Self-guided bullet prototype can hit target a mile away
108 replies, posted
[quote]yeah, the zigzag thing made me think of that, haha
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
they have steampunk guided bullets
[img]http://d2d04grx5ahzvh.cloudfront.net/000_WebRoundups/007_62_3dsMaxTuts/4.jpg[/img][/QUOTE][video=youtube;QADr4hVKs3Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QADr4hVKs3Y[/video]
[QUOTE=Cone;34463646]In several years I can see a shitty action film about some dude who's really really good because he doesn't use that pussy-ass aimbot shit[/QUOTE]
Real Steel 2
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;34464548]It was only a matter of time on this one.
We can already hit targets well beyond a mile away with bullets that retain far more kinetic energy than that, though so this inst really anything very useful for long distance shooting. The energy it wastes guiding itself would probably be fairly spectacular and I imagine the bullet doesn't have great external ballistic properties to start with.
Call me up again when bullets can fly around obstacles and hit targets on the other side :v:[/QUOTE]I wouldn't have thought it wastes that much energy guiding itself, it's just fins using some of the lift they generate to alter course. Rifling already takes away a little bit of forward momentum for stabilisation - iirc that's one of the reasons smoothbore cannons are more popular for tanks - so perhaps it being smoothbore would compensate for that. I'unno, article doesn't go into specs, would be interesting to see them.
[QUOTE=B!N4RY;34464859]But how much does it cost to manufacture one single bullet?[/QUOTE]Since their prototype could be built with commercial items, I would've thought it wouldn't be prohibitively expensive. In any case, one wouldn't be using these for everything.
BULLET CURVING!
why cant britain ever come up with anything this good or innovative?
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;34465337]why cant britain ever come up with anything this good or innovative?[/QUOTE]
[americafuckyeah]
BECAUSE YOO R SOCIALIST
[/americafuckyeah]
probably because the government pours less money into defense research and the defense sector in general.
[QUOTE=Cone;34463646]In several years I can see a shitty action film about some dude who's really really good because he doesn't use that pussy-ass aimbot shit[/QUOTE]
[I]"In a world where aiming is a thing of the past, one man still looks down the scope..."
[B]Rifleman[/B]; Coming soon to a Holopod near you...[/I]
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;34465337]why cant britain ever come up with anything this good or innovative?[/QUOTE]
We're not really a firearms nation. We have some pretty cool bomb disposal stuff from British developers, not much actual gun stuff mind.
I can't see these kinds of bullets being used in every single weapon, so production costs aren't really a massive issue as they wouldn't be issued en masse, just to certain people for certain tasks.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34465351][americafuckyeah]
BECAUSE YOO R SOCIALIST
[/americafuckyeah]
probably because the government pours less money into defense research and the defense sector in general.[/QUOTE]
yeah but.. NOTHING innovative comes out of this country, even non defence stuff
welp, this makes me a hypocrite, i better go invent something
[QUOTE=Rents;34463889]Equip entire army with them, get EMP'd, nation raped by guys with Soviet-era rifles that are older than they are.[/QUOTE]
more like
equip entire army with them
metal gear solid 4
Even more death... :c
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;34465517]yeah but.. NOTHING innovative comes out of this country, even non defence stuff
welp, this makes me a hypocrite, i better go invent something[/QUOTE]
btw your statement is pretty BS, I remember that the UK was leading the way with electrically charged armor a while back, and their research in other sectors is pretty good.
That's just research though, it does appear that the UK is lacking somewhat on the "development" aspect.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34463861]Just for laughs he'd use this:
Flintlocks are as badass as it gets[/QUOTE]
They could convert flintlocks to fire these bullets because they need firearms without rifling. You'd look like a boss among all the other guys with plastic guns.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;34464550]more like:
[IMG]http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090702114815/redfaction/images/5/52/RFG_enforcer.jpg[/IMG]
thats the enforcer from red faction guerrilla, which had homing bullets that had tracers like shown above.[/QUOTE]
More like:
[IMG]http://images.wikia.com/resistancefallofman/images/f/f6/Bullseye_rfom1.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;34464245][IMG]http://www.blogcdn.com/www.massively.com/media/2009/12/500x_untitled-9.jpg[/IMG] ?[/QUOTE]
Just in case you guys don't know, certain patterns of Bolters fire seeker rounds that curve their flight path to hit a target.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;34464174]How does one fry a weapon with electricity, from a bullet?[/QUOTE]
They have 12 gauge shotgun shells available that are basically tazers in a shotgun shell. They are intended for police use.
maybe i missed it in the article, but how much would one of these bullets cost to make?
