Possibility for an *ACTUAL* nano suit?! 29 replies

Please wait...

Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#21 10 years ago

Looks aren't everything, it's the feel that is the issue with the Land Warrior, and the idea that all of your advantages that you rely on can be gone from a loose wire getting snagged or a system error.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#22 10 years ago
bud389;4261810First of all the 5.56 has more velocity (aswell as twice as accurate as the 7.62 round), the only reason the 7.62's have so much energy in their impact is because the actual bullet is so damn big. So, in a sense, you could say that the 7.62 was made for impact, while the 5.56 was made for penetration, but since the 7.62 has more impact it would have a greater advantage over the 5.56 if the enemy were wearing like you said, lvl 3 and up armor, although just because YOU don't get issued that "Rare" steel cored ammo variant, it doesn't exactly mean it's not being spoon fed to the special ops or marines for that matter. And i don't really think you quite heard me, the U.S. is using 7.62x51 NATO rounds for their M14's and M60's... Do you mean an AKS-74U? Well no duh that's gonna be smaller then an M4. But at a cost, it has lower muzzle velocity and a lower effective range for that matter. (the AK74 family also uses the 5.56 and 5.45 rounds for it aswell, although a different grade of them). lol, that is a mistake that is WIDELY made, only the original M4 carbine has a semi auto and 3 round burst, however the newer addition (not really that new actually) M4A1 has semi and full auto (go look it up). I also did some research on the rate of fire's for both guns (wasn't exactly sure of both of their rate's) and the M4A1 DOES have a higher rate of fireover the AK47, AK47 having around 600 rounds per minute, where as the M4A1 has about 700 rounds per minute. (go look up Future weapons LWRC PSD, a new future US weapon, fires 6.8mm rounds!!! Nearly the perfect gun) (runs back to discussion) About that land warrior system, would that be anything like what it is in GRAW? Because i just looked up some pictures of it and it looks very identical to it.

Wrong. The 5.56 is no more accurate round wise then the 7.62x39. what the 5.56 has going for it is longer maximum range. This comes at the expense of terminal performance though. A needlish light weight bullet will always have higher maximum range than a bullet with a larger grain weight and cross section, problem is the bullet doesnt carry energy for shit. What determines useful accuracy of a bullet is all in the weapon system. an Rk62 fires the 7.62 Russian and is as much a tack driver as the M16 can be. Its not the size, its the physical SIZE of the round but its weight and cross section. a 6.8mm SPC has more energy and better penetration at ALL ranges then a 7.62 NATO. Guess why.

I didnt make a mistake, i flat out TOLD you the M4 was semi/burst configured and the a1 was full auto packed.

What do you mean 'of course' the AKSU is gonna be shorter? they are both designed for the exact same thing. They are both carbine versions of their respective fullsize brethren. The AKSU is shorter then the M4, and so is the full sized AK with a folding stock. The AR15 gas and spring system naturally doesnt lend itself to compactness. This is without dispute. The M4 loses just as much in range and accuracy over the M16a2 as the AKSU variants do to their full length counterparts. The difference is , when your using them, range isnt an issue ANYWAY. Thats like saying shotguns are outranged by rifles in house to house fighting so we should just use rifles.

Rate of Fire is meaningless in assault rifles. As ive already said, troops use semi anyway. The difference between an AK going full auto and an M4a1 going full auto is not even worth considering. If its an AKM the favor tips toward the AK though since its muzzlebrake is widely regarded as the best of its class.

look up by the way, AFSOC and tell me again that special operations troops are being spoon fed an ammunition that beats up barrels and shows terrible terrible ballistics on meat. I understand you like the AR15. its not a terrible design. the truth though is that their are a helluva lot of better designs, and a helluva lot of better cartridges. The US army has been trying to replace the M16 system and the 5.56 for almost 20 years now. there IS a reason for that. You havent witness a bad design until you loose a fucking dental pick to clean your weapon and release you are SOL if your rifle jams. NO infantry weapon should require the level of immaculate detail the M16 does. Would you consider a Chevy Suburban a go-anywhere offroad machine like a Jeep? no you wouldnt. Its a weapon designed to fit a certain criteria (basically a marksman rifle) thats been shoehorned into a role its not ideal for and has been jimmied in such a way to make it fairly adequate at it. The US military wants to change it, the IDF IS changing it and most nations that continue its use only do so with spec ops units for CQB work because of its accessory value.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#23 10 years ago
Roaming East;4261911Wrong. The 5.56 is no more accurate round wise then the 7.62x39. what the 5.56 has going for it is longer maximum range. This comes at the expense of terminal performance though. A needlish light weight bullet will always have higher maximum range than a bullet with a larger grain weight and cross section, problem is the bullet doesnt carry energy for shit. What determines useful accuracy of a bullet is all in the weapon system. an Rk62 fires the 7.62 Russian and is as much a tack driver as the M16 can be. Its not the size, its the physical SIZE of the round but its weight and cross section. a 6.8mm SPC has more energy and better penetration at ALL ranges then a 7.62 NATO. Guess why. I didnt make a mistake, i flat out TOLD you the M4 was semi/burst configured and the a1 was full auto packed. What do you mean 'of course' the AKSU is gonna be shorter? they are both designed for the exact same thing. They are both carbine versions of their respective fullsize brethren. The AKSU is shorter then the M4, and so is the full sized AK with a folding stock. The AR15 gas and spring system naturally doesnt lend itself to compactness. This is without dispute. The M4 loses just as much in range and accuracy over the M16a2 as the AKSU variants do to their full length counterparts. The difference is , when your using them, range isnt an issue ANYWAY. Thats like saying shotguns are outranged by rifles in house to house fighting so we should just use rifles. Rate of Fire is meaningless in assault rifles. As ive already said, troops use semi anyway. The difference between an AK going full auto and an M4a1 going full auto is not even worth considering. If its an AKM the favor tips toward the AK though since its muzzlebrake is widely regarded as the best of its class. look up by the way, AFSOC and tell me again that special operations troops are being spoon fed an ammunition that beats up barrels and shows terrible terrible ballistics on meat. I understand you like the AR15. its not a terrible design. the truth though is that their are a helluva lot of better designs, and a helluva lot of better cartridges. The US army has been trying to replace the M16 system and the 5.56 for almost 20 years now. there IS a reason for that. You havent witness a bad design until you loose a fucking dental pick to clean your weapon and release you are SOL if your rifle jams. NO infantry weapon should require the level of immaculate detail the M16 does. Would you consider a Chevy Suburban a go-anywhere offroad machine like a Jeep? no you wouldnt. Its a weapon designed to fit a certain criteria (basically a marksman rifle) thats been shoehorned into a role its not ideal for and has been jimmied in such a way to make it fairly adequate at it. The US military wants to change it, the IDF IS changing it and most nations that continue its use only do so with spec ops units for CQB work because of its accessory value.

