How much is TOO much?
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: How much is TOO much?

  1. #1
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,658

    How much is TOO much?

    Check out this from CNN and this from Popular Science Magazine.

    Hey...the firefighting system sounds like it rocks (second link) but a million rounds (from 36 barrels) of lead a minute sounds just a weeeee bit extreme to me.

    Hmmmmm......on the other hand, the 'possum that frequents my garbage can would disintegrate in less than what....2 or 3 seconds??


    Shee-et....wtf would a million rounds a minute SOUND like anyway??
    Al
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...

  2. #2
    Senior Member Zonewalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    949
    it sounds like a very very loud bang (seen a number of programmes on this thing) - you can't really tell the individual bullets coming out - the sound just merges into one. And as for the squirrel - it'll disintegrate in a lot less than 2-3 seconds...

    to be honest though...I do wonder about the effectiveness (or maybe the efficiency) of the million round/minute gun... the amount of bullets it fires is just like a wall of lead coming out.... but 200 bullets would kill 20 people just as much as a million bullets would. To my eyes it's just a 'looky here we can fire this many bullets aren't we hard' kind of thing - interesting from the technical aspects etc but complete overkill in practical terms

    just my two penneth anyway

    Z
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

  3. #3
    Disgruntled Postal Worker fourdc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    797
    Most US Navy ships have a "Gattling Gun" defense against cruise missles. I forget how many rounds it fires. The bullets have cut ends, not rounded, so that they tumble. Basically the missle is reduced to confetti as it flies through the flak.
    ddddc

    "Somehow saying I told you so just doesn't cover it" Will Smith in I, Robot

  4. #4
    Senior Member Zonewalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    949
    on the other hand.... now I have had a little think - I can see the use of the gun as a last line anti missile weapon - and I think it'd be pretty good for that use (though may be not one I'd want to rely on)

    Z
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    201
    a million rounds (from 36 barrels) of lead a minute sounds just a weeeee bit extreme to me.
    Actually, what such an impressive amount of firepower does, more than anything else, is create a deterrent effect. It's another thing to impress upon the world that the US is a military superpower, akin to the effect of the ludacris amount of nuclear weapons we have. Truthfully - can there be any purpose to having an arsenal large enough to kill the planet x3? Once is sufficient I'm sure. But the more weapons we have, and the stronger they appear, the more of a deterrent these weapons are. And deterrence is my favorite use for any weapon.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    300
    I would love to shoot that gun wow!.....Think of the insanity!



    Adiz

  7. #7
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Adiz....................think of the co$t of the ammo

    The weapon is a defensive tool against aircraft and cruise missiles. Current rotary cannon have a cyclic rate of fire of about 6,000 rpm. Missiles take time to achieve target lock and can be seduced by the attacker's ECM systems.

    With a rate of fire of this magnitude you can engage and destroy far more targets in a given timespan than more conventional weapons? As it is a "bullet gun" you would have to interfere with it's TADS to avoid destruction.

    I am sure we have all seen footage of attacks on Iraq.............the AAA fire seems quite lazy? this will put up a total wall, which would be most discouraging?

    It could also have the potential to destroy "smart" ordnance and incoming sheels. The British Sea Wolf missile used in the Falklands could intercept a 4.5" shell, and that is very old technology these days?

    Cheers

  8. #8
    Senior Member DeadAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,583
    I guess what ever the target is they want to fire at is going to become swiss cheese or better yet they just want to totally turn it into little bite size pieces so when other people look at it they are going to ask "What the hell was it before you shot it to hell?" Or It could be just a power trip for bragging rights.

  9. #9
    Senior Member nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    DeadAddict,

    This was a problem we had over here during the Blitz of WWII. We used a standard 3.7" AA gun that fired single shells which would explode at a given altitude.

    If you hit a bomber, the chances were you got it, its bomb load, and its fuel land on you rather than just the bombs. If you missed the nosecone would come down at near terminal velocity and do damage as well.

    You need to totally wipe out a cruise missile, or it will just plough on and damage its target anyway. If you reduce it to very small bits, they won't do much damage even if they do get through?

    Cheers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •