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.

 

Star Wars Weapons are Nothing compared to our new stuff

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 08:21 PM
link   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.drudgereport.com/w.gif

Long but Very interesting article detailing new high tech weapons to be used on the war on terriorism.
AMERICA has ploughed billions of dollars into building an awesome arsenal since the end of the Cold War. And it can now back up its massive air power and traditional military might with futuristic superweapons.


GROUND ASSAULT COMMANDOS guided by the Land Warrior system will go to war with amazing two-barrelled rifles which can hit hidden targets


Elite soldiers will carry a new two-barrelled rifle called the objective individual combat weapon, which can even wipe out opponents hidden in trenches or behind vehicles.

The lower barrel fires Nato-standard 5.56mm ammunition allowing commandos to use bullets off the bodies of downed allies. But the upper barrel can hurl 20mm shells more than half a mile to explode in the air over the target and unleash a rain of death.

The sight at the top of the rifle is an advanced laser guidance system that sets where the shells will explode for maximum damage.

The US Special Forces who carry the gun will also be equipped with the hi-tech Land Warrior system. Their helmet visors include a sophisticated computer display that adjusts to light levels and uses infra-red for night vision, plus a targeting system which highlights friendly troops in green and enemies in red.

Satellite-enabled voice messaging in the helmet allows a commando to speak in a whisper and be heard by any other member of the attack force.

Deadly

But when even whispering is out of the question, a wrist-mounted keyboard allows the commando to type messages one-handed that scroll across the visors of other troops.


Another new deadly weapon is the super-cavitating torpedo which can travel under water at the speed of sound before eventually launching into the air.

Then it becomes a smart missile, flying directly to its target, allowing US warships and submarines to attack a target hundreds of miles away with minimum warning.

But by far the largest piece of new kit is the airborne laser a killer beam fired from a modified Boeing 747 jumbo jet.

The laser carries a massive two megawatts of energy enough to power several small towns but is so accurate it can pick out and destroy an individual in a crowd 180 miles away without harming people around him.


A full fleet of these planes is not expected until 2008, but at least two prototypes are in working condition.

The smallest new fighters are called Robot Swarm thousands of tiny machines concealed within an armoured vehicle that smashes its way into buildings.

Then the robots looking similar to radio-controlled toys swarm out like ants, each carrying explosives, stun guns or poison gas.

President George W Bush is already sending aircraft carriers and support oil tankers to the Persian Gulf and has called up 50,000 reservists, putting America on a war footing.

Weapons ranging from B52 bombers to nuclear submarines armed with Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and rapid reaction airborne forces are available.

The aircraft carriers would provide the ideal base for attacks on the hostile terrain of northern Afghanistan.

Ship-launched and air-to-ground missiles and bombs can deliver maximum fire-power with minimum risk to American servicemen.


They include the GBU15 system, which can deliver either a 2,000lb bomb or a 2,000lb penetrating bomb with pinpoint accuracy.

Equipped with either a television imaging or infra-red heat-seeking system, it can be fired up to 18 miles from its target.

Missile

US Air Force pilots also have the GBU28 missile, developed to penetrate Iraqi command centres deep underground. It has a laser-guided 4,400lb penetrating warhead.

The favoured weapon system used by the US against bin Laden in the past the Tomahawk cruise missile is highly accurate and can be fired from a range of 1,000 miles, but is not as powerful as the GBU weapons.

And if Britain is called to stand shoulder to shoulder with America, the RAF now has the bunker-busting Storm Shadow missile.


By SEAN HOARE & BARRY KEEVINS

Link to entire article with pictures:

www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4321512



This article was from around 9/26/01




posted on Mar, 9 2003 @ 09:55 PM
link   
GROUND ASSAULT COMMANDOS guided by the Land Warrior system will go to war with amazing two-barrelled rifles which can hit hidden targets Posted by Energy Wave

Ummm... Ok. So far it has proven itself to be a $20K POS. A very expensive jamamatic. In a rather enemic, short range, inaccurate, and generally useless caliber to boot.

