Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ future weapons

Posted by: Prime Mover Dec 25 2006, 03:59 PM

Future weapons show on discovery, first season was ok not much had'nt seen before but new season starting Jan 15 looks like might be interesting, some sneak peeks and preview commercial.
readyaimfuture.com

Posted by: Fortune Dec 26 2006, 01:47 AM

http://www.readyaimfuture.com for the cut-n-paste impaired.

Posted by: TheOneRonin Dec 26 2006, 04:03 AM

I spent some time on the website and watched a few of the video clips. Very little of the stuff there is "new" for those of us who follow such things. Also, take the anouncer's statements with a grain of salt...

In the video about the Tavor, he calls the M-16 a "machine gun" and says that the Tavor is "...as accurate as a sniper rifle".

Although, I will say that a standing(un-supported) shot with a 5.56mm unscoped rifle at a 300 meter man-sized target is a tough one. Still not exactly sure he made that and didn't just fool us with camera trickery.

Nonetheless, it's a interesting site, and seeing shit get shot/blown-up is always entertaining.

<edit> Just read that the host is a supposed ex-navy SEAL. If that's true, the 300 meter standing shot is more plausible. </edit>

Posted by: TheRedRightHand Dec 26 2006, 04:41 AM

I remember watching one episode of this show that was showing these electrical guns, called "Steelthunder" or something like that. No, normal triggers, but it was electrical impulses that fires the metal slugs out of the gun, one bullet right after the other. It didn't hold much ammo, but it could fire off all 6(?) bullets in a fraction of a second. No recoil. It was amazing. Just blew targets apart with all 6 shots hitting the exact same spot almost instantly.

They also showed large scale version of the technology, used as morter fire and from tanks and planes. It was insane how accurate and powerful these guns were.

If the show was accurate then the stuff were are using in SR right now is nothing compared to what would actually be available by that time in the real world.

Posted by: Fortune Dec 26 2006, 04:49 AM

You're thinking of the MetalStorm technology.

Posted by: TheRedRightHand Dec 26 2006, 05:00 AM

QUOTE (Fortune)

You're thinking of the MetalStorm technology.

That's it! I knew it was something like that. Steelthunder, Metalstorm... I was close.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 26 2006, 05:03 AM

http://www.metalstorm.com/index.php?src=

Its interesting though that some of the videos they used to have are no longer present. Though they've got a few new ones now. It's been a while since I've been to the site, and that tractored 4 barreled GL drone is new to me at least. Used to be they had vids of them firing off a 20 barreled GL at various RPM levels up to something stupid crazy like 1,000,000 (All barrels had 4 grenades, the last setting was just one big ringing from the barrels basically)

Posted by: Draug Dec 26 2006, 05:05 AM

Isn't there some sort of weapons in the Cannon Companion which sort of represent this? Twice as many bulles in bursts and full auto, or something?

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 26 2006, 05:11 AM

Not that I'm aware of.

I remember when they first started playing around with the technology they had this one gun that fired 8 barrels at once. They had a 9mm and .45 version I belive. There was also a rumored .50 cal 20 barrel version that was ment to be an anti tank trap. The real problem with the current system is that, save for it's use as an artillery piece (Which is why I at least belive they switched soley over to a GL version) purely becuase it works on that whole 'stacked round' principle. Infact thats really the only reason far as I can tell why it can get a totally crazy ROF. So really you wind up with a very limited ammo payload, or you put in an ammo feed and you cut the maximum obtainable ROF by 3/4ths or so (They seem to generally go with a stack of 4 rounds per barrel)

Posted by: Slump Dec 26 2006, 06:34 AM

QUOTE (Jarl)

Isn't there some sort of weapons in the Cannon Companion which sort of represent this? Twice as many bulles in bursts and full auto, or something?

You're thinking of the Ultravelocity (or something similar)

Yeah, bursts were 6-round, and they couldn't take barrel mods.

They also got like 1 or 2 points of recoil redux for going ultravelocity.

Posted by: SL James Dec 26 2006, 07:31 AM

QUOTE (Jarl)

Isn't there some sort of weapons in the Cannon Companion which sort of represent this? Twice as many bulles in bursts and full auto, or something?

Nope.

