• US Army to deploy Individual Gunshot Detector, essentially a radar for bullets
    55 replies, posted
hacks
[QUOTE=jaredop;28653247]No, the American way is to drop a JDAM on him :patriot:[/QUOTE] Or mine nuke the spot :v:
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;28652732]I'm pretty sure you really don't/won't need a fancy piece of electronic equipment to tell you if you've been shot in real life. the searing pain from the gunshot wound alone would be sufficient. :v:[/QUOTE] Actually the with all the excitement and adrenaline that comes with a firefight, it's not all that uncommon for a soldier or police officer to be shot and not notice until the fight's over. [editline]17th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=evlbzltyr;28653244]It's actually a cool idea, but would probably be best suited to vehicles and stuff rather than individual soldiers.[/QUOTE] They already do mount these on vehicles.
I thought law enforcement already had something like this?
Should be effective in certain situations. Only ambushes and sniper attacks
[QUOTE=Kuro.;28654001]I thought law enforcement already had something like this?[/QUOTE] They do. This is a man-portable version though.
I remember seeing something like this on Future Weapons, except it was for Humvees.
They also developed this for the tanks and Humvees in action. it is like a pole with an attachment at the high end and it detects sounds EDIT: FUCKING NINJA'D EDIT EDIT: Name fits, Ninja duck.
[QUOTE=Moose;28651896]dunno how effective its going to be when your buddy is right beside you with an m240 tearing shit up, but the article doesnt really show how it works so yeah[/QUOTE] I watched a video of a friend of mine being in a firefight, they spent the first 20 minutes (and 60 grenades) firing in the direction they thought it was coming from. It wasn't until someone luckily spotted the muzzle flash from behind a house and some trees that they were able to figure it out.
I remember these things I'm surprised the $500 billion military hasn't been using them
[QUOTE=Moose;28651074]its an extra pound and a half ontop of a 30 pound vest, to a guy thats carrying a 9 pound rifle w/ fully loaded mags, carrying even more shit in his pack through desert heat its just not that convenient to those guys for what it does, i mean they just said theres no way to distinguish between hostile and friendly fire, is it really worth it?[/QUOTE] 30lbs is almost an unnoticeable amount of weight when distributed around a vest.
[QUOTE=HolyCrusade;28656038]I remember these things I'm surprised the $500 billion military hasn't been using them[/QUOTE] The US military tends to buy/fund the most expensive (and not necessarily the best) equipment offered by defense contractors. Sometimes they'll dump it all together and say "oh well". Remember the Sergeant York AA gun? Another example: the US Army spent a lot of money on two whole tank projects in the 1960s before Congress canceled both of them due to their cost and forced them to work on the Abrams.
[QUOTE=Moose;28651074]its an extra pound and a half ontop of a 30 pound vest, to a guy thats carrying a 9 pound rifle w/ fully loaded mags, carrying even more shit in his pack through desert heat its just not that convenient to those guys for what it does, i mean they just said theres no way to distinguish between hostile and friendly fire, is it really worth it?[/QUOTE] I don't know about you, but if I was that worried about weight, I'd drop a mag or two for the thing that detects people [b]shooting at me[/b] So I find it to be a necessity.
So it's a personal Boomerang? that's actually really cool.
No heartbeat sensors? :sigh:
[QUOTE=Perfumly;28656156]30lbs is almost an unnoticeable amount of weight when distributed around a vest.[/QUOTE] When standing still it is, if you're sprinting that weight is far from unnoticeable. After 100 meters you'll feel like you just did 500 squats. [QUOTE=BANNED USER;28656655]I don't know about you, but if I was that worried about weight, I'd drop a mag or two for the thing that detects people [B]shooting at me[/B] So I find it to be a necessity.[/QUOTE] You spend ridiculous amounts of ammunition in combat, you're required to carry a minimum of 7 magazines (about 4kg), you can't just "drop a mag or two".
I wish civilians could get technology this advanced that only weighs two pounds (for more practical purposes than getting shot of course). The military always gets the coolest technology first.
Doesn't mean shit if you can't get batteries for it. Same goes for all that Land Warrior crap, actually. It's just worthless dead weight when the batteries die, or when it breaks, or when the latest Windows updates break the OS, etc. Technology is all well and good when it works, but people who work with busted technology on a regular basis realize just how short-lived those periods of perfect functionality are.
it's moreso likely that none of us on this forum know if it's worth it or not, so we should probably wait until the soldiers say it's useful or not not that you all have the attention span to wait a month, that is
Damn, that's cool
[QUOTE=Perfumly;28656156]30lbs is almost an unnoticeable amount of weight when distributed around a vest.[/QUOTE] now add an assault pack and lets say you're a support gunner, carrying a 20-25 pound LMG with box magazines or ammunition belts soldier or not, you're still just a dude. that's around 60 lbs. of weight on a daily basis, excluding patrols and the fact you might come under enemy fire and be forced to sprint
[QUOTE=Moose;28660276]now add an assault pack and lets say you're a support gunner, carrying a 20-25 pound LMG with box magazines or ammunition belts soldier or not, you're still just a dude. that's around 60 lbs. of weight on a daily basis, excluding patrols and the fact you might come under enemy fire and be forced to sprint[/QUOTE] NO UR A TRAINED SOLDEIR U CAN DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!!!!!! yes
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;28650981]What's your function?[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.mathwarehouse.com/algebra/relation/images2/1-to-1-function-problem1A.gif[/img]
About time they're getting more things fielded and not having their projects scrapped.
[QUOTE=s0beit;28650952]More like when hacks turn real They should also make non-manned aimbotting robots based on thermal vision (make soldiers wear a tag which tells the aimbot to not aim at them). Would be easy, son.[/QUOTE] So civilians can get raped? k
if these are networked together theres no reason not to network them with a GPS system so that it would give distance to the source of the gunshot using triangulation from multiple devices.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.