The 20mm grenade launcher? With a microprocessor controlled fuse, IE, a PC in each shell.... With a bursting charge about 1/6 that of a standard handgrenade (keep in mind that a standard handgrenade would be very hard pressed to accomplish what they are attempting here), I really dont see much useful destruction being caused by this weapon.

All the gee whiz high tech electro gadgetry on the gun? Just makes it heavier, bulkier, and more prone to different types of failure. I wonder if the thing even has a set of backup iron sights in case the nightvision laser range finding super scopes craps out in the field. I guess whoever designed this thing was very into Star Wars or something.

In any kind of field situation, esp in combat, Murphys Law will come visit you time and time again. Such a high tech weapon only gives you more things that can (and WILL) go wrong.

I have mentioned in other posts that the US military would do itself a HUGE favor by dropping the high tech BS weapons and going back to a very well established weapon with a very long track record of reliability and accuracy in a truly effective caliber. The US obviously has had a long relationship with the M1A/M-14, although in fairness, the HK G3 and the FN FAL in 7.62mm NATO would suffice as well. All of them are battle proven, extremely reliable and accurate, with proven lethality beyond 600 meters (something the 5.56 mm only dreams about)

In combat, the soldier has a problem: the bad guys are trying to kill you. The US military needs to stop trying to out tech and out science the bad guys. The US soldier needs to simply solve the problem by shooting the bad guys before they shoot him. If nothing else, survivability odds for our current military would be vastly improved if we did something we havent truly done in the past 50 years... go back to teaching the basics of marksmanship.

"Why do you have that dufus $h@t on your gun?" Pointing at a laser/flashlight module on a students Glock 22. "All you got to do is shoot the bad guy, not dazzle him with the hightech b@ll$h@t"
Clint Smith, Director, Thunder Ranch



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Well dragon, the M16 was a jamaramic POS too you know, just gotta take care of the baby


Besides, somehow I don't think we are even close to beating Orbital Bombardments, Planet Destroyers, and Force Feilds.

None of which we currently have in any way shape or form, nor are we even close to achieving, maybe Force Fields but only through a stroke of sheer luck



posted on Mar, 10 2003 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Ugh Dragon, some of the things you post also bites me as being a bit arrogan


I'm not so sure now the 7.62 isn't banned (I know we don't use them anymore) they are afterall a cruel and unusual weapon.

Balanced so when it strikes it tumbles, so what could have been a simple shot in the arm, ricochetes off your shoulder passes through your chest hits a rib and comes out your @ss.

What do you think killed kenedy? (Magic bullet? Indeed, especially at that time, several years prior to its induction).

One could theorize that Vietnam was a set up entirely to work the kinks out of the M16 and it's 7.62 round.

Just as the Gulf War proved to be a great battle ground to test the 40 years in developement Depleted Uranium rounds.

In war you're only as good as your equipment, say goodbye to bravery that's only secondary now.

Who needs to be brave when you have smart bombs, and gods, sitting themselves 1.5km from their targets, raining death to anyone that they can see (which includes those behind brick walls).

And we can't forget our ever so lovely Apache helicopters.

The days of Soviet Advances, with a bolt action rifle and a crap load of men to pick it up when the previous guy dies, is over.

Enter the day and age of utter destruction. In fact I don't see why they don't invent a methane seeking round, so it can home in on all the shltting the enemy will be doing in their pants.



posted on Mar, 11 2003 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Soldier Technology 2003
June 10th - 12th 2003
Radisson SAS Hotel, Brussels

Providing all the key information on soldier modernisation, Soldier Technology 2003 is the
premier conference for dismounted close combat systems, delivering the most
comprehensive examination of the critical issues in global soldier modernisation. Including:

LAND WARRIOR, OBJECTIVE FORCE WARRIOR, FIST, ANOG, NORMANS,
SOLDATO FUTURO, INFANTERIST DER ZUKUNFT, MARKUS,
THE NETHERLANDS, AFRICAN WARRIOR, NORDIC GROUP 2010

Now in its 3rd successful year, and with a core focus on the integration and leverage of
individual capabilities into an enhanced soldier system, this prestigious international event
provides a detailed examination of the key issues associated with enhancing the capabilities
of your most important of war fighting assets. With an expert speaker faculty of 35
internationally recognised experts, delivering recent cutting-edge case studies and mixing
hard-won experience with live demonstrations, Soldier Technology 2003 delivers a true
360 degree view of this crucial area, with its most technical agenda yet.