QUOTE (SR4 @ 307)

Yamaha Sakura Fubuki: The "Cherry-blossom Storm" is the flagship for Yamaha's new line of electronic weapons that feature no moving parts. Rather than a standard magazine, the bullets are stacked in-line in each of the four barrels, allowing the firing of ultra-fast short bursts. The Fubuki may only fire narrow bursts (not wide), but burst recoil is handled like SA recoil (-1 Recoil on the second burst each Action Phase only). Includes an integral folding stock.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 26 2006, 09:34 AM

Ah yeah the Sakura is really the actual representation of that. Though if your refering to pure ROF then the ultra velocity stuff would be it. Though that stuff doesnt have an electronic firing mechanism.

Their just a really fast MG basically. If I recall correctly there was some sort of MG in WWII that never got used too much because it had a totally crazy ROF (For a MG of it's time). Was built initially for AA use. I think it had an ROF of like 4,000 RPM where an average MG is like 1000-2000? Been ages since I read up on that stuff though, all I recall is that it had two to three times the ROF of the average MG even by todays standards.

Posted by: Draug Dec 26 2006, 07:42 PM

And why didn't they use that MG too much? Nazi-Germany never really cared about cost-efficiency anyway.

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 26 2006, 08:33 PM

I have no idea which MG that might be.

The MG42, which was designed to replace the MG34 in most roles, normaly fired 1200 rpm, some where built to fire up to 1800 rpm. Which is pretty fast for a normal MG with a single barrel. (btw, the MG42 was cheaper and easier to manufacture than the MG34).

(the MG3 had 1200 rpm also, but since it's essentially a MG42 rebuild to use the 7,62 Nato that's not really surprising).

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Dec 26 2006, 08:43 PM

A conventional machine gun firing at 4,000rpm, if it were possible considering the limitations of the belt feed and ejection cycle, would overheat its barrel pretty damn quick. Gatling guns then not having yet made a comeback, it was common in WW2 to slap together 2-4 machine guns or automatic cannons for use as anti-aircraft weapons. 2 MG42s on a single AA mount makes for a combined RoF of around 2400rpm, where a single US GPMG of the period, i.e. an M1919, has a cyclic RoF of 400-600rpm.

The MG42 (as well as the modern 7.62x51mm NATO version thereof, the MG3) does have almost 3 times the cyclic rate of fire of many old Maxim-style MGs and about twice that of the M2HB HMG or the M60 GPMG.

Posted by: Kesslan Dec 27 2006, 04:27 AM

QUOTE (Jarl)

And why didn't they use that MG too much? Nazi-Germany never really cared about cost-efficiency anyway.

Well as Austere mentinoed the heating was an issue (It was a big issue with the aircooled MG42 as well for that matter). And ammo was a big one.

The MG42 sucks up ammo at a tremendous rate. You have to keep in mind that MGs are generally ment to be infantry portable. Your average infantryman can only carry so much ammo.

At least in the past an MG Crew was -techncially- made up of five people. This is mostly because of how much ammo the MGs sucked up over a period of time. It is still a limitation to this day. As for the MG itself I'll have to dig through my books on old WWII weaponry and see if I can find the damn thing.

The main thing I recall about it is that it mostly didnt see use because it was impractical. Other very useful guns, didnt see much use because they were expensive/time consuming to make and by the point they were invented, Germany was loosing the war.

The paratrooper rifle comes to mind. As I understand it they were actually very well designed weapons but were only produced in the low thousands. Nazi Germany cared a great deal about efficency actually. It was as far as I can tell, really Hitler and his insanities that caused alot of the problems. Apparently the very heavy reliance on sort of so called 'assault gun' tanks, that being the ones with the fixed turrets. Totally ammazing armor on the front. Shit armor everywehre else.

They really should have concentrated on building Panzers, Tigers and King Tigers. Those three tanks alone were notorious in WWII for shrugging off hit after hit from allied tank guns. There's some other oddities (such as the tank at the bottom of this page: http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p6.html )

Then there were some other... inteersting but ultimately failed anti tank ideas. The Germans at one point had these remote controled bombs that supposedly you'd drive under an enemy tank and detonate. It basically looked like a tiny tank with no guns. But the real downside was of course, there was no real armor, just a metal casing, and due to the weight they would get stuck in the mud very easily. They were also apparently quite slow, easily spotted and taken out with a 9mm or .45 handgun which apparently alot of allied tankers carried.

Also in the name of 'effiecncy' some wako came up with the idea of piloted V2 rockets. They only ever wound up making about 100 of them and scrapped the idea. Afterall even though the pilot would survive (By bailing out) they wouldnt be getting him back since he'd be comming down over Britan and.. well I'm sure nto all of them would survive at the hands of the civilians they just bombed.

The Japanese used a similar concept with kamakazi guided torpedoes. All in all there's some really wierd crap that came out of WWII

Posted by: Butterblume Dec 27 2006, 10:51 PM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

They really should have concentrated on building Panzers, Tigers and King Tigers. Those three tanks alone were notorious in WWII for shrugging off hit after hit from allied tank guns.

You do realize Nazi Germany run out of fuel before they run out of panzers?

Up to that point, it made sense to rig the next generation PAK (Panzer Abwehr Kanone, anti-tank gun) onto the last generation tank chassis, and weld armor plates to the front. A Jagdtiger, the Panzerjäger (tank destroyer) variant of the Tiger tank, cost about a third of the Tiger.

Nazi germany had a lot of future weapons or at least superior weapons in their arsenal, but mostly not enough to matter.

Posted by: SL James Dec 28 2006, 01:21 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

All in all there's some really wierd crap that came out of WWII

Indeed. My Tank Is Fight is all about wacky WW2-era weapons.

Posted by: Lord Ben Dec 28 2006, 01:31 AM

Panzer V's, Panthers, took like 1/3rd less labor hours to build or something. And were more reliable and manuverable.

Tigers were nice, but since they were so big and heavy they broke down often and also would sink into wet ground much easier.

Their reputation is also increased because the veteran crews manned the Tigers, a unit full of veteran crews would do very well in nearly any tank.

Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 18 2007, 05:27 AM

I'm not saying Machowicz wasn't really a SEAL, but he reminds more of what USA Network/Sci-Fi network says SEALs are like then the (admittedly few) ex-SEALs I have met.

I also wish I didn't find myself saying "Well, that's not _completely_ right." so often with a show hosted by an ex-SEAL.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 07:37 AM

QUOTE (Ed_209a)

Thats largely because it's 'pumped up' claims. Not exactly untrue.. but not exactly true either in some of the cases. It's like the whole smartbomb thing. There's all this heavy press about how accurate they are, how they never miss etc. Yet in actual use, they've missed at least a few times by a rather wide margin for something thats supposedly 'allways on target'.

But you just about never actually hear about those cases. Also allot of this tech presented as 'the latest greatest' isnt really. It's at best either stuff thats been around for a little while or simply 'improved' versions of a much older technology. Such as the metalstorm system presented. When it first came out they had all sorts of ideas on how it would work, could be applied. They wanted to use with with things like assault rifles etc. But.. it just isnt really practical the way the tech is setup to work. The handgun modle they have might be abit more workable, but even with that I'm more than a touch skeptical.

And for example with the M32 grenade launcher. The only thing really 'new' ish about that is perhaps the scope and how quiet it is when firing. Multi shot grenade launchers like those have been around a good long while. And there's alot of other systems they didnt touch uppon like eh.. I cant recall the weapons designation right now but it's that assaultrifle/20mm grenade launcher combo that you can apparently pull appart, program the grenades detonation range with etc and has all sorts of other gismoes on it.

That was announced years ago. And it still has alot of issues with it. I remember one apparent ex SF guy stating that he'd tried one out and it just had so many 'settings' to fiddle with that it was totally impractical.

Of course the other reason is that when stuff finally starts being billed to the public as 'ultra tech' weapons. It's only the info thats not still under wraps, and it's often, also definately not 'bleeding edge' technology but rather something thats been around a few years now. I'm sure all the really cool prototypes are still wraped up under oodles of redtape and secrecy.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 18 2007, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

I cant recall the weapons designation right now but it's that assaultrifle/20mm grenade launcher combo that you can apparently pull appart, program the grenades detonation range with etc and has all sorts of other gismoes on it.

The XM29 OICW. No longer a "future weapon", since the program responsible for it was canceled in late 05.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 09:11 AM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (Kesslan)

The XM29 OICW. No longer a "future weapon", since the program responsible for it was canceled in late 05.

AH yeah there we go. And while it might technically no longer be a 'future weapon' it sorta.. is in a way. Alot of it's features just arnt practical now. But what about say.. in another 20 years?

Lasers technically arnt a