• US Govt. Spends Big On Grenade Launcher Rifle
    181 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Loen;20146383]It still doesn't hold much advantage beyond a rifle at that in room clearing either, actually.[/QUOTE] Other than the fact, that, you know, it can take out the occupants of an entire room with a single round, without troops ever having to get in harms way. Edit: Oh, you were talking about shotguns I think. Nevermind.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;20132552]That was the OICW. This is basically the OICW without the assault rifle attached to it. Surprisingly, this does have many applications for urban warfare, and may not actually be a complete waste of money. Its excellent for taking out snipers or enemy personnel in windows and rooms, common in urban combat.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the OICW didn't have a grenade launcher and instead fired two different round types.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;20146777]I'm pretty sure the OICW didn't have a grenade launcher and instead fired two different round types.[/QUOTE] [img]http://world.guns.ru/assault/oicw2.jpg[/img] Right below the godawfully huge targeting computer.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;20146870][IMG]http://world.guns.ru/assault/oicw2.jpg[/IMG] Right below the godawfully huge targeting computer.[/QUOTE] "Yeah, you have 20mm air burst rounds, and 30 rounds of assault rifle ammo. But we gave you a bayonet. Just in case."
$$$ Yet another way to validate the US Military's massive budget.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;20146870][IMG]http://world.guns.ru/assault/oicw2.jpg[/IMG] Right below the godawfully huge targeting computer.[/QUOTE] I like the OICW :3
why haven't we won this war yet
[QUOTE=fakedout;20149301]why haven't we won this war yet[/QUOTE] Because the act of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan influences more people to become terrorists.
It's not like WWII and wars before then, where the enemies have the courage to come out and fight.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;20149500]It's not like WWII and wars before then, where the enemies have the courage to come out and fight.[/QUOTE] That's not really it, people used guerrilla tactics in WW2 as well. It's that we're fighting a loose group of people who fight based entirely on an ideology, rather than an organized military force. We can't just kill them all or capture their leader. Just as the American military destroys small, individual groups and pockets, more spring up out of opposition to the American military's continued presence.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20149546]That's not really it, people used guerrilla tactics in WW2 as well. It's that we're fighting a loose group of people who fight based entirely on an ideology, rather than an organized military force. We can't just kill them all or capture their leader.[/QUOTE] However it wasn't as widespread as it is now. That's true though. It's easy to kill people, impossible to kill an idea.
[QUOTE=fakedout;20149301]why haven't we won this war yet[/QUOTE] Because the United States handles fourth-generation warfare poorly.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;20149589]Because the United States handles fourth-generation warfare poorly.[/QUOTE] Our troops are trained to fight Russians and shit. not people hiding in mountains and houses [editline]04:26AM[/editline] with old russian and british guns
That looks incredibly bad-ass. :v:
[QUOTE=Devodiere;20132966]Half of why this is so useful is targeting. Without a skilled person using the M203, it's not likely to hit anything at distance.[/QUOTE] True, that thing's a bitch to aim properly. A lot of it is guesswork. The sights can show you approximately the angle you'll need to fire it to land a round at a certain distance, but judging that distance is based solely on the operator. I was able to reliably put rounds on target at fifty meters, repeatedly hitting a target set up inside a window. At a hundred meters, I was able to land rounds close enough to incapacitate fairly regularly. Any farther and you start having serious issues with guiding the rounds home. I think this high-tech grenade launcher sounds fantastic, and though it's unlikely I'll ever fire one, I could definitely see its use for urban combat. Entrenched machine guns, snipers, enemies taking cover: we got a special new toy for 'em. [QUOTE=Thomas849;20134105] Not really. Shaped charge fired at the right velocity ought to cause [I]some[/I] damage. Unless it's a modern tank. Then it would take a fuckton of luck.