• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

this gun makes AWP look like bb gun!!!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Phalanx was actually developed to shoot incoming missiles out of the sky, so ya... you're basically toast if you fly your plane close enough for it to target you.
 
Well in real life, there are some anti-tank rifles. They are the most powerful rifles.

I saw in the news, one M1A2 main battle tank in Iraq was shot by a unknown weapon. They think it could be some kind of new anti-tank rifle. One single bullet penetrated the front armor of M1A2, then went through the equipments inside, go on and went through the seat of driver, then made a big hole on back armor. Also the heat caused by this one shot was incredible. That M1A2 was disabled.

What power! It's a rifle, not a rocket or a cannon.
 
they have the barret in BF1942 that is just a newer version of the barret, but i Like the Railguns, I dont have a link but i saw it on the discovery channel, it fires this like 1 foot long spike with electromagnets at incredible speeds, it peirced like a 2 foot concrete wall and butchered this 6 inch piece of steel.

and if you were shot in the knee by that it would blow that leg off and break your neck and probably the other leg off too.
 
Only problem with railgun is that each shot ruins the rails at this point in time. That makes it a one shot gun. However, I would like to see a satellite turned into a giant railgun....that would be amusing. :-X
 
probably in 50 years the military will be shooting 10mmx65 (opposed to the m16/m4 5.56mmx45) with fiber optic sights and motion/heat guided bullet. In other words, the scope on the AR will automatically sight the combination of motion and heat (probably a human) so bullets wont actually be guided but the scope i imagine with have a lil Green check mark in upper right hand corner to confirm to the solider that the sight is ranged and aimed on the heat/motion source (human). All the solider then has to do is pull a trigger. Doesn't matter the recoil, the first 2 bullets will definately kill any amoured person and probably go through walls (if he's hiding in a building) the bullets will also be some high-tech depleted urianum high explosive full metal jacket bullet !!!!! Also, the cannon on tanks will advance too, tanks will then be called M3A1 with 200mm x 1000 main cannon rounds !!!!!! good ole US will be always ontop! btw, how come the us standard issue AR isn't the OICW, dont give me some sh** about how it costs too much, freedom and solo world domination never cost too much !!!!!!!!!!
 
jonwessel said:
probably in 50 years the military will be shooting 10mmx65 (opposed to the m16/m4 5.56mmx45) with fiber optic sights and motion/heat guided bullet. In other words, the scope on the AR will automatically sight the combination of motion and heat (probably a human) so bullets wont actually be guided but the scope i imagine with have a lil Green check mark in upper right hand corner to confirm to the solider that the sight is ranged and aimed on the heat/motion source (human). All the solider then has to do is pull a trigger. Doesn't matter the recoil, the first 2 bullets will definately kill any amoured person and probably go through walls (if he's hiding in a building) the bullets will also be some high-tech depleted urianum high explosive full metal jacket bullet !!!!! Also, the cannon on tanks will advance too, tanks will then be called M3A1 with 200mm x 1000 main cannon rounds !!!!!! good ole US will be always ontop! btw, how come the us standard issue AR isn't the OICW, dont give me some sh** about how it costs too much, freedom and solo world domination never cost too much !!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

no offense but that is pretty umm how should we say chicken. I dont hate wars i genearlly like them, but in this day and age its pretty stupid how people just are going to "point and click". I kinda feel like tony monata here in that you should have the balls to kill someone in the face if you are going to kill them. Yes i know politicians start wars, that is why i also think only politicians shoudl fight, =P. I think if wars are going to be faught, it should be with swords, samuri swords!! that would own, and everyone can watch if they want, wouldnt that own seeing saddam and bush going at it with samuri swords. And before the match they would have to wager something. Like saddam says i want newywork, then bush had to defend, and if bush defends he gets like *insert random town saddam owned*. That would be sweet. Not only would you get elected on your ability to lead a country, but wether you are the greatest warrior that would own~!
 
Dracknem said:
Only problem with railgun is that each shot ruins the rails at this point in time. That makes it a one shot gun. However, I would like to see a satellite turned into a giant railgun....that would be amusing. :-X
Click to expand...

Plus the fact that they require HUGE amounts of power.
 
DayUSeX said:
no offense but that is pretty umm how should we say chicken. I dont hate wars i genearlly like them, but in this day and age its pretty stupid how people just are going to "point and click". I kinda feel like tony monata here in that you should have the balls to kill someone in the face if you are going to kill them. Yes i know politicians start wars, that is why i also think only politicians shoudl fight, =P. I think if wars are going to be faught, it should be with swords, samuri swords!! that would own, and everyone can watch if they want, wouldnt that own seeing saddam and bush going at it with samuri swords. And before the match they would have to wager something. Like saddam says i want newywork, then bush had to defend, and if bush defends he gets like *insert random town saddam owned*. That would be sweet. Not only would you get elected on your ability to lead a country, but wether you are the greatest warrior that would own~!
Click to expand...

As a soldier I disagree with almost everything in your post, (although I appreciate the fact that you were probably in more of a joking mood than anything else). I don't want to fight with samurai swords, thank you. If I can have a rifle which can shoot my enemy through a building and never misses, I'll take that. Chances are my enemy will not be equiped with such a weapon and that will aid my chances of surviving a war, which is the only real concern a soldier in battle has.

To most of us this is our job. We're not characters in video games, we don't exist only to fight and we do not relish combat. We understand that we may be called on to fight, and possibly die at any time and we accept that because in order for people to have the freedoms they enjoy in this country, others must give up those same freedoms willingly. I for one will take any advantage made available to me and will fight, and live like a "*****" rather than die like Tony Montana.