"An essential annual diary date if you wish to be well-informed on soldier technology
developments" Lieutenant Colonel Tony Thornburn, Commanding, Infantry Trials and
Development Unit, BRITISH ARMY

For more information or for a full conference brochure please contact Saddif
Tufail on +44 (0)20 7368 9437 or email saddif5@wbr.co.uk . Alternatively visit the
website: www.wbresearch.com...



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Well dragon, the M16 was a jamaramic POS too you know, just gotta take care of the baby Posted by Hammerite

Absolutely correct. The M-16 was and is a jamatic POS. In its original form, it was built too lightly, was not suitably durable, was very easily fouled with any little piece of anything, had an incredibly thin (and easily bent) barrel, and was chambered in a next to useless caliber.

Ugh Dragon, some of the things you post also bites me as being a bit arrogan Posted by Hammerite

Why is that? Do I come across as arrogant, because I was raised around firearms, have been shooting them since I was 6 years old, have fired many many different varieties of weapons in many different situations and environments, and actually have some factual and useful knowledge as relates to modern firearms?

I'm not so sure now the 7.62 isn't banned (I know we don't use them anymore) they are afterall a cruel and unusual weapon. Posted by Hammerite

The 7.62mm NATO was NEVER banned... have no idea why you think that. It is however largely obsolete in the US and NATO forces, being replaced in the assault weapon role by the 5.56mm NATO round (virtually useless). The 7.62mm NATO does still survive though as ammunition for my GPMGs (M-60, MAG, HK-21, MG-42 ect) in the western world. Cruel and unusual? Its a weapon of war... it is made or wound or kill the enemy... same principal as any ammunition.... I really dont understand your point on this...

What do you think killed kenedy? (Magic bullet? Indeed, especially at that time, several years prior to its induction). Posted by Hammerite

Allegedly the 6.5mm Carcano rifle was used to kill Kennedy, if you believe the Warren Commission. Actually, the police officer who originally found the rifle in the school book depository originally claimed it was a Steyr rifle, likely in 8mm Mauser or 30.06 as the most common calibers for Steyrs at the time. If I had been the shooter (had I been alive at the time) I would have fired off of the grassy knoll with a good (probably european accurized Mauser) in .308 or 30.06, I have read at least one claim that Kennedy was accidentally (maybe) shot in the head by a Secret Service Agent in the car following Kennedys limo, who raised an early M-16 to return fire, stumbled, and accidentally discharged, hitting Kennedy in the head. I am not convinced that this is the case however.

One could theorize that Vietnam was a set up entirely to work the kinks out of the M16 and it's 7.62 round
Posted by Hammerite

Ummm.... Hate to break it to you, but the M-16 was chambered in the 5.56mm NATO round.... Granted, Eugene Stoner, the original inventor of the M-16 previously invented a truly usable rifle named the AR-10, chambered in 7.62mm NATO. However, this rifle got very little acceptance by many militaries at all, just a few African countries. This was later scaled down to the 5.56mm which the US army eventually adopted, but in such a bastardized form that Stoner refused to have anything further to do with the weapon.


Balanced so when it strikes it tumbles, so what could have been a simple shot in the arm, ricochetes off your shoulder passes through your chest hits a rib and comes out your @ss. Posted by Hammerite

The 7.62mm NATO WILL NOT do what you describe. The 7.62mm almost always overpenetrates (IE, goes completely through in a straight path) its targets, except at ranges in excess of 300-400 meters. The 5.56mm NATO however WILL do what you describe. The early M-16 combined a very light (55 grain) bullet with an incorrect barrel twist rate (1 in 12 inch) which created a highly unstable bullet, and it would in fact tumble on impact, fishhook inside a human torso, blow arms and legs off, and generally create extreme wounding. To be fair, this was likely the height of the usefullness of the 5.56mm NATO round, as the incipient tumbling wrung the most possible stopping power out of an otherwise ineffective round. The major drawback to this configuration was very disappointing accuracy. The Army later fixed the accuracy problems, first by combining a 55 gr bullet with a tighter 1 in 7 inch twist, and finally a heavier 62 gr bullet with a moderate 1 in 9 inch twist. However, now you had a somewhat accurate round that punched neat little .22 caliber holes in the enemy, without imparting much if any stopping power.



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 10:06 PM
link   
let me get this straight dragon, you would like to see the US military revert back to the way it was 40 years ago. We just have to train the soldiers to shoot better ?

It just doesn't make any sense. The whole point of smart weaponry is to decimate the enemy before the soldiers have to go in and fight.
What you advocate is a blue print for disaster. You may have shot guns all your life but have you ever been in combat ? If you had you would understand the advantages of 5.56 over 7.62. Most combat by the way occurs at ranges under 300m not over.



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 10:21 PM
link   
www.bobtuley.com...

Uhh no the 7.62 WAS used during Vietnam.

If you had accurate information of Firearms you wouldn't be peddling the $hit to do away with the attached grenade launcher to the gun. Or I suppose you just want us to stick the rpg into the barrel like the old days, and fire it like a long lance, making it very unwieldly.

And I do think my Command Sergeant Major DOES know more about weapons then you, he stated the 7.62 round tumbled through the target, and it did, so if hitting a bone it would be diflected in some random direction.

See my link and read its explaination.

Either way your arrogance mainly comes from other posts this one I have not found very arrogant, though I do wonder why the "grenade launcher" sucks, or so you think. Any how, I do warn you prepare for a slugging match with mad S, he too knows his weapons


[Edited on 13-3-2003 by Hammerite]



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 10:44 PM
link   
You may have shot guns all your life but have you ever been in combat ? If you had you would understand the advantages of 5.56 over 7.62. Most combat by the way occurs at ranges under 300m not over. Posted by Mad Scientist...

You are correct, I have never been in combat (and am very curious to find out if you have been either?????) However, I can relate that last summer I spent probably the 3 most intense days of my life taking the Urban Tactical Rifle Course offered at Thunder Ranch in central Texas. In 3 days I expended more than 2000 rounds of 7.62mm NATO ammo (Portuguese military surplus). I fired at least 600-800 rounds a day, and in 7.62mm, that is a LOT. Each day after the course I would fall asleep with an icepack tied to my right shoulder.

In my class, there were 12 student, (2 female). They were armed with 8 AR-15 clones, 2 AK-47 clones, 1 M-1 carbine, and myself with my M1A. Clint Smith, the director, commended me for being the only one to choose a decent combat cartridge, and he would show the class exactly what he meant.

For beginners, all 8 of the AR-15s in class experienced multiple stoppages each day of fire. The most reliable of the AR 15s suffered a minimum of 3 stoppages a day. The AKs, the M1 carbine, and my M1A suffered not a single stoppage.

Clint Smith trains for reality, and trains to keep his students alive in a bad situation. His course of fire was not just shooting at stationary targets, or even an occassional popup target on an obstacle course. His course of fire ranged from point blank to over 400 meters range. (I already hear Mad Scientist screaming Unfair! Modern combat is limited to 300 meters or less!) Clint had a response to that: B@ll$h@t! So, when I had to pass between two buildings, and 2 steel popups rose at 390 yards, I was the only student to successfully engages and survive that course. Clint made a point to explain to his other 11 students that they died at that stage based on the shortcomings of their firearms choices.

In two other courses we faced barricaded opponents, once in buildings and once in vehicals. Very small target areas were presented around a barricade, and we had to engage and neutralize these targets or die. We could only expose ourselves to fire for a split second, or we would be vulnerable. Since we were firing at only about 50 meters, most of the students settled for the spray and pray tactic, unloading clip after clip, hoping that one or two shots would find their way to the exposed target. I noticed a couple actually held their weapons around the cover and fired blindly, spraying.

When I came up, I knew there was little likelihood of making a good shot against the small exposed target area without exposing myself unduly... So I leaned out and fired 2 or 3 shots through the enemies barricade, right through where I knew the enemies center of mass to be behind the barricade. Several fellow students cried foul, that I didnt hit the target in the exposed area. Clint said He has a .308, which will go right through the barricade (a cinderblock wall and an oldsmobile). Hell yes thats a good kill if he has to shoot through the barricade.