[/QUOTE] You know how insurgent forces like to destroy our tanks? They put coffee cans over their rocket propelled grenades. Cuts straight through the armor and flash fries everything inside. They do something similar with landmines and IEDs. A tiny, free, and incredibly simple concept- but one that's capable of completely penetrating a tank loaded with our strongest armor. [QUOTE=fakedout;20149301]why haven't we won this war yet[/QUOTE] It's not a shooting war. It's all about publicity and politics. That's why Obama publicly announced Operation Moshtarak to the inhabitants of Marja. He's urging all noncombatants to flee the city- which is giving the estimated 2,000 insurgents nested in the city plenty of time to string the entire city with IEDs. American forces will likely see the largest number of casualties in a single engagement since Fallujah. Our forces will suffer casualties, but will ultimately crush all hostile resistance. Unfortunately, there will be collateral damage. However, when Al Jazeera shows the footage of a crying local holding a dead child (which they show after every conflict)- Obama will be able to claim that this time he warned them to evacuate the city. It's not much, but it will win a small amount of public favor for him. I wish it weren't like that. What we're essentially doing is trading American lives for public favor. It's ugly and it's brutal, but it's the only way to fight this war. Even knowing this, I find it hard to approve of his decision. I'd rather have the world hate us then throw away the lives of my comrades.
Why coffee cans? Do they melt or something and become similar to a HEAT round?
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;20141150]Do we have [highlight]THESE[/highlight] exo-suits? [IMG]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/stalker/images/thumb/b/b5/Exo_Stalker_Front.jpg/417px-Exo_Stalker_Front.jpg[/IMG] If not I'm not interested.[/QUOTE] Fuck that shit. [U][IMG]http://godisalien.com/images/fallout-3-10.jpg[/IMG][/U] If you think about it, power armor could be quite possible. [URL="http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/10/gooddesign/image/15_hal5.jpg"]Robotic strength enhancing suits[/URL] have already been developed (by the Japanese, who else). Imagine a robotic suit with immensely heavy scale plate armor, that would basically make the user invulnerable to small arms fire; while still remaining very mobile. Why power armor has not been experimented with, is beyond me, since it should be feasible. I suppose it would be impractically expensive today, but I'm sure it could become an inexpensive reality some day.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20150871]Fuck that shit. [U][IMG]http://godisalien.com/images/fallout-3-10.jpg[/IMG][/U] If you think about it, power armor could be quite possible. [URL="http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/10/gooddesign/image/15_hal5.jpg"]Robotic strength enhancing suits[/URL] have already been developed (by the Japanese, who else). Imagine a robotic suit with immensely heavy scale plate armor, that would basically make the user invulnerable to small arms fire; while still remaining very mobile. Why power armor has not been experimented with, is beyond me, since it should be feasible. I suppose it would be impractically expensive today, but I'm sure it could become an inexpensive reality some day.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_2656_images/0310091449_M_exoskeleton_hulc_combat.jpg[/img] Of course, with current exoskeleton technologies the only thing they can do is allow for bearing more armour while still being able to carry all the other gear and equipment. Not complete protection, but it's progress.
[QUOTE=Conscript;20150847]Why coffee cans? Do they melt or something and become similar to a HEAT round?[/QUOTE] Basically, yeah. The coffee cans act like a shaped charge, melting and being propelled forward by the blast. The coffee can basically turns into a giant, hot bullet- melting straight through the armor. It's really quite fascinating, how resourceful these people can get when it comes to killing. Early in the American occupation of Iraq, our forces removed all evidence of Hussein's rule- probably in an attempt to lessen the memory of his tyranny and win public favor. Our enemy watches us very closely. They know our standard operating procedures better than we do. They notice every little detail of how we react. It didn't take long for them to notice American forces ripping down posters of Saddam Hussein, so you know what they did? they started digging holes behind the posters, and placing charged grenades in them. When a soldier ripped the poster down, the grenade's spoon would pop, and it would explode. They also noticed that, for some reason, we love shiny things. They began half-burying gold objects in the sand along patrol routes, knowing that Americans would stop to check it out. Under the shiny object they would put mortar rounds rigged to explode with pressure triggers. It's tough to fight this kind of enemy. We constantly have to adapt, changing our methods and mannerisms before they're fully developed. Every new pattern is eventually discovered and exploited- forcing another change. Shooting engagements are rare. They kill through their resourcefulness, creating incredibly effective and surprisingly complex booby traps from, literally, junkyard scrap.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;20151070] It's tough to fight this kind of enemy. We constantly have to adapt, changing our methods and mannerisms before they're fully developed. Every new pattern is eventually discovered and exploited- forcing another change.[/QUOTE] I have a cool idea why not... leave these poor people be?