I also do not want to be led by a warrior, (at least not ultimately, it's ok if my commanding officers are). Very little can be gained by war that cannot be won more easily and advantageously by other means. Defending your own territory and way of life against an aggressor is one thing, but you must be very cautious when taking the offensive... no matter how righteous your cause *appears* to be at the time. Soldiers, some of whom I know, are dying in Iraq every day and will continue to do so for some time to come. We're sending in many more to replace them in the months to come. We're going to be in Iraq for a long time and it's our responsibility to do so. Hindsight is 20/20 and going to war with Iraq certainly seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but it also illustrates my point that war often brings about greater problems than it solves.
 
the hague accords, not the geneva conventions, relegate weapons of war. no, the USA never signed on we just follow it as a basic guideline for political reasons. in small arms specificaly, the basic consideration is that explosive projectiles have to carry a minimum of a 2oz charge. this makes the .50bmg ok when conventional ammo is used and the larger calibers are good to go for explosive or fragnible rounds.
 
Band-aid said:
the hague accords, not the geneva conventions, relegate weapons of war. no, the USA never signed on we just follow it as a basic guideline for political reasons. in small arms specificaly, the basic consideration is that explosive projectiles have to carry a minimum of a 2oz charge. this makes the .50bmg ok when conventional ammo is used and the larger calibers are good to go for explosive or fragnible rounds.
Click to expand...

That too was my understanding, plus that a soldier cannot modify their ammo to hurt people.
 
I think most of the confusion comes from the general adherence of the US military to Geneva protocall and the contents of the Hague. this is due to the executive orders stating that we more or less must do so. if I recall, an executive order that says in a long winded round about way (ya know politicians) that we are going to follow this set of rules for as long as it suits us to do so. the executive orders also state that we are only under such obligations when engaging a Geneva party in a declared war, and for as long as that party adheres to the same rules. a declared war with a geneva party has not happened yet, so the rules of engagement that we follow in combat are our own.

as for the use of a .50, take a look at all of the armor on the field. both ours and thiers. that weapon on top of a tanks turret is a Browning M2 .50bmg or the soviet/chinese equevalent for the enemy. its purpose is to serve as anti-personel.
another thing is that either the hague or one of the geneva conventions purportedly outlawed the training and use of snipers, catagorizing them the same as spies and assassins. hasn't stopped any nation i know of from having snipers.
i could be a little off the mark because this former soldier has had his head knocked a few times, but thats my uderstanding from when it was laid out to me.
 
9mmCensor said:
The is one of my favoritesPhalanx Weapon System
phal-blk1b.gif
Click to expand...

a freind of mine told me that if you put a turkey on the end of a poll and stuck it infront of the phalanx weapons radar system it would cook it in about 30 seconds


they can hit a incoming missle with the profile of about a grapfruit thats just amazing


here is one thats not very powerfull but very "intresting"


coilgunpic.jpg



here is some more info on it
http://www.zzz.com.ru/


also as far as i know the only reason that rail guns are destoried when shot is becuase of the tremendous heat that is built up runing that much electrcity threw a serious of wires and magnets

ive hear of one model that starts the projectile out by shoting it out of a gun and then useing the head steart to use less power but that still has a one or 2 shot max

if we ever discover room tempature superconductors ( something like metalic hydrogen) then we will be able to shot with less resistance to electrcity and in turn less heat
 
Crash893 said:
a freind of mine told me that if you put a turkey on the end of a poll and stuck it infront of the phalanx weapons radar system it would cook it in about 30 seconds
Click to expand...

This is untrue. First off, I think he may have been talking about the radar part of the CWIS (or PHALANX) system, and the radar on it is not high-power enough. Now the CWI (Continuous Wave Illumination) radar puts out a couple hundred thousand watts of microwave radar energy (to be able to illuminate targets as far as 30 miles and beyond). That would cook a turkey in less than 5 seconds (if you didn't get cooked from being hit by the side-band radar output)

Crash893 said:
they can hit a incoming missle with the profile of about a grapfruit thats just amazing
Click to expand...

try the profile of a bumble-bee at 2 miles

Crash893 said:
here is one thats not very powerfull but very "intresting"
coilgunpic.jpg

Click to expand...

it is also the work of science fiction if you think it would work for hunting (or warfare) with anything short of a pickup truck full of batteries (unless they've come up with a backpack sized fusion generator that I haven't heard about yet.
 
If you look at the bottom of that gun, you can see a cord.
Also about those sniper rifles, I think most of them were sold to poachers so they can shoot elephants or rhinos at long range, or one shot kills :rolleyes:
 
actualy at the bottom is a little bolt thing that keeps it together

its actually charged at the back of the gun where your thumb touchs it
 
I don't know why ayone would want that huge 20mm sniper rifle honestly. You'd probably get more accuracy from a 8mm win mag or 7mm rem mag. That's only good for anti-vehicle, and if it's just you and your spotter I wouldn't be takin out vehicles that could could have a hell of lot more men inside or other vehicles around.

Also, when your in combat, it's almost always better to wound the enemy than it is to kill them. You kill em, there buddies will just get ****ed off and fight harder. You wound em, it's gonna take 1-3 men to carry them off the battlefied. A vehicle/helicopter to transport em away, an aid station to take care of them, you still have to feed them and give them water....see what I mean, your gonna want to wound thier men and make them retreat rather than wipe them all out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back