It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


A Million Rounds a Minute?!!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 10:23 PM
Used the search button but to my surprise this didnt turn up, unless im a complete idiot
Mods feel free to corrects me.

Imagine how a weapon like this can affect the battlefield. It is also practical with in artillery weapons and even aircraft. The us, of course is interested and is already testing prototypes.


posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 10:29 PM
Im not calling you an idiot but...

posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 10:32 PM
Thanx kinglizard, i knew something like this would have already been discussed. But either way i still think that this thing is amazing. Think of the implications and applications.....

posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 10:34 PM
Yeah it really is incredible. I read somewhere that they are also working on rifles and handguns that will use this technology.

posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 10:38 PM
The following is a link to videos of the technology in action, very impressive.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:23 PM
If you could a system like this on a tank it should be able to defeat nearly every anti-tank missle system out there. As it senses an imcoming missle it could easily 'throw up a wall of bullets'. If the missle isnt totally destroyed it should at least be able to deflect it away.

The only way to really get inside it with a missle is to fire several of them at it, wich costs money and equipment that are really rare and expensive. Not many grunts run around the battlefield with man-portable anti-tank missles systems on thier backs. As long as the system itself isnt damaged could the tank revive itself in a dominate role it once had such as in ww2??

Though the system itself is susceptible to emp, though not yet utilized, is in the very very near future a practicle weapon on the battlefield, maybe it is now with the us and its black projects. Aircraft could still quite easily render tanks useless with the huge cannons,( such as the ones found on the a-10 warthog) and rocket salvos. But this application on a tank could really revamp the tank in the role it once held in past wars so long as the air defences are up to par to handle the threat from the air.

If this technology is applied to modern tanks(such as the american m1a1sep) could we really be witnessing once again the power and brute strength the tank once casted upon the battlefield?? If applied, time and war will only tell.

Thoughts and opinions extremely welcomed. peace

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:33 PM
As a practical matter, I suspect that it would be rather difficult to equip a tank with a million rounds, or even 10,000 rounds of ammo.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:44 PM

If you look at the links, it looks like the pod that holds many missles. Since the rounds are much smaller than a missle, many can be fit into each tube. The other point is noone said that it holds a million rounds, just it shoots at the rate of a million rounds per min. From what I have read and seen, after it shoots its full load, the whole pod is replaced with another one and away we go. Extras would be carried by ammo truck, a lot like what takes ammo to tanks now.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:48 PM
You can program the firing rate. 50,000 rpm is more then enough for a defensive anti-missile purpose.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 05:53 PM
The bullets don't have any casing just a small charge between each other in the way they are packed so you could save some space that way. But like kozzy said it would be a waste of ammo to shoot a million rounds ant anything all you need is just enough to do the job.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 06:23 PM
Once perfected the metalstorm in my opinion should be applied to tanks, as i mentioned above. The tank is esentially a multirole platform: it holds ground, fights other tanks, and has a phycological presence on the battlefield, etc.

The worst enemy of modern tanks is the anti-tank missile, if you take away the the missile in the equation you once again have the tank that played such a vital role in wars such as ww2. Mines, cannons, and most aircraft would still be able to take them out, but every tank has always been vulnerable to these weapons, but its very important to point out that it has always been hard for these weapons to effectively target and kill tanks, except of course modern aircraft and attack helicopters. But with anti-air weapons along side, they would each provide the other excellent defense.

Alongside from protecting against such missles, the metalstorm can obviously provide offensive capabilities as well. The MS could be used to take out attack helicopters that wander to close. They could also be used to actually take out most mines: have it shoot a straight path through the mine field instead of having for the anti mine cobra shoot the long hose of explosives. They can dive right in without having to wait for one. The phsycological effect is obvious as well, not too many grunts will keep their head up once the hear the buzz of the metal storm coming their way.

The logistics, once thought about, isnt too bad of a nightmare. The tank is made to carry its own weight. If it can hold a hundred rounds of assorted cannon munitions, then it can definitely hold ten thousand bullets.

Though its role on a tank is very promising, one must remember that you have to keep it safe. It cannot stop an imcomng shell from another tank, and all it takes is a direct hit on the system to tak it out( remeber it is a large number of barrels clusterd together). As long as it is protected, maybe perhaps in its own turret, the tank can finally defeat its worst enemy the anti-tank missile.

