Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

 

2010-06-01 08:22:23
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State
At this current point in history, I think that technology in small arms has reached the point at which there can be little progress that affects the course of history.

IMO, the last major development that affected history was over 60 years ago with the invention of the AK47.

Sure, people will make more accurate guns that jam less and fire more rounds. Sure body armor exists. But none of these factors will significantly affect a war in the way the AK47 did during the Cold War, or the first HMGs did in WWI.

So, until the development of homing bullets (ala the needler in Halo (only thing I could think of, sorry)), or a handheld laser with unlimited, very high ammunition capacity, do you think that there will be any significant development in bullet-based small arms that affects the course of history?
2010-06-01 08:26:44
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7001
I doubt lasers would have unlimited ammo... They will be limited by battery capacities tbh. Next development is caseless ammo tbh or railguns.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-06-01 08:28:40
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6753
Just sit tight for Mass Accelerator wepon to be developed.
2010-06-01 08:31:13
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

Cybargs wrote:

I doubt lasers would have unlimited ammo... They will be limited by battery capacities tbh. Next development is caseless ammo tbh or railguns.
well they would have a higher shot density than current ammunition.

About the caseless ammunition point, I don't think it will have any major effect though, as caseless ammo would only be available to the countries that developed it, due to the advanced chemistry(?) required to manufacture it, and it does not offer significant benefits over cased ammo other than higher shot density (still not that much higher)

and please, the post is about "do you think that there will be any significant development in bullet-based small arms that affects the course of history?"
2010-06-01 08:55:14
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5643|London, England
The US Army has been using the M-16 for the past 50 years now and it doesn't look like it will be replaced any time soon. Part of that is just plain old conservatism on the part of the Army but they really do have a point when they shoot down new weapon designs. The new designs just don't provide enough improvement to justify the changeover and money involved. Change for the sake of change is just not something the military does.

About the only thing they could (and should) do is change the caliber as weapon design hasn't really taken any great leaps forward since WWII. I guess a weapon with changeable barrels would be nice but that's just more shit to carry and more shit for a soldier to lose.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-06-01 08:57:10
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5759|Ventura, California
I think we'll see advances in weapon technology, to the point we won't need different types of weapons. So like SMGs, HMGs, LMGs, ARs, Carbines, snipers, will all be in just one rifle.

So basically it'll shoot some type of bullet that will have nearly zero recoil and a very high ROF. Maybe with some type of 0 to x10 scope and it'll be really short, and we won't need different weapon types anymore.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2010-06-01 08:58:51
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6906|London, England
who even uses their weapons anymore i thought they just call in air strikes all the time
2010-06-01 08:59:09
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

JohnG@lt wrote:

The new designs just don't provide enough improvement to justify the changeover and money involved. Change for the sake of change is just not something the military does.
exactly, I don't think any development currently being researched could make a very big improvement in the field.

Polymer weapons: it's a tradeoff tbh

Caseless ammunition: more ammo, no casings, but no real improvement

Anti-recoil: Recoil isn't that big of a problem anyways.

Only thing that makes sense is the programmable airburst shells in the OICW, but that failed to meet the requirements, so...
2010-06-01 09:05:21
nlsme1
Member
+32|5702
What about the gun with a ROF of a million bullets a second. Improvements there would change the way wars are faught.


Edit: its is a million a minute, not a second.

Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-06-01 09:10:41)

2010-06-01 09:06:51
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

nlsme1 wrote:

What about the gun with a ROF of a million bullets a second. Improvements there would change the way wars are faught.
logistical hell, ammunition for such a gun would weigh a fuckton.
2010-06-01 09:09:51
nlsme1
Member
+32|5702
It doesn't litteraly fire a million bullets in a minute. That is just the ROF. Logistically, tanks are hell. They seemed to change things, no?
2010-06-01 09:10:54
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6571|Denmark aka Automotive Hell
https://www.tonyrogers.com/images/weapons/metalstorm/vle045.jpg

I think metal storm is one of the more "realistic" future concepts...

- No moving parts but the bullets (NEVER JAMS)
- Insane rate of fire available IF NEEDED (can fire a full barrel before recoiling)
- Relatively low-tech (not much to go wrong & relatively cheap)
- Can be used in anything from bombers to pistols

Only major issue I can tell is how to efficiently, and rapidly reload...


As for more "heavy" equipment, RAIL/COIL guns could be the future since they also have no moving parts...

(I swear if we manage to do a great leap in battery tech sometime soon it will change the world! Batteries are the main setback in new inventions)

Last edited by FloppY_ (2010-06-01 09:17:23)

­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2010-06-01 09:20:12
nlsme1
Member
+32|5702

FloppY_ wrote:

http://www.tonyrogers.com/images/weapon … vle045.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyHeFatu-n4
I think metal storm is one of the more "realistic" future concepts...

- No moving parts but the bullets (NEVER JAMS)
- Insane rate of fire available IF NEEDED (can fire a full barrel before recoiling)
- Relatively low-tech (not much to go wrong & relatively cheap)
- Can be used in anything from bombers to pistols

Only major issue I can tell is how to efficiently, and rapidly reload...


As for more "heavy" equipment, RAIL/COIL guns could be the future since they also have no moving parts...

(I swear if we manage to do a great leap in battery tech sometime soon it will change the world! Batteries are the main setback in new inventions)
These are what I was speaking of.
2010-06-01 09:20:42
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

nlsme1 wrote:

It doesn't litteraly fire a million bullets in a minute. That is just the ROF. Logistically, tanks are hell. They seemed to change things, no?
but then again, what's a foot soldier going to do with that RoF?

And tanks =/= small arms
2010-06-01 09:26:20
nlsme1
Member
+32|5702

Trotskygrad wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

It doesn't litteraly fire a million bullets in a minute. That is just the ROF. Logistically, tanks are hell. They seemed to change things, no?
but then again, what's a foot soldier going to do with that RoF?

And tanks =/= small arms
Tanks were mentioned only to show logistics can be overcome. As for what a foot soldier could do with these, the same they can do with the the war changing AK. The Ak changed things because it was dependable, easy to use, had a good rof, and was mass produced like no gun before it. This technology is MORE dependable, EASIER to use, and has an AMAZING rof. If only they were mass prodused. They beat the AK in all manners that matter, save for the amount of individual guns produced.
2010-06-01 09:29:12
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6571|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

nlsme1 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

It doesn't litteraly fire a million bullets in a minute. That is just the ROF. Logistically, tanks are hell. They seemed to change things, no?
but then again, what's a foot soldier going to do with that RoF?

And tanks =/= small arms
Tanks were mentioned only to show logistics can be overcome. As for what a foot soldier could do with these, the same they can do with the the war changing AK. The Ak changed things because it was dependable, easy to use, had a good rof, and was mass produced like no gun before it. This technology is MORE dependable, EASIER to use, and has an AMAZING rof. If only they were mass prodused. They beat the AK in all manners that matter, save for the amount of individual guns produced.
Hmm, I don't think you can compare it like that... the AK will work nearly nomatter what you do to it...

A "high tech" weapon even as simple as the metal storm, will not be able to sustain the same amount of damage and still keep going...
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2010-06-01 09:30:23
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

nlsme1 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

It doesn't litteraly fire a million bullets in a minute. That is just the ROF. Logistically, tanks are hell. They seemed to change things, no?
but then again, what's a foot soldier going to do with that RoF?

And tanks =/= small arms
Tanks were mentioned only to show logistics can be overcome. As for what a foot soldier could do with these, the same they can do with the the war changing AK. The Ak changed things because it was dependable, easy to use, had a good rof, and was mass produced like no gun before it. This technology is MORE dependable, EASIER to use, and has an AMAZING rof. If only they were mass prodused. They beat the AK in all manners that matter, save for the amount of individual guns produced.
link plz? and about reloading?
2010-06-01 09:30:25
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6508|Escea

Modular weapons tbh.
2010-06-01 09:31:31
nlsme1
Member
+32|5702
Why is that. The AK is by no means indestrucable. Nothing is. But it has a LOT more that can break then these.
2010-06-01 09:32:28
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

M.O.A.B wrote:

Modular weapons tbh.
I fail to see how that might affect the course of history.

In order to do that, a weapon must be:

1. Mass produced
2. Significantly more effective than the last generation
3. Cheap ammo and cheap production
2010-06-01 09:32:52
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6571|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

M.O.A.B wrote:

Modular weapons tbh.
That's more present than future...



But tbh it's not really logistically practical imo...
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2010-06-01 09:33:03
nlsme1
Member
+32|5702

Trotskygrad wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:


but then again, what's a foot soldier going to do with that RoF?

And tanks =/= small arms
Tanks were mentioned only to show logistics can be overcome. As for what a foot soldier could do with these, the same they can do with the the war changing AK. The Ak changed things because it was dependable, easy to use, had a good rof, and was mass produced like no gun before it. This technology is MORE dependable, EASIER to use, and has an AMAZING rof. If only they were mass prodused. They beat the AK in all manners that matter, save for the amount of individual guns produced.
link plz? and about reloading?
Link for? And why would relaoding be hard. They all go in the barrel. All you need is a tube to dump more ammo in the barrel.
2010-06-01 09:34:03
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

nlsme1 wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:


Tanks were mentioned only to show logistics can be overcome. As for what a foot soldier could do with these, the same they can do with the the war changing AK. The Ak changed things because it was dependable, easy to use, had a good rof, and was mass produced like no gun before it. This technology is MORE dependable, EASIER to use, and has an AMAZING rof. If only they were mass prodused. They beat the AK in all manners that matter, save for the amount of individual guns produced.
link plz? and about reloading?
Link for? And why would relaoding be hard. They all go in the barrel. All you need is a tube to dump more ammo in the barrel.
but wouldn't it just fall out if you pointed it down?
2010-06-01 09:34:11
FloppY_
­
+1,010|6571|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

Trotskygrad wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Modular weapons tbh.
I fail to see how that might affect the course of history.

In order to do that, a weapon must be:

1. Mass produced
2. Significantly more effective than the last generation
3. Cheap ammo and cheap production
Mass produced =/= a requirement

2 nukes made the entire empire of japan stand down in WWII and I'd say that was "a tech revolution" at the time...
­ Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
2010-06-01 09:35:03
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6284|Vortex Ring State

FloppY_ wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Modular weapons tbh.
I fail to see how that might affect the course of history.

In order to do that, a weapon must be:

1. Mass produced
2. Significantly more effective than the last generation
3. Cheap ammo and cheap production
Mass produced =/= a requirement

2 nukes made the entire empire of japan stand down in WWII and I'd say that was "a tech revolution" at the time...
For the last time, we're talking about revolutionary small arms...

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard