Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Your ideas for weapons?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   
I was watching some show on war the other day and I was thinking about the battles in the time of the Revolutionary War. The soldiers used to basically stand in rows and fire at each other. They of course also had cannons that could take out more than one soldier per firing.

So I got to thinking about what if you put a couple of cannons about 50 yards apart and tied a heavy metal cable to the cannon balls. And then fired both cannons at the same time. The cable would pretty much take out a whole group of soldiers no problem. There would be some things to consider like making sure the cannons fired at the same time and things like that, but I think it would have been a workable idea with what they had at the time.

I was wondering if anyone else has any ideas for weapons. Things that could be done in the future or could have been done in the past with the existing technology of the day.




posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
How about a much bigger version of a cruise missile?

It could be armed with multiple vehicles and could defeat missile defence systems by 'hugging' the ground although it may be shot down by weapon systems like Patriot.

[edit on 27/6/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Laser technology. I will say right off im not savy in the ways of lasers. i have seen them cut things and i have seen how when focused the are very powerful. however they need a LOT of power. why cant we build a laser of some sort on a sattalite and put it in orbit with solar panel's ? the sun would provide more than enough energy wouldnt it ??



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by tealc
why cant we build a laser of some sort on a sattalite and put it in orbit with solar panel's ? the sun would provide more than enough energy wouldnt it ??


I think I have heard about plans to do that but I think there might be a treaty against building weapons in space or is it just other planets and moons



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenkoolaid
I was watching some show on war the other day and I was thinking about the battles in the time of the Revolutionary War. The soldiers used to basically stand in rows and fire at each other. They of course also had cannons that could take out more than one soldier per firing.

So I got to thinking about what if you put a couple of cannons about 50 yards apart and tied a heavy metal cable to the cannon balls. And then fired both cannons at the same time. The cable would pretty much take out a whole group of soldiers no problem. There would be some things to consider like making sure the cannons fired at the same time and things like that, but I think it would have been a workable idea with what they had at the time.

I was wondering if anyone else has any ideas for weapons. Things that could be done in the future or could have been done in the past with the existing technology of the day.


Actually existed but didn't work too well.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:40 AM
link   
hyperen if you come across the article you spoke of please provide a link. i would be interested in exploring such a possibility



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 03:56 AM
link   
I don't know if this would actually work or not, but I think it would. The problem with traditional artillery is that as the round travels up the barrel, pressure is reduced, so the initial push is most of your force.
Super guns, such as the Germans aimed at Britain, and the Iraqis were building to fire on Israel, use a high pressure blast of air to build pressure in the barrel continuously, all the way until the round comes out.

So... Mortars and howitzers ought to be equipped to link up with portable air compressors to increase their range. It would take VERY powerful compressors, which might not be practical in all situations, but in others this would provide a decent boost to artillery range without the expense of rocket-assisted rounds.


Now, remember those magalors (spelling?) they used in saving private ryan? the big tubes full of grenades that are used for clearing obstacles and creating defilade? I think they ought to have tubes like those full of mangesium, but desgined to flare up somehow, which can be implaced ahead of your positions and used to blind the thermal imaging of tanks or night vision devices. Your forces can coordinate their own fire using precise GPS coordinates relayed by a next generation UAV. The result is that the enemy armor loses its range advantage over your infantry force, while you are able to lay down accurate artillery and other fires the whole time they are advancing.

What about a synthetic super-fine dust designed to be dispersed in the air by aircraft that will hang in the air for a long period of time, and is designed to screw up engines? My first couple of ideas are just simply that any thick dust would do it, but to compose it of a very small percentage of some sort of sticky resin that would collect inside of an engine and not be expelled. The other idea would be to find a chemical that reacts badly with diesel. I've heard that a chemical included in fiberglass repair kits, if poured into a gasoline tank, will from fiberglass in the gas tank. However it is done, I believe it could be accomplished than a series of canisters dispersed over an area could disable vehicles on the battlefield, stopping an enemy advance and leaving him exposed and vulnerable, or simply augmenting a light infantry force in defense against armor.

I assume a computer could plot the trajectory of incoming artillery and identify a small area of sky through which incoming rounds are falling. You could then keep that area under heavy, constant fire from some form of heavy-metal flak, which could detonate the rounds much higher than intended and short of their target. The same idea could protect a very important building from free-falling bombs.

This is going to sound really stupid I know, but what about munitions designed to disperse non-lethal bio weapons which the enemy would probaby write off as bad field conditions. For example, an airburst shell that showered enemy lines with lice?

Thats enough for now. I've got more.

EDIT: This one just sort of had to be mentioned. If you soak asphalt in diesel fuel it crumbles. What if an even better solvent were developed though, and used to erode the enemies infrastructure?

[edit on 27-6-2004 by The Vagabond]



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:02 AM
link   
lol shower the area with lice. That would be a cool idea but would not stop soldiers from entering the area. non-letal is a great idea though. magnesium flares to blind Infared has been done i will try to find a link. it is however not a practical use. however. special artillery rounds have been created that detonate in the air and burn hot. the heat hangs in the air and blinds sensors for a bit. again i will try to find a link dont hold me to this lol..



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by wlee15

Actually existed but didn't work too well.
en.wikipedia.org...


Good find wlee. Just as I suspected, the problem is getting the cannons to fire at the same time. Even though the test fire didn't work as expected it does seem like it did a lot of damage. I think they should have put more though into this idea.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I have another idea for a weapon, but I have no idea how it would work.

I got to thinking about what an alien race would do to us if they ever got really pissed off and wanted to kill us all.

If I had as much technology as they are likely to have I would simply cause the sun to go supernova. I obviously don't know how to do that, but imagine if you had that weapon in your bag of tricks when you were fighting alien races.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Couldn't they invent a weapon that alters the mind so that nobody will kill each other. Fire it over the battlefield and the soldiers stop fighting. No more war. Phsycological peace gun.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 04:30 AM
link   
how would it work? describe its mechanics please. i am not sure i understand how such a device could be made. secondly that would not be a weapon because it does not harm anyone. not trying to critisize



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by tealc
hyperen if you come across the article you spoke of please provide a link. i would be interested in exploring such a possibility


I haven't found the article again yet but have found a page about the law of war/weapons in space

www.globenet.free-online.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Here is article about them. More appropriate stuff is towards the end

science.howstuffworks.com...

[edit on 27/6/04 by Hyperen]



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
i always though more research should have been done on psychotropic gas weapons, like BZ. i think it would be a beautiful thing... all the soldiers lined up ready to kill each other and then suddenly decided that picking flowers and staring at the sky were more worthwhile pursuits.


oops- just read earthtone's post.. beat me to it with the same general idea.

-koji K.

[edit on 27-6-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by tealc
Laser technology. I will say right off im not savy in the ways of lasers. i have seen them cut things and i have seen how when focused the are very powerful. however they need a LOT of power. why cant we build a laser of some sort on a sattalite and put it in orbit with solar panel's ? the sun would provide more than enough energy wouldnt it ??


Not really. The largest sattelites in orbit have solar panels that produce about 2kW of power. That's not much more than an average hair dryer. You would have to use a bunch of batteries to store the solar charge - by that time you might as well use some sort of nuclear power or a chemical laser.



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
hyperen do you think the US would follow a treaty about putting nukes and lasers up in space



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
hyperen do you think the US would follow a treaty about putting nukes and lasers up in space


I would like to think a Democrat goverment wouldn't and only crazy Bush Administration would defy important international treaties.


E_T

posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenkoolaid
I got to thinking about what an alien race would do to us if they ever got really pissed off and wanted to kill us all.

No need to destroy other bodies of solar system by blowing sun, they have metals and other usefull materials.

They need to only divert asteroid or comet to collision course:
www.space.com...
www.space.com...

www.lpl.arizona.edu...

[edit on 27-6-2004 by E_T]



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
There are very few important treaties. I'm not aware of any great military thinker in history who has disputed the oft-demonstrated fact that a treaty only lasts for as long as it benefits both sides (unless blind idealism grips a government, as could be argued to be the case with America's democratic party. It is an admirable weakness, but very much a weakness.)

I can also describe a weapon that overcomes the will to fight. It's a small sphere made of a patchwork of hexagons, filled with air, so that any force to any side of it is not absorbed by a crumpling effect, yet it is very light and can be propelled long distances. I would paint it black and white.
Legend has it that during a Christmas cease-fire during WWI, a soccer game was played between British and German troops, and that afterwards those units had to moved to other parts of the front in order to make them fight.

War is a pretty sad part of human affairs, and with a little luck and a lot of intellect, we can continue to decrease the need for it by increasing our ability to support ourselves by our own means, without having to take from others. The fact remains that many men derive power from fear and hate. As long as there is a benefit to be reaped by vowing genocide or fighting over "holy land" or by "punishing evil doers", there will be people like Bin Laden and Rumsfeld who encourage others to do horrible things to eachother. That being said... people like Bin Laden do derive power from encouraging horrible things to be done to us, so we can't entirely "give peace a chance". We'll have to keep attacking them where ever we can find them, but that is only defensive in nature. The only offensive weapon which can destroy Bin Laden is to develop the nations from which he recruits, and raise their quality of life, and gain their friendship, so that Bin Laden has no more voice than the Ku Klux Klan, which despite it's evil nature, is largely powerless to hurt anyone.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join