5. The Soviet Ekranoplane
6. Kaiten Torpedoes
7. Pigeon-Guided Missiles




posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

I probally need to get out more - I knew what all those were



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I'd like to see one of these go off, but from a safe distance and not in a war situation. en.wikipedia.org...

I have no interest in seeing a nuclear bomb go off.



posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

The Ekranoplane i did hear of when somebody explained to me why a passsengers plane could not hit the pentagon on 911 the way it was presented to the world.

The person who did sell the 911 pentagon crash to the world probably never heared of the Ekranoplane..






posted on Jun, 5 2014 @ 11:49 PM
link   
UMM.... They used dogs as weapons?! Thats so sad



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I saw this on TV earlier and had to check it out online... you can be forgiven if you have to do a double take.
Check out when this was deployed

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: zatara

Care to elaborate? Very interested in that
And I feel bad for those poor dogs that got used to blow up tanks

edit on thFri, 06 Jun 2014 00:31:14 -0500America/Chicago620141480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: zatara

not to derail the thread but I too would like to know more.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   
The Soviet ekranoplane is kind of obscure but a lot of people have heard of the Spruce Goose, an earlier attempt at the same idea by Howard Hughes.

Submarine/submersible aircraft carriers...still seem like a pretty awesome idea if you can actually make them.

Also, Business Insider is a crap tabloid for people with crap attention spans. I sympathize, but if you have time to read that utter garbage, try to develop a little more focus, eh? I.e. go read a book before you rot your brain for good.
edit on 6-6-2014 by 11andrew34 because: added link



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

1) They have arrays that can cause intense burning sensation upon the skin. (Microwave)

2) They have the "Puke Ray". It causes intense gastrointestinal sensations. (Who knows).

3.) They have "Mind Implants". It can insert sections like FALSE thoughts into your brain.

4.) There are cop cars that can ride by and survey your facial features. Don't be surprised if you owed a past ticket, they will grab you up. Peace officers have become Revenue Officers.
5) Open up a Bank account...Everybody knows what you have.....

Kratos


edit on 6-6-2014 by Kratos40 because: spelling

edit on 6-6-2014 by Kratos40 because: spelling again.


I need to add that the Chinese have created a "hypersonic" missle that no known technology can neutralize. Yet, we are stll working on implementing the magnetic rail system of launching projectiles.
edit on 6-6-2014 by Kratos40 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 04:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: zatara

Care to elaborate? Very interested in that
And I feel bad for those poor dogs that got used to blow up tanks




Used by the Russians, but discontinued as the dogs usually went for the nearest tank, a Russian one!



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: FlyingFox

The Ekranoplane i did hear of when somebody explained to me why a passsengers plane could not hit the pentagon on 911 the way it was presented to the world.

The person who did sell the 911 pentagon crash to the world probably never heared of the Ekranoplane..


Also known as the Caspian sea monster, a great idea, but can only be used when conditions were 'just right'.








posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Good article.

You should read about the 'Rods from God.' I'll try to dig up a link - basically in theory this thing is a satellite which drops massive metal rods down to Earth and the force of gravity alone increases the velocity enough to where the impact creates a nuclear like explosion without the radioactivity.

God help us indeed if TPTB start getting their hand on nukes without the fear of radiation I say.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

Good, I hope they lost a few men for trying to use the poor pups as weapons!



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: zatara

Care to elaborate? Very interested in that
And I feel bad for those poor dogs that got used to blow up tanks


A little of topic but to answer your question and some other ATS-members...

If a plane has a certain speed when flying near the surface of land..runway...water... there is an aerodynamic force keeping that plane from touching the ground. It is called Ground Effect. This is the principle used for the Ekranoplane to work. The plane that caused that hole in the pentagon should have hit the roof or fly over the building because of this ground effect.

Of course there are ways to 'land' the plane into the building but the evidence speak against that this attempt was made..

(let us not go into a discussion in this thread about what that evidence is)

Wiki Ground Effect





edit on 6/6/2014 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

Nuclear artillery isn't really "out there". Its an integral part of the defence strategy of a few nations.

I loved hearing about the Japanese sub carrier. Had they not surrendered when they did the Panama Canal would have been destroyed in another day or two if the recall order was never given.

I found out about this one a while back and have since been convinced this would be an AWESOME idea.

The force projection of a carrier with the stealth and survivability of a sub.

I say make a super carrier sub. Have the whole runway covered by a closing dome along the whole length of the thing.


edit on 6 6 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: zatara

So why does my glider land and crash into things?

So how did German(WWII) guided missiles hit their targets?

I read the Wiki article and am still not understanding this.



posted on Jun, 6 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
The soviets applied for icao license for world wide pax ekranplane routes, but were refused. but I believe the soviets were using this for pax transportation on the azov sea.
a reply to: 8654drp



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: FlyingFox

I loved hearing about the Japanese sub carrier. Had they not surrendered when they did the Panama Canal would have been destroyed in another day or two if the recall order was never given.


Not even close. The I-400 class subs carried 3x Aichi M6-A float planes. Each M6-A could carry 2x 500lb or 1x 1,800lb bomb. Assuming all three I-400s launched all of their aircraft, that's 9 relatively low-performance aircraft attacking the Panama Canal with somewhere between 9 and 18 weapons. Assuming that all 9 planes got to the target zone (not a certainty by any means), survived the AA defenses around the locks (again, not a certainty), and bombed with 100 percent accuracy (now we're well into 'fantasy literature'), that's not sufficient to destroy the canal. They *might*, on a perfect run, damage one of the locks sufficiently to disrupt traffic for a few days, but the most likely drain they'd inflict on Allied resources would be a draw-down on white paint that the AA gunners would use to put kill markers on their gun mounts.



I found out about this one a while back and have since been convinced this would be an AWESOME idea.

The force projection of a carrier with the stealth and survivability of a sub.

I say make a super carrier sub. Have the whole runway covered by a closing dome along the whole length of the thing.



Won't work, for a variety of reasons.
We can start with making a 'closing dome' that's a) big enough to cover a carrier deck, b) water tight, and c) pressure resistant enough to allow meaningful dive depth. Good luck with that.

Assuming the closing dome could be built, where are the aircraft going to run up engines before launch? Try it submerged, and you'll asphyxiate your crew. Do it on the surface, and your 'submarine carrier' will be spending an hour or so on the surface every time it needs to launch or recover aircraft...which, given the operational tempo of a modern carrier, means being on the surface 24/7/365. You also can't communicate with your aircraft from underwater, nor can you receive updates from them while submerged.

There are also problems with hull form...a form that makes for quiet underwater cruising really isn't good at surface operations, and a hull that's stable on the surface will have compromised speed and stealth underwater.

In short (too late, I know!), a submarine aircraft carrier is going to wind up being a really expensive ship that's a really bad submarine and a really ineffective aircraft carrier.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: 8654drp
a reply to: zatara

So why does my glider land and crash into things?

So how did German(WWII) guided missiles hit their targets?

I read the Wiki article and am still not understanding this.



To be blunt, most of the German guided missiles *didn't* hit their targets. The ones that did used direct radio links (Fritz-X) or wire guidance (Wasserfall) and a live operator. In any case, your glider experience pretty much parallels a successful attack by those weapons...fly into things and crash (followed by a very loud 'boom' in the case of the German weapons...hopefully your glider's impact is only followed by a certain amount of creative swearing.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join