As far as teaching foot soldier marksmanship, yes, they are in dire need of such training. Smart weapons look good on paper, and on a theater setting, IE, with artillery and other associated types of weapons, may even work fairly effectively... but smart weapons in a manportable role for man to man combat (exluding things like rocket launchers for anti-tank roles) has yet to prove itself, either functionally, or even conceptually... until such time, more marksmanship training, with more effective rifles, will mean less US bodybags and more dead enemy....



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by dragonrider
Smart weapons look good on paper, and on a theater setting, IE, with artillery and other associated types of weapons, may even work fairly effectively... but smart weapons in a manportable role for man to man combat (exluding things like rocket launchers for anti-tank roles) has yet to prove itself, either functionally, or even conceptually... until such time, more marksmanship training, with more effective rifles, will mean less US bodybags and more dead enemy....


I agree that a man portable smart rifle is far from a reality. However smart weaponry is being minaturised at a geamotric pace. Don't be surprised to see guided bullets in the next 10 years.

No I haven't seen combat as such, but have been in a combat zone for 6 months guarding against the militia in E Timor ( they knew if they fought they would be killed ). During this time a class mate in the SAS ( 4 man patrol )contacted and destroyed a militia unit. We used the Steyr AUG as well as the M249. These SAS soldiers reguarly shot a 3 inch group at 300m with ease.
I don't deny the extra stopping power of the 7.62, but as an all round cartridge for modern combat, it has it's short comings.
One being the increased weight. When on combat missions this weight is very important to the efficiency of a soldier.



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I dont know who bob tuley is, or where he got his information, but I would advise him to put down the crack pipe...

I have hunted with the .308 (7.62mm) for years, and have YET to see a SINGLE round TUMBLE. Expand, yes, cause great damage yes, but tumble and ricochet in the body, not happening.

If you had accurate information of Firearms you wouldn't be peddling the $hit to do away with the attached grenade launcher to the gun. Or I suppose you just want us to stick the rpg into the barrel like the old days, and fire it like a long lance, making it very unwieldlyPosted by Hammerite

OK, maybe Bob Tuly isnt the only one that needs to abandon the crack pipe... Where the hell did you get something referring to a grenade launcher??? I agree, they are cumbersome, and basically a waste of time and weight. I would never attach one to a gun myself.

Uhh no the 7.62 WAS used during Vietnam Posted by Hammerite

Yes it was... Those who wanted to stay alive managed to hang onto an M-14.... The US Armys greatest mistake was ABANDONING the 7.62 in favor of the 5.56mm used in the M-16 (which was the armys second greatest mistake)....

Hammerite, have you ever actually fired a gun???

And I do think my Command Sergeant Major DOES know more about weapons then you, he stated the 7.62 round tumbled through the target, and it did, so if hitting a bone it would be diflected in some random direction Posted by Hammerite

I have fired .308 into Whitetail, Muledeer, Javalina, Moose, Elk, and Russian Boar.... in EVERY case (excepting once with a Moose at 120 meters, when it hit a shoulder bone, MUCH thicker than anything in a human body) where bone was encountered inside of 200 meters or so, the bone was shattered and the bullet usually exited in a straight path through the body....

I do wonder why the "grenade launcher" sucks, or so you think. Posted by Hammerite

Very simple... for one, it is too heavy, too bulky, negatively affects the balance of a gun, and potentially, affects the accuracy of the gun. The original 40mm grenade launcher may have been somewhat effective because it threw a marginally adequate sized shell to contain enough explosives to do any good.... throwing a shell only half that size???? To cause half (if that) the damage??? And the 40mm was not exactly known to be a powerhouse in explosive power, capable of less than half the explosive capacity of a hand grenade! Explain to me the advantages again????