[QUOTE=viperfan7;34464723]These are not true soviet rifles
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Mosin_Nagant_series_of_rifles.jpg/479px-Mosin_Nagant_series_of_rifles.jpg[/img]
This is true soviet rifle, built to survive even Siberian winter. There is even rifle for every occasion.[/QUOTE]
Fun fact, the irons on the Mosins go out to 2000 meters, or a mile and a quarter in Americana speak.
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;34465337]why cant britain ever come up with anything this good or innovative?[/QUOTE]
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg/300px-British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg[/img]
Pretty much changed the face of Warfare.
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;34467644][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg/300px-British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg[/img]
Pretty much changed the face of Warfare.[/QUOTE]
The French made the first real tank, all the Brits did was create a infantry fighting vehicle
[QUOTE=RayvenQ;34467644][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg/300px-British_Mark_I_male_tank_Somme_25_September_1916.jpg[/img]
Pretty much changed the face of Warfare.[/QUOTE]
Why can't we have tanks with multiple cannon turrets again, they look so awesome.
They look like a bunker on tracks.
Actually I believe the British built the first tanks, or at least took the lead in development. The first self propelled heavy guns came later, but the first British tanks of the time or "Land Ships" or "Water Carriers" as they were originally called performed incredibly well in the trench environment as the rhomboid shape of the Mark I as seen above was able to traverse the bombed out terrain and trenches with relative ease. French tanks came close behind but did not perform nearly as well as British armor. The concept of tanks was not new at all and in fact the french envisioned that the one to win the war would be the faction to arm a 75mm cannon that could move on every type of terrain. This was supposed to be accomplished by armored cars of the time but tracked vehicles developed by the British won out with the ability to transport heavy loads with no limitation on the weight of the gun but rather the power of the power plant. The french were never far behind the British in tank development. And I think it is stupid to think who ever thought of an idea first is the most innovative, Leonardo Da Vinci first thought of tanks and helicopters and gliders, but does that mean that Bell and Boeing can't take credit for building fantastic and innovative planes and helicopters? Or that because the development of the internet itself was a joint project between the US, Britain, and France none can take credit for being innovative in it's development?
[QUOTE=Broseph_;34467729]The French made the first real tank, all the Brits did was create a infantry fighting vehicle[/QUOTE]
Nope we brits came up with them.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;34467729]The French made the first real tank, all the Brits did was create a infantry fighting vehicle[/QUOTE]
No, Brits made the first tank, though it was basically useless because they broke down so often and were so unreliable
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sami-elite;34465724]They could convert flintlocks to fire these bullets because they need firearms without rifling. You'd look like a boss among all the other guys with plastic guns.[/QUOTE]
You realize the firing mechanism isn't in any way related to the rifling of the barrel, right?
they did have flintlock rifles
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34468816]No, Brits made the first tank, though it was basically useless because they broke down so often and were so unreliable
[editline]30th January 2012[/editline]
You realize the firing mechanism isn't in any way related to the rifling of the barrel, right?
they did have flintlock rifles[/QUOTE]
That's why i said convert..somehow.
Do you really think i think you can shoot full metal jacket bullets from a musket without converting it to fire said ammunition?
And technically they made the first land ships.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;34467806]Why can't we have tanks with multiple cannon turrets again, they look so awesome.
They look like a bunker on tracks.[/QUOTE]
They were machine gun sponsoons.
[video=youtube;bJ07v2sZQLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ07v2sZQLE[/video]
Old tech, nobody cares.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.