New next-gen Army 50mm cannon destroys targets in live-fire demo

New next-gen Army 50mm cannon destroys targets in live-fire demo | Fox News

(Kingman, Ariz.) As a small ball of fire shot out of the end of a new 50mm cannon, a cloud of smoke filled the air and, in what seemed like less than one second, an explosion of smoke and fire destroyed a mock enemy target from hundreds of yards away -- on the other side of an Arizona desert valley.




The explosion was precise, burning and shattering a metal target in successive shots of three to five rounds. This blast effect, weapons developers explain, is precisely the intent for the Army’s new 50mm weapon – to bring a longer-range, more-lethal measure of firepower to medium caliber armored vehicle attack.

The live-fire demonstration, taking place at Northrop Grumman’s 2019 Bushmaster User Conference in Kingman, Ariz., was designed to further prepare the weapon for integration onto armored vehicles and, ultimately, send the new cannon to war. Military representatives from the US and as many as 25 partner nations gathered to see the live-fire demo, which included a host of armored-vehicle weapons and technologies - such as the 50mm cannon.

Click to expand...

We need to work on missile defense too. Not sure how much of an explosion occurred, since the pictured ammo is practice ammo.

How often do medium armored vehicles engage other medium armored vehicles beyond 2km?

Like anti-tank rifles, this seems like a solution looking for a problem.

WillyPete said:

How often do medium armored vehicles engage other medium armored vehicles beyond 2km? Like anti-tank rifles, this seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Click to expand...

It was a demonstration, not a real practical exercise. There is a need for something between the Ma Deuce and a missile. It would be handy for knocking through concrete/adobe walls, fighting in urban environments, underpasses, factories and the like. Too few missiles can be carried, the Ma Deuce is a solid weapon but an accurate, hard hitting explosive warhead wouldn't be sneered at...

I always envied the Russians with a cannon on their BMP, but it was too low velocity and not real accurate. (Hell I envied the BMP and Marder compared to the aluminum can I rode around in)

Depending on some factors like accuracy, basic ammo load, and reliability this could be a good thing. Oh and one thing to remember- one grunt's anti-tank rifle is another's hella sniper rifle.... eace

notquiteright said:

It was a demonstration, not a real practical exercise. There is a need for something between the Ma Deuce and a missile. It would be handy for knocking through concrete/adobe walls, fighting in urban environments, underpasses, factories and the like. Too few missiles can be carried, the Ma Deuce is a solid weapon but an accurate, hard hitting explosive warhead wouldn't be sneered at...

I always envied the Russians with a cannon on their BMP, but it was too low velocity and not real accurate. (Hell I envied the BMP and Marder compared to the aluminum can I rode around in)

Depending on some factors like accuracy, basic ammo load, and reliability this could be a good thing. Oh and one thing to remember- one grunt's anti-tank rifle is another's hella sniper rifle.... eace

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't doubt the troops'll find uses for it.

My objection is that there's a very large and powerful sector of our economy that is dependent on always having some new military requirement to fulfill.

Naturally, they don't have much trouble identifying "gaps" in our capabilities.

WillyPete said:

Oh, I don't doubt the troops'll find uses for it. My objection is that there's a very large and powerful sector of our economy that is dependent on always having some new military requirement to fulfill. Naturally, they don't have much trouble identifying "gaps" in our capabilities.

Click to expand...

Well blanket indictments are all too often more slop than fact.

For those with their ass in the grass the gravy train is mighty thin indeed. For over 50 years the 5.56 has been the standard grunt round. How old is the Ma Deuce??? Ya got a good argument when it comes to things like Star Wars but I doubt the entire R&D costs of the new cannon equals one F35...

I'm not going to deny the grunts a few of the defense industry budget crumbs- they are literally putting their asses in danger so improving their weapon systems shouldn't be an issue-

As long as the system works... eace

notquiteright said:

Well blanket indictments are all too often more slop than fact.

For those with their ass in the grass the gravy train is mighty thin indeed. For over 50 years the 5.56 has been the standard grunt round. How old is the Ma Deuce??? Ya got a good argument when it comes to things like Star Wars but I doubt the entire R&D costs of the new cannon equals one F35...

I'm not going to deny the grunts a few of the defense industry budget crumbs- they are literally putting their asses in danger so improving their weapon systems shouldn't be an issue-

As long as the system works... eace

Click to expand...

Certainly they wouldn't let that stop them from selling it, and the F35 is certainly a better example of what I'm talking about. I resist these thing large and small. I'd wager you could retire to a private island for what was spent on that cannon's development, but yes it's a drop in the bucket.

Relative age of the design is kind of a bad way to measure these things though, isn't it? What's wrong with the 5.56 that makes it worthwhile to replace? It's not like the ammo itself is old, or they're doling out worn out weapons.

Likewise the M2 is old, but it's proven more reliable than other attempts to replace it. It's not like the ones we use now were strapped to a jeep back in '45.

There's a legitimate debate about what's best, but age of the design isn't a good measure on it's own.

Though there are plenty that love that sort of thinking, since it makes their job to sell something we (often) don't need easier.

notquiteright said:

Well blanket indictments are all too often more slop than fact.

For those with their ass in the grass the gravy train is mighty thin indeed. For over 50 years the 5.56 has been the standard grunt round. How old is the Ma Deuce??? Ya got a good argument when it comes to things like Star Wars but I doubt the entire R&D costs of the new cannon equals one F35...

I'm not going to deny the grunts a few of the defense industry budget crumbs- they are literally putting their asses in danger so improving their weapon systems shouldn't be an issue-

As long as the system works... eace

Click to expand...

The 50mm gun sped up a bit would work well on an A-10 replacement, a more versatile round and a platform to take advantage of the range.

WillyPete said:

Certainly they wouldn't let that stop them from selling it, and the F35 is certainly a better example of what I'm talking about. I resist these thing large and small. I'd wager you could retire to a private island for what was spent on that cannon's development, but yes it's a drop in the bucket. Relative age of the design is kind of a bad way to measure these things though, isn't it? What's wrong with the 5.56 that makes it worthwhile to replace? It's not like the ammo itself is old, or they're doling out worn out weapons. Likewise the M2 is old, but it's proven more reliable than other attempts to replace it. It's not like the ones we use now were strapped to a jeep back in '45. There's a legitimate debate about what's best, but age of the design isn't a good measure on it's own. Though there are plenty that love that sort of thinking, since it makes their job to sell something we (often) don't need easier.

Click to expand...

I'd wager we could retire to a private island on just what the Pentagon lists as 'misc'....

But that isn't the real issue. Old is old, advances have been continuing since WWI (the age of the Ma Deuce design.... :shock: )

Metallurgy, manufacturing processes, revolutionary design- imagine an all steel M-16 instead of the alloy, or keeping the old M1919 MG instead of adopting the M60. (Fun fact the tripod for my M60 was an old M1919 tripod stamped 1943)

It is difficult to name any other branch of service where so many men's lives depend on their gear designed when their grandfather's served. Or a branch where so little money can vastly improve the weaponry they bet their lives on.

Now I'm not advocating throwing the 50cal away, but it is a dated design, over weight by modern standards and a bit of a diva as barrel replacement required 'timing' the barrel with a gauge.

As for a hard hitting explosive shell thrower- I wouldn't have minded that on the old 113's we ran through FRG. Again depending on some reliability factors I see the new weapon as a good thing. No over sell needed, it isn't going to shoot down a ballistic missile in outer space.... eace

notquiteright said:

I'd wager we could retire to a private island on just what the Pentagon lists as 'misc'....

But that isn't the real issue. Old is old, advances have been continuing since WWI (the age of the Ma Deuce design.... :shock: )

Metallurgy, manufacturing processes, revolutionary design- imagine an all steel M-16 instead of the alloy, or keeping the old M1919 MG instead of adopting the M60. (Fun fact the tripod for my M60 was an old M1919 tripod stamped 1943)

It is difficult to name any other branch of service where so many men's lives depend on their gear designed when their grandfather's served. Or a branch where so little money can vastly improve the weaponry they bet their lives on.

Now I'm not advocating throwing the 50cal away, but it is a dated design, over weight by modern standards and a bit of a diva as barrel replacement required 'timing' the barrel with a gauge.

As for a hard hitting explosive shell thrower- I wouldn't have minded that on the old 113's we ran through FRG. Again depending on some reliability factors I see the new weapon as a good thing. No over sell needed, it isn't going to shoot down a ballistic missile in outer space.... eace

Click to expand...

I have no argument with any of this, honestly. Gear for our soldiers is likely the very smallest part of the problem, and they absolutely deserve good, reliable equipment that does the job.

Unfortunately the folks I do have a problem with use the same rationalization (support the troops) to promote some seriously wasteful spending.

notquiteright said:

I'd wager we could retire to a private island on just what the Pentagon lists as 'misc'....

But that isn't the real issue. Old is old, advances have been continuing since WWI (the age of the Ma Deuce design.... :shock: )

Metallurgy, manufacturing processes, revolutionary design- imagine an all steel M-16 instead of the alloy, or keeping the old M1919 MG instead of adopting the M60. (Fun fact the tripod for my M60 was an old M1919 tripod stamped 1943)

It is difficult to name any other branch of service where so many men's lives depend on their gear designed when their grandfather's served. Or a branch where so little money can vastly improve the weaponry they bet their lives on.

Now I'm not advocating throwing the 50cal away, but it is a dated design, over weight by modern standards and a bit of a diva as barrel replacement required 'timing' the barrel with a gauge.

As for a hard hitting explosive shell thrower- I wouldn't have minded that on the old 113's we ran through FRG. Again depending on some reliability factors I see the new weapon as a good thing. No over sell needed, it isn't going to shoot down a ballistic missile in outer space.... eace

Click to expand...

Just thought I would add that the new version of the M2 doesn't require checking head space and timing when changing barrels and it also has a safety.

WillyPete said:

How often do medium armored vehicles engage other medium armored vehicles beyond 2km?

Click to expand...

Well, that is really hard to tell because of how warfare has changed in the last 40 years.

Prior to around 1970, such ranges were rarely engaged because the fire control was simply not very reliable. Tanks largely had to stop in order to fire accurately, which meant that in general tanks tended to move around a lot until they were close enough to engage at essentially "point blank range".

Then until and through the 1980's, going after tanks had more and more moved into the realm of aircraft. Fighters, but especially helicopters became the "tank destroyers" of choice, because they were faster, cheaper, and could fire more munitions faster than a tank could.

Then you have the largest tank battle since WWII, 73 Easting. This one was fought at almost point-blank range, but that was because the 2 sides met during a blinding sandstorm. They had no choice but to slug it out at ranges of only a few hundred meters (or less) because of the visibility.

But in battles like what was planned in Central Europe in the event of a Warsaw-NATO conflict? Yea, then fighting at extreme ranges from prepared defensive positions before moving to another was the expected way we would be fighting. If there is no air dominance then it is going to be up to the forces on the ground to deal with other ground forces. And the greater the distance you can engage them, the better.

Oh, and anti-tank rifles like the Boys was actually quite effective. They gave good service against Japanese tanks in the Asian-Pacific theater and were even used as anti-aircraft weapons by the US Marines off Makin. They were simply of limited use against the heavier German tanks that had been developed after the Boys was fielded.

notquiteright said:

How old is the Ma Deuce???

Click to expand...

Well, the actual proposal and design are 102 years old. It started in 1917, when General Pershing asked John Browning for a scaled-up version of the M1917 Machine Gun. The development hit some snags early on (Pershing wanted things like a rimless cartridge in 11mm), so the development was halted and it then was fielded originally as the M1919 .30-06 Machine Gun.

Over the next decade development was shifted back and forth between the new rimed .50 round (adopted from a WWI era German weapon), and other guns that Browning was developing (including the M1921 water cooled). But in 1933 a design was finally completed and entered service as the M2. And with around 86 years of service, it is one of the longest serving weapons in use world-wide today.

notquiteright said:

Ya got a good argument when it comes to things like Star Wars but I doubt the entire R&D costs of the new cannon equals one F35.

Click to expand...

Well, Star Wars was always known to have been a long-term R&D program. But we have been seeing things that have started as SDI research enter service for decades now.

GPS, PATRIOT missile system upgrades from 1989, THAAD, GBI, AEGIS SM-2 and SM-3 missiles, "Blue Force Tracking", and much much more. That is all derived from "Star Wars" research programs.

WillyPete said:

Likewise the M2 is old, but it's proven more reliable than other attempts to replace it. It's not like the ones we use now were strapped to a jeep back in '45.

Click to expand...

Uhhh, actually it is just like what we used in WWII. The only changes to the weapon in over 80 years has been a new bolt, and a new barrel (both which happened in 2010). Everything else is literally the exact same. I myself have worked with many M2 machine guns that were manufactured between WWII and the Korean War. But other than those 2 items (bolt and barrel) the M2A1 is just another M2 that has been upgraded.

notquiteright said:

It is difficult to name any other branch of service where so many men's lives depend on their gear designed when their grandfather's served. Or a branch where so little money can vastly improve the weaponry they bet their lives on.

Click to expand...

Ohh, that is common across all services.

We still operate 76 B-52s, and the last one of those rolled off the assembly lines in 1962.

Every Nimitz carrier is essentially based on the USS Nimitz, which has been in service for 44 years now.

One of the jokes when I was working with PATRIOT was that I was the only person in the Battalion that was older than their launcher. All but 1 of them were circa 1982-1984, the "new one" was circa 1987. And it started development originally during the Kennedy Administration, and was first tested during the Ford Administration. Finally fielded during the Reagan Administration.


Most people have absolutely no idea how much of what we use today is literally just updated versions of Vietnam War era equipment.

braindrain said:

Just thought I would add that the new version of the M2 doesn't require checking head space and timing when changing barrels and it also has a safety.

Click to expand...

That's good to know, I remember the seemingly endless drills on barrel change and the 'GO-NO GO' gauge. Our safety was keeping the loose nut off the butterfly. Have they made it any lighter, it was not a fun chore to lug the receiver from the barrack arm's room to the motor pool during alerts along with all our other junk... eace

Oozlefinch said:

Ohh, that is common across all services. We still operate 76 B-52s, and the last one of those rolled off the assembly lines in 1962. Every Nimitz carrier is essentially based on the USS Nimitz, which has been in service for 44 years now. One of the jokes when I was working with PATRIOT was that I was the only person in the Battalion that was older than their launcher. All but 1 of them were circa 1982-1984, the "new one" was circa 1987. And it started development originally during the Kennedy Administration, and was first tested during the Ford Administration. Finally fielded during the Reagan Administration. Most people have absolutely no idea how much of what we use today is literally just updated versions of Vietnam War era equipment.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say common, I'd say not unique. Other than the B-52 what combat aircraft does the Air Force operate on front line duty status?

Multi-billion dollar warships routinely get multi-billion dollar upgrades, the same can't be said for the M-16/5.56 system. My 'musket' as the kids call the M16A1 (we called it 'the Mattel Toy') was still used in the Gulf Wars/Afghanistan.

Is the Patriot System from the Reagan era the same as now or have there been a series of upgrades to improve response time and hit ratio?

How long did the Infantry rely on the LAW and 90RCL for their man portable AT defense? Grunts are some of the last combat troops to get upgraded equipment (the ACU wasn't an upgrade in my book and issuing it to REMFs who will never wear body armor is an insult almost as much as the beret being black and the Flash being Infantry blue.

But that's a different old grunt bitch session....

WillyPete said:

How often do medium armored vehicles engage other medium armored vehicles beyond 2km?

Like anti-tank rifles, this seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Click to expand...

We did it a lot during Desert Storm. We were successful at killing tanks at that range. A heavier gun will significantly increase that the tank kills at that range.

We also used HE rounds at 2,500m to light up enemy fighting positions prior to an assault.

My only apprehension would be ammo storage, since a 50mm round will take up more space than a 25mm round.

PirateMk1 said:

The 50mm gun sped up a bit would work well on an A-10 replacement, a more versatile round and a platform to take advantage of the range.

Click to expand...

You think a round that big could be sped up?

apdst said:

You think a round that big could be sped up?

Click to expand...

Firing speed. With a chain gun easy peasy. The guns cyclic rate is determined by how fast the motor drives the gun. Bring the speed up to 400 to 500 rounds a minute from 200. With proximity fused rounds that thing would make GUA 8 at 3600 rounds a minute look tame. The big 50mm anti armor rounds would definitely not be a healthy alternative to 30mm DU rounds. Think jackhammer auto shotgun with longer range than typical rifle and way heavier punch than regular rifle that also has the ability to explode rounds via proximity. So you could punch these rounds through walls, around rocks ect. and the explode them. They are also guided. So less rounds needed. If used in air to air scenario say anti drone or helicopters or the like, it would not eliminate the need for missiles but at shorter ranges would lessen their utility.

PirateMk1 said:

Firing speed. With a chain gun easy peasy. The guns cyclic rate is determined by how fast the motor drives the gun. Bring the speed up to 400 to 500 rounds a minute from 200. With proximity fused rounds that thing would make GUA 8 at 3600 rounds a minute look tame. The big 50mm anti armor rounds would definitely not be a healthy alternative to 30mm DU rounds. Think jackhammer auto shotgun with longer range than typical rifle and way heavier punch than regular rifle that also has the ability to explode rounds via proximity. So you could punch these rounds through walls, around rocks ect. and the explode them. They are also guided. So less rounds needed. If used in air to air scenario say anti drone or helicopters or the like, it would not eliminate the need for missiles but at shorter ranges would lessen their utility.

Click to expand...

The M-249 has a max rate of 500 rounds per minute with with 8hp. It would take a helluva big motor to increase a 50mm to 500 rounds per minute.

No doubt doable, but how much more space would be needed to mount the gun, because the overall size of the gun will increase: bigger motor, bigger gears. Then there's the weight factor.

apdst said:

The M-249 has a max rate of 500 rounds per minute with with 8hp. It would take a helluva big motor to increase a 50mm to 500 rounds per minute.

No doubt doable, but how much more space would be needed to mount the gun, because the overall size of the gun will increase: bigger motor, bigger gears. Then there's the weight factor.

Click to expand...

The system even in 50mm is lighter than the GAU8. The limiting factor will be rounds and round storage. I have provided some info on the various gun lines so you can see and compare. The bushmaster 3 series in 35mm and 50mm are essentially the same gun. The supershot 50 round is a necked up 35mm cannon round.

Bushmaster IV - Wikipedia
Bushmaster III - Wikipedia
GAU-8 Avenger - Wikipedia
https://www.defence.nioa.com.au/supply/product_attachment/11/bushmaster-iii.pdf

We've got two very sharp guys here who are remaking the Army. Secretary Mark Esper USMA '86 and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley Princeton Rotc '80 have spent the past several years reinventing the Army to fight a major war against a major state power. They've improved on what needed improving and have invented where invention is needed. Milley is completing his final year of the five year term as CSA. Milley becomes chairman of the JCS this year for its newly expanded four year tour (then out, from the two year tour renewable once only).



Army Moves $25B To Big Six, From New Tanks To 6.8mm Rifle

The Army plans to move at least $25 billion over the next five years from low-priority programs to preparing for major war. That includes developing a wide variety of new weapons, many on show here at the Association of the US Army conference, from high-speed aircraft to replace today’s helicopters, to partially-robotic armored vehicles to replace the M2 Bradley, to a long-ranged 6.8 millimeter rifle to replace the venerable M16/M4 family and its controversial 5.56 mm round.


Army Secretary Mark Esper (left) and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley testify before the Senate.


Army Secretary Mark Esper announced the $25 billion figure here in his opening speech to the conference, the largest of the year. “Most of those savings were principally found in… equipping,” Esper said, what budgeteers call the Equipment PEG (Program Evaluation Group). But “we are in the process now of going through the other PEGs,” he said, such as personnel and facilities, to find similar savings.





The Big Six

In their review of the equipment portfolio, Esper said, he and the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, spent some 60 hours “going thru program after program, activity after activity, looking at each one assessing and asking ourselves: “Is this more important than the Next Generation Combat Vehicle? is this more important than a new squad automatic weapon? Is this more important than Long-Range Precision Fires?”

But while individual “soldier lethality” may be the last of the Big Six, it still outranks everything else in the Army. And because soldier kit is relatively small and simple, it’s actually the first of the Big Six to actually field new equipment. That includes a fighter-pilot-style HUD (Heads Up Display) for infantry soldiers, using augmented reality technology that lets them train against virtual opponents on real terrain or see tactical data in combat without ever taking their eyes off the threat. But the soldier lethality portfolio also includes replacing the venerable M16 rifle and its derivatives, whose finicky mechanisms and small 5.56 mm bullet have caused bitter controversy.

Army Moves $25B To Big Six, From New Tanks To 6.8mm Rifle << Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Two shakers and movers profiled:

Secretary of the Army Mark Esper received his Bachelor of Science in engineering from the United States Military Academy in 1986. Esper was a Dean's List student at West Point and recipient of the Douglas MacArthur Award for Leadership.[4] He received a master's degree in public administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard in 1995 and a Doctor of Philosophy from George Washington University in 2008.[5]


Mark Esper during swearing in ceremony before the 3rd Infantry Regiment The Old Guard to become 23rd Secretary of the Army, Col. Joseph B. Conmy Hall, Ft. Myer, Virginia next to the Pentagon. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley salutes.


Esper served as an Infantry Officer with the 101st Airborne Division and deployed with the "Screaming Eagles" for the 1990-91 Gulf War. His battalion was part of the famous "left hook" that led to the defeat of the Iraqi Army. For his actions, Esper was awarded a Bronze Star, the Combat Infantryman's Badge, and various service medals.[4] He later led an Airborne Rifle Company in Europe and served as an Army Fellow at the Pentagon.[3] Esper was on active duty for over ten years before transitioning to the District of Columbia Army National Guard and later the Army Reserve, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel.[6]





Born in Winchester, Massachusetts, General Mark A Milley holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Princeton University, a Master of Arts degree in international relations from Columbia University, and another Master of Arts degree in national security and strategic studies from the United States Naval War College.[5] He is also a graduate of the MIT Center for International Studies Seminar XXI National Security Studies Program.[6]


General Mark Alexander Milley, CSA who this year will become chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.


Milley earned his commission as an Armor officer through Princeton's Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps program in 1980 and spent most of his career in Infantry assignments.[7] Milley says a priority is to "up armor" the Infantry and to field lighter and more agile main battle tanks that can negotiate most bridges.

Prior to serving as the 39th Army Chief of Staff, Milley served as the Commanding General of United States Army Forces Command, based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He served as the Commanding General of III Corps, based at Fort Hood, Texas.[8] Prior to III Corps, he served as the Commander of the 10th Mountain Division.[9] He has also served as Deputy Commanding General (Operations), 101st Airborne Division and; Commander, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light). Additionally, Milley has served in the 82nd Airborne Division, the 5th Special Forces Group,[10] the 7th Infantry Division, the 2nd Infantry Division, the Joint Readiness Training Center, the 25th Infantry Division; Operations Staff of the Joint Staff, and as a Military Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) in the Pentagon.[11] He assumed his current assignment on August 14, 2015 with the strong advocacy of former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.[12]

Mark Esper - Wikipedia

Mark A. Milley - Wikipedia

When are we gonna get laser guns already

notquiteright said:

Multi-billion dollar warships routinely get multi-billion dollar upgrades, the same can't be said for the M-16/5.56 system. My 'musket' as the kids call the M16A1 (we called it 'the Mattel Toy') was still used in the Gulf Wars/Afghanistan.

Click to expand...

No, actually it was the M16A2. The A1 had been retired by the mid-1980's. Most notable differences between the 2 are the round forward handgrips, a 3 round burst instead of full auto, finger adjustable sights at the rear of the weapon, and a heavier barrel.

notquiteright said:

Is the Patriot System from the Reagan era the same as now or have there been a series of upgrades to improve response time and hit ratio?

How long did the Infantry rely on the LAW and 90RCL for their man portable AT defense? Grunts are some of the last combat troops to get upgraded equipment (the ACU wasn't an upgrade in my book and issuing it to REMFs who will never wear body armor is an insult almost as much as the beret being black and the Flash being Infantry blue.

But that's a different old grunt bitch session....

Click to expand...

Actually, what was fielded was originally Ford Era.

And there was never a problem with "response time and hit ratio". What you saw in the Gulf War was a prototype software package that was rushed into service that allowed a system designed to only hit aircraft to also hit missiles. And the "failure" was not in the system itself, but the missiles that they fired.

The first generation PATRIOT missile was as stated, intended to shoot down aircraft. And as such, it used the tried and true method that had been used since WWII. A proximity fuse so that when the missile was close it would "shred" the aircraft with essentially a giant shotgun blast of shrapnel. The problem was that this was almost completely ineffective against ballistic missiles. The software was patched and newer generations of missiles were designed to solve both of those issues. In 2003 100% of Iraqi SCUD missiles targeted were destroyed.

notquiteright said:

How long did the Infantry rely on the LAW and 90RCL for their man portable AT defense? Grunts are some of the last combat troops to get upgraded equipment (the ACU wasn't an upgrade in my book and issuing it to REMFs who will never wear body armor is an insult almost as much as the beret being black and the Flash being Infantry blue.

Click to expand...

Hell, the LAW was never really intended to be an "anti-tank weapon". It was designed to go after much softer targets like a BMP or bunker. For tanks we had the TOW, the DRAGON, and the COPPERHEAD. And even by 2000 it had been replaced by the AT4 for most of those tasks. It did have a last runthrough from 2000-2005, as you could carry more LAWs than you could AT4s, and it was more than enough for the unreinforced brick buildings that most enemies were trying to shoot from. But I am pretty sure it is once again no longer in use, as the supplies have either all been expended or expired.

Heck, even the Marine Corps medium anti-tank weapon (SMAW) is currently being replaced with a more modern variant. No more 9mm spotter rifle firing tracers.