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Very simple... for one, it is too heavy, too bulky, negatively affects the balance of a gun, and potentially, affects the accuracy of the gun. The original 40mm grenade launcher may have been somewhat effective because it threw a marginally adequate sized shell to contain enough explosives to do any good.... throwing a shell only half that size???? To cause half (if that) the damage??? And the 40mm was not exactly known to be a powerhouse in explosive power, capable of less than half the explosive capacity of a hand grenade! Explain to me the advantages again????

Future projected grenade munitions will have a superior explosive fill to the one's today. Therefore it is entirely feasable that a 20mm grenade would have more explosive power than the current 40mm.
The main advantage as I see it is that a grenade can be lobbed out to 400m, dramatically reducing the exposure of a soldier.
Ever since the Russian's introduce the GL-30 for the AK in Chechnya, their small unit firepower has increased dramatically.
A 40mm grnade has a kill radius if 10m. Now if your being shot at from abuilding say 200m away, lobbing grenades through the window is far more effective than putting bullets through it.



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 11:14 PM
link   
The main advantage as I see it is that a grenade can be lobbed out to 400m, dramatically reducing the exposure of a soldier. Posted by Mad Scientist

Even projecting grenades to 400m is not an advantage if I can pick him off at 600m....

Of course, I do see your point that this is a range advantage over the common 5.56mm useless round with a good range of 300m.... Which serves to reinforce my point, the biggest mistake ever made was abandoning the 7.62mm... but then, if we had stayed with the 7.6smm, the 400m grenade launcher would have been unfeasible, and therefore, would not have been able to spend million$ on its development and waste taxpayer money on something less effective than what we had....



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Don't be surprised to see guided bullets in the next 10 years. Posted by Mad Scientist

Really??? This I will have to personally see to believe...



posted on Mar, 12 2003 @ 11:39 PM
link   
If someone is inside a room but not in the window, how can you shoot them ?
With a 40mm grenade, you can lob it into the window and take out the person inside without having a line of sight. And if there are multiple personal in the room, then they could all be incapacitated.
I fail to see how you cannot see any advantage at all. Relying on mid century technology is insane in todays world. It seems ( and I mean no offense ) that your insight into actual military combat is lacking.
If the 40mm is so ineffective why do Special Forces troops bother using them ?



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I didnt say the 40mm was ineffective, I said it was marginally effective... however, going to something half again as small is just a waste of time, regardless of how much electronic crap you hang on it....

No matter how high tech you make something, someone with a better quality and higher powere rifle and superior marksmanship will always take the day...



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Actually Mad Scientist they already have guided bullets. I watched them test a guided armor peircing round on a tank, it homes in on a laser painted on the specific point of the tank you wish to hit, such as the magazine, thus the one bullet can take out the entire tank.

The way it works is the bullet is on a "rocker" and this little socket shifts the mass of the bullet, lending some amount of directional capabilty on its path to the target.

It's not a "little" bullet though, good size, 20mm or big .50, not small arms fire.

And I am uncertain as to how MUCH "homing" in it can do, I doubt it could make more than a few degrees directional change, it's just good for hiting a SPECIFIC point, rather than having to be an expert marksman, now you just have one man paint the target and the other fires as best he can, and the laser does the rest.



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 05:55 PM
link   
About the 7.62mm, no I guess Viet Cong just crawled away and died a few meters from where they were shot from massive bleeding in the side because the bullet went straight through.

If your information on weapons is as good as your geology, you are pretty piss poor.



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 06:45 PM
link   
About the 7.62mm, no I guess Viet Cong just crawled away and died a few meters from where they were shot from massive bleeding in the side because the bullet went straight through. Posted by Hammerite

Ok, so just what kind of combat experience do youhave? How many rounds have you fired in your lifetime? When was the last time you hit anything other than a piece of paper at any range in excess of say 50 meters? If that?

Regarding the VC, actually there is a good chance that they did in fact "crawl off and bleed to death" since the US never really did recover that many bodies... or it could very well be the sad state of marksmanship that existed, and still exists, in the US military... But, since I happen to know many who *did* exchange fire with the enemy in VietNam, including my father and uncle, by far, if at all possible in terms of logistics, those in the field wanted the M-14, and highly disdained the M-16. Yes, as mentioned earlier, the 5.56mm did cause severe wounding, but it was highly inaccurate, and not reliably stopping even in such an unstable platform.