[QUOTE=Trotsky;20151113]I have a cool idea why not... leave these poor people be?[/QUOTE] Hold on, I'll go tell the president.
[QUOTE=Loen;20151059][IMG]http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_2656_images/0310091449_M_exoskeleton_hulc_combat.jpg[/IMG] Of course, with current exoskeleton technologies the only thing they can do is allow for bearing more armour while still being able to carry all the other gear and equipment. Not complete protection, but it's progress.[/QUOTE] That's a good start. I'm talking about basically giving a person a full body robotic suit surrounded by tank grade armor. Not to just [I]protect[/I] them, but literally make them invulnerable to small arms fire. Basically to serve the same purpose of a light armored attack vehicle, but with the mobility and perception of a person.
Isn't this basically the OICW minus the assault rifle?
[QUOTE=Bean-O;20151422]Isn't this basically the OICW minus the assault rifle?[/QUOTE] Yup [editline]05:46AM[/editline] Does anybody remember the OICW from the first ghost recon? That weapon was a barrel of fun.
[QUOTE=Trotsky;20142154]More useless devices to kill other humans in pointless wars oh joy...[/QUOTE] You'd have thought that we would have stopped doing that by now, what with all the advances and energy crisis and shit, wouldn't you? But no. :sigh:
[QUOTE=Bean-O;20151422]Isn't this basically the OICW minus the assault rifle?[/QUOTE] No, bigger round. I think.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20151153]That's a good start. I'm talking about basically giving a person a full body robotic suit surrounded by tank grade armor. Not to just [I]protect[/I] them, but literally make them invulnerable to small arms fire. Basically to serve the same purpose of a light armored attack vehicle, but with the mobility and perception of a person.[/QUOTE] There's too many bugs to work out. There's energy issues, reliability issues, cost issues, ect. ect. Plus they have to train everyone how to use them, along side their normal training in the event that the suites are inoperable. Not to mention all the support equipment they'd have to produce. Plus the hippies and pacifists would jizz themselves if they saw Death Dealing Soldiers in Death-Resistant Armor with 25mm Assault Rifles of Death at the poor indigenous people of whatever shithole we decide to invade next. [editline]09:56PM[/editline] [QUOTE=mastermaul;20151689]No, bigger round. I think.[/QUOTE] It is the same. OICW rocked a 25mm too. Strapped to a G36, but regardless.
[QUOTE=Thomas849;20151764] Plus they have to train everyone how to use them[/QUOTE] Not everyone. Reinvent heavy infantry.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;20150697]You know how insurgent forces like to destroy our tanks? They put coffee cans over their rocket propelled grenades. Cuts straight through the armor and flash fries everything inside. They do something similar with landmines and IEDs. A tiny, free, and incredibly simple concept- but one that's capable of completely penetrating a tank loaded with our strongest armor.[/QUOTE] Depends on where they hit the tank. The front armor of an Abrams is basically impervious to shaped charge and even 120mm sabot rounds, being a mix of Chobham composite with a DU mesh. Top, side and rear armor is where the penetration happens. Being designed back in the 70s, the Abrams was made to face hordes of Soviet tanks where it would face fire from the front, not light infantry forces.
Tanks in general have stronger front armor.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.