The applications of this technology are endless...
Though these are just my thoughts and opinions.peace

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 07:36 PM
Right so how do you sense what is not there?

It is infantry that hold the anti-tank missile, so if they hid behind structures, how will the rounds be enough to take them out? Infantry can run and hide.

Remember, ANti-Tank Missiles are more common on infantry than stationary or mobile platforms.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 07:45 PM
Every armored and cavalry company has mortars organic too it. When they recieve fire, they call it down. These weapons are very effective against AT teams because they are unarmored or lightly armored, vulnerable to shrapnel.

In an city you want infantry to go ahead of the tanks and clear out AT teams. If the infantry needs the tanks, they'll call them up.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 08:07 PM
Man-portable anti-tank missile weapons are expensive and rare. As i said before, not many grunts run around with them on thier backs. And im not saying this application would make the tank invincible only harder to kill.

Im saying that the tank can now defend itself from missile attack, wich currently they do not have that luxury. Towns are always a no-no for the tank, always has been, militaries today know this and wont send them into town. The russians have a good knowledge of this.

Right now, missiles systems are straining the effectiveness of tanks. They are relatively inexpensive when you can take out a multi-million dollar tank with a missile that costs a few thousand dollars. If the tank can actually defend itself from such attacks then the tank is essentially back where it was a few decades ago... Though to kill with a whole lot of whoopa$$.

This is not to say it will be practicle on a tank, just that it COULD make a difference. And in time there will be a new weapon system that will render the tank obsolete and even the MS but that is how it has always been since the first cavemen beat each other with clubs.peace

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 08:20 PM
Every infantry squad carries a Javelin launcher and 5 missiles I believe. This is a big friggin threat to a tank.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 08:29 PM
You are further proving my point... If a tank can defeat these missiles then that threat is no longer such a large threat anymore. Tanks equipped with MS can certainly cover one another in groups of at least two, offering even more protection.

Now im just ranting off about a hopful technology applied to a tank, but im really discussing the possibility the MS can have as an effective defensive weapon against the missile, which currently, tanks do not have.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by jrod8900]

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:57 PM
I was at the USMC School of Infantry only a few months ago and there is no anti-tank weapon organic to a squad or platoon. The weapons platoon of a rifle company will have a section of 0351s (assaultmen) armed with SMAWs and AT-4s, but these are basically spit-wads. SMAW is like a bazooka. If memory serves it has a range of 200 or 300 meters and is for destroying obstacles and defensive positions, not tanks, but don't quote me on that because I was an 11. The AT-4 has a range of 600 on a stationary target, 300 on a moving target, and against modern armor requires volley firing (2 or more coordinated shots) on the flanks or rear.
I'm pretty sure that the lowest level at which you find the javelin is the weapons company, and only one platoon in weapons co would be responsible for those- the other platoons have mortars and HMGs. Javelins aren't exactly falling from the sky on the battlefield. Most grunts have never fired one. I've never seen one.

Metalstorm is going to do a lot of good things, especially for tanks. It offers the prospect of cheap and abundant low-level air defense, protection from wire-guided missiles, fast mine-clearing, and in a pinch it will cut a swath through infantry in a way that the co-ax machine gun just can't accomplish.
I wouldn't say that man-portable AT weapons are the big worry though. Heavier vehicle based systems like TOW are a concern though, and they are easier to build and afford than tanks for smaller countries which the US may find itself pitted against in the future.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:20 PM
No, you are missing the point, infantry can pop-up behind a tank and fire, how fast is the tank's reaction to something at near point blank range?

Taking out a tank is worth the loss, why? Because inside the tank are 3-4 men and tank fire can become devastating as an all purpose platform.

And yes, 5 missiles per squad is something for tanks to be afraid of.

Basically you are saying that the importance of Anti-Tank infantry will become abolished as tanks recieve anti-missile defense. It does not matter, infantry will always find a way to take out that tank.

Shattered OUT...

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:23 PM
Looks like im going to have to get one of those..

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 12:24 PM
Firing that much ammo is inpractical. You don't need to fire that much ammo. The only places were you might need to fire that much ammo would be anti-air and possibly anti-vehicle. Running out of ammo is a bad thing.

<<   2 >>

log in