By the way, you need to get your firearms and calibers straight, figure out what gun was chambered in what caliber....

If your information on weapons is as good as your geology, you are pretty piss poor. Posted by hammerite

And just what kind of geological experience do you have? When was the last time you strapped on an Estwing? (Do you even know what an Estwing is?) What kind of geological experience do youhave? Ever mapped a fault line? Ever delineated an aquifer? Ever delineated a sand/gravel unit in 3D? Ever mapped an anticline trap? Do you even know what I am talking about?

Hammerite, you need to leave the 'tude at home and realize you are NOT the encyclopeadia of knowleldge you think you are...



posted on Mar, 13 2003 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Look my good friend and excellent "father-like figure" who was my Command Sergeant Major a ways back is just as valid if I'm telling what he knows, as if he is telling what he knows.

I am unsure how many rounds I fired, I don't sit there and count them off like a bafoon.

But back to the main point, is my CSM says, 7.62mm can do this, that's what I said, you say I'm wrong I show you a website that backs it up and now you attack me?

Who cares about me, my CSM killed plenty of people to damn well know first hand what the 7.62mm round CAN do. Sure it doesn't always tumble, it needs to hit an item such as bone, because as my source I gave to you said it has 6inches of penetration before the shockwave causes it to tumble. 6inches is USUALLY thicker than most anyone.

Now as for you hunting experiences I have no clue, maybe you just get lucky and your rounds penetrate every time.

But I do find it offensive when I tell of the experiences of people I know and admire, and then they come at me as if that persons experiences are void.

It doesn't matter if I've shot anyone or not, my CSM has, and that's what the 7.62mm round does, it tumbles.

If you wish to continue to argue a FACT, that I have shown to be a fact in more ways than one, then be my guest, but I believe you are trying to just prove you are right, more than learn.

I know of someone else who was the same way, he got banned for it....you aren't so crude as he could get, but I'd watch out.

You'd be amazed how fast your emotions can "tumble" out of control when you try to argue a point that you are not necissarily correct on.

However, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and agree that sure your rounds penetrated the animal in a straight line, no one is saying the 7.62mm tumbles ALL the time, just that it can under a circumstance of hitting a bone.

And anyone on this forum can clearly see I'm not the one acting like the "encyclopedia". I've proven you wrong in one area, and I told you with the geology, make the contours of the "face" and you'll see how non-semetric it actually is. You more than enough have the information to do it, you have a time of day the picture was taken, therefore the angle of the sun, and you can determine the lengths of the shadows, what more do you need?

Oh and for you knowledge though I am a great shot
Maybe not as good as you, but give me a grenade launcher and it really doesn't matter, since I'll be in a hole surrounded by concrete and you'll be in the same, shoot through several feet of earth and another several feet of concrete and hit me and I'll give you a million dollars.

Sniping (which seems to be your preferred way of fighting) is nearly useless on the battle field. It can prove useful in tight spots, it can greatly help weaken enemy lines, but it can't win the battle. You need force//fire power. Nothing else will prevail.

And you want proof?

How badly did the Japanese lose WW2? Probably lost 10 men for every 1 american they killed.

Now, the Japanese, could usually hit a fly off a horse at 100m and not make it flinch. An american would be lucky to have hit the horse.

Japanese through out the war produced 50,000 crappy machine guns, Americans produced over 5 million. It's not the ability to hit something, but the ability to kill fast.

A minigun will make short work of a platoon, a snipper, would be lucky to kill 6 before he is blasted out of his hole by a mortar or grenade.

That is why we are in this argument, becaues your philosophy of WHAT weapons are best, is totally backwards.

Japan lost, because their technology was crappy. When they fought an equal enemy (Phillipenes) they kicked @ss (our @ss), but once we got machine guns and rpgs in there, it was all over.

So see? Sure you know your stuff about guns (I know I said you don't but you do, you just are being bullheaded when I present 2 sources of info, one valid, the other backing that one up), no one else has been saying you don't know your guns.

But your philosophy on what works, is what we all are telling you is messed up.

Look at history, you'll see why.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join