M4 is an all purpose weapon (as you stated before), and excels at precision. The AK47's round travels much slower then the M4's 5.56 round, and also has a much shorter distance since it seems to just drop after it reaches 400 yards (as you might have already stated). The only real advantage that the AK47 has over the M4 is power, that and how cheap it is. I am very fond of the M4 becuase of it's many excellent factors, like every gun, it has it's issues, saying that the AK47 is better then the M4 could be argued for days, but i am happy to see that their are other weapons being designed by the U.S. that are improving upon heat, jamming, caliber, and accuracy.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#24 10 years ago

It all depends on what you're shooting at, but with a low recoil .45 caliber SMG like the KRISS I mentioned earlier, whatever you're shooting at is going to be dead relatively quickly so long as they don't kill you first, which is when one should switch to the AA12 and simply obliterate everything that isn't concrete or 1 inch thick steel, or behind such obstacles, which the grenade rounds are meant to kill, rather than the usual shot.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#25 10 years ago

i personally cant wait for the .223 to get scrapped. The last 'Big Lie' of Vietnam needs to be put to rest on the mythical deadliness of that round. It makes little entry holes and leaves little exit holes. Baddies tend to keep fighting unless shot in the head or hit with a dozen or more rounds.

Either that or give troops JSP type ammunition. FMJ aint cutting it in that weapon.




-DarthMaul-

I'm way cooler than n0e (who isn't though?)

50 XP

11th February 2003

0 Uploads

5,051 Posts

0 Threads

#26 10 years ago

bud you keep forgetting what the average range of modern day infantry/insurgent battles are running at... which he mentioned twice. Range is not the issue at all.

And I hope Rangers are the first to get the Land Warrior :)




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#27 10 years ago

So I suggest all soldiers in Iraq and similar conflicts be armed with the two weapons (AA-12 & KRISS) mentioned before, which are two weapons which seemed nigh impossible until recently, the things of sci-fi, much like the nano-suit.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#28 10 years ago

Not organic enough. Squad composition is what, 2 fireteams of 5-10 men each? squad issue should be medium caliber carbine type weapons for each soldier with 2 soldiers (1 per individual fire team) using a support automatic of the same caliber. Another duo would be attached as Grenadier style. As support gunners are in groups of 2, his assistant gunner COULD be issued with a dedicated shotgun style weapon (AA12, DAO12, M1014 etc) or could have a carbine/shotgun combination similar to the master key setup to M4 has going for it.

So at a minimum, your looking at 10 men in a squad, 2 of whom are carrying MG type weapons, another 2 are likely carrying indirect fire type support like the M203. 6 men supporting that base rolling around with carbines and a squad leader who will also likely be carrying the same instead of an SMG with limited general use. As in general, the fire teams acting in close concert, one of the M203 guys would likely be subbed out for a DMR type position along with one of the gunner teams for increased rifleman capacity depending on objective.




Chemix2

Paladin: The Holy Knight

50 XP

16th March 2005

0 Uploads

3,789 Posts

0 Threads

#29 10 years ago

My point was to redirect the discussion back towards "futuristic" warfare technologies, rather than debating the M4/M16 versus the AK series, which are both in the past. I'm not the thread starter, so I probably am out of place to say this.

I know that the past is a good reference point for the future, but it shouldn't dominate the discussion. A larger round has less maximum range most of the time, but more stopping power; whereas, a smaller round has higher range, and less stopping power. The faster round carries more air behind it (because it's pushing it out of the way in front of it, creating a "gap" in the air behind it which pulls air towards the back of the bullet, particularly after it penetrates the target). So a very fast, tiny bullet, can cause a lot of damage, if it gets to the target. However, being tiny causes it to be more easily deflected, and once that happens it loses most of the air pull it had and has to build it up again, ultimately slowing the bullet considerably. So under ideal conditions, a small round will cause a lot of damage, but in jungle or urban warfare, a small round has a high chance of hitting some small thing, and despite the fact that it will probably go through, it will have been deflected.

So, where can we go from there




Liquid fire

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

10th June 2006

0 Uploads

4,322 Posts

0 Threads

#30 10 years ago

Our future is already here but it is dangerous to go there and discover. I add I am diagnosed with ADD and dont sleep often, believe in ghosts etc etc...some people think I am insane and I am paranoid . I believe in computers that can hurt our minds and be used as biological weapons against us in the safety of our own homes. Again, I am just a paranoid , disillusioned lunatic who bases nothing on fact. I make all this shit up, thanks.