• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US deploys 'game-changer' weapon to Afghanistan

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Original source: AFP

US deploys 'game-changer' weapon to Afghanistan - Yahoo! News

The gun's stats are formidable: it fires 25mm air-bursting shells up to 2,300 feet (700 meters), well past the range of most rifles used by today's soldiers, and programs them to explode at a precise distance, allowing troops to neutralize insurgents hiding behind walls, rocks or trenches or inside buildings.

"This is the first time we're putting smart technology into the hands of the individual soldier," Lehner told AFP in a telephone interview.

"It's giving them the edge," he said, in the harsh Afghan landscape where Islamist extremists have vexed US troops using centuries-old techniques of popping up from behind cover to engage.

"You get behind something when someone is shooting at you, and that sort of cover has protected people for thousands of years," Lehner said.

"Now we're taking that away from the enemy forever."

Beautiful... absolutely beautiful. The timing couldn't be better.

.
 
Last edited:
I saw either this weapon or a very similar one tested on Future Weapons TV show and it's amazing and is cool because it makes hiding near impossible.

It the 25mm round can get though a hole it's effective. Very cool.
 
I am not and never will be somebody who likes guns, but as a Halo player, I approve of this weapon and demand that it be built into every game.
 
I approve.

Eliminating or vastly reducing the level of protection taking cover provides is a profound development.

However, counters?

The weapon does apparently rely on electronics to control the shells, so an EMP effect might disable it's ability to set precise ranges...

But I can't see the enemy in Afghanistan coming up with something to do that any time soon...\

Edit: A thought - in reference to FPS games - this weapon is basically a more precise (and much longer ranged) way of cooking a frag so it explodes in mid-air...
 
Last edited:
Well, here's to finding better ways of killing people, I guess.
 
Well, here's to finding better ways of killing people, I guess.
And, as the article noted, saving people’s lives - sometimes.

If the terrorist(s) are taking cover in a school, mortars/artillery/air strikes and whatnot would quite obviously cause more civilian causalities.

While this weapon would allow US forces to shoot a shell/grenade through any opening (within reason) near the terrorists, and set the shell to explode just inside – killing (potentially) only the terrorists, and not any (or far fewer) of the civilians…

Not to mention, so many other possibilities…
 
Sci-Fi movie clip
*crosses arms*
Before that, we'll need a ton more miniaturization, not to mention totally new developments in weapons systems...

I mean, each of those initial "replay" rounds has GOT to be a tiny (and highly maneuverable ) missile - unless the first round somehow highly magnetizes the damn target...but no, that wouldn't work, it would just attract the rounds in the magazine…

And further, the flame and ice weaponry is just pointless, I think - the number of times it would be useful would be far too few to merit its probable weight/power costs.

I can see the potential uses of the arrow system for stealth purposes, but the capture net probably falls in the same category as the flame/ice weapons – too bulky/weight intensive for its usefulness.

Far better to have the flame/ice/net devices as attachments that can be used to modify the weapon if necessary…Or even better, as totally separate weapon systems (especially in the case of the net)…
 
Before that, we'll need a ton more miniaturization, not to mention totally new developments in weapons systems...

I mean, each of those initial "replay" rounds has GOT to be a tiny (and highly maneuverable ) missile - unless the first round somehow highly magnetizes the damn target...but no, that wouldn't work, it would just attract the rounds in the magazine…

And further, the flame and ice weaponry is just pointless, I think - the number of times it would be useful would be far too few to merit its probable weight/power costs.

I can see the potential uses of the arrow system for stealth purposes, but the capture net probably falls in the same category as the flame/ice weapons – too bulky/weight intensive for its usefulness.

Far better to have the flame/ice/net devices as attachments that can be used to modify the weapon if necessary…Or even better, as totally separate weapon systems (especially in the case of the net)…

If I were a moderator, this sort of post would be a bannable offense.
 
Why don't they give them the :
BBC News | The Company File | UK and US build new stealth tank
??

It's pretty badass munitions, when I first heard of that some months ago it described the technology as essentially laser guided missiles fired from a gun... but it also said a second person would be required to run the laser, as a sight is pretty intense. Wonder how many more call of duty games before that gets added?
 
Sorry, I'm somewhat unempressed. It's a nice, expensive toy. It is not a game changer, or a war winner. I'd have settled for an infantry rifle that wouldn't jam as much and is much more lethal than the one we have now. For that matter our boys could use some sensible rules of engagement policies that make sense. As it is this is just some expensive equipment that will enrich the defence industry at the expense of the american taxpayer.
 
Original source: AFP



Beautiful... absolutely beautiful. The timing couldn't be better.


1. how heavy is it
2. how heavy is the ammo
3. how often and easily does it break
4. does it require batteries
 
The only problem with the rifle is that the ammo is somewhat expensive, but 1 or 2 of these per squad does change the game, significantly. The video I posted goes somewhat into depth on how it works and what it can do, and the various uses are incredible. Mark target at distance you want to hit, fire, round explodes into mini rounds at that distance...so many applications for taking cover out of the equation, which totally changes the infantry battlefield.
 
Sorry, I'm somewhat unempressed. It's a nice, expensive toy. It is not a game changer, or a war winner. I'd have settled for an infantry rifle that wouldn't jam as much and is much more lethal than the one we have now. For that matter our boys could use some sensible rules of engagement policies that make sense. As it is this is just some expensive equipment that will enrich the defence industry at the expense of the american taxpayer.

really. could we take this money and switch to a 6.8 caliber and a piston-powered system instead?

i remember when the 6-shooters came out they were supposed to be So Awesome also.

then it turned out they were heavy as crap, the sights didn't work, they were too imbalanced to aim well, and the buttstock was constantly breaking.

so we put ours back in the armory and just kept our 203's.
 
1. how heavy is it
2. how heavy is the ammo
3. how often and easily does it break
4. does it require batteries

1: 14 pounds

2: It's a 25 X 40 grenade, the weight is pretty standard for those. Not sure the exact weight.

3: Unsure but know that reliability has been a big part of the testing process

4: Yes, both for fusing and laser range finder.
 
1. how heavy is it
2. how heavy is the ammo
3. how often and easily does it break
4. does it require batteries

5. Can I have one?

They've already forbidden me from having that AA-12, which is complete horse ****. When the Cubs win the World Series next year, I'll have need of things to help me blow **** up!
 
1: 14 pounds

that's a medium problem; it makes the weapon about the same weight as the Squad Automatic Weapon; and it risks making this a vehicle-patrol weapon. is a rifleman going to be expected to give up his personal rifle for this, or carry both?

2: It's a 25 X 40 grenade, the weight is pretty standard for those. Not sure the exact weight.

if this thing carries computer chips designed to blow it at exactly the right points and places by measuring out many times it has rotated through the air, i'm going to bet that it's a little above standard for a 25mm.

however, the standard grenade round has been 40mm. so i'm wondering how many magazines/bandoliers a rifleman can carry.

3: Unsure but know that reliability has been a big part of the testing process

yeah, but but they still give us the M-16.

4: Yes, both for fusing and laser range finder.

thaaat would be another problem. having a personal weapon dependent upon batteries is extremely problematic. NVG's you can do without if you must, ditto for the PEQ-15's, though not for the Radios (though you could survive without them). having your weapon suddenly go down and not having a baggie of batteries handy is inviting disaster.
 
Last edited:
That is one sick ass gun.

Also wouldn't mind one of these babies..



cornershot-silencer.jpg
 
Cpwill, I don't think it is planned as a personal weapon, but a squad weapon. Your points are well taken and you know more about that end of it than I. I believe the intent is you have one in a squad and it is in use similar to small artillery that was used at one time(no idea if that is currently used), except better.
 
Back
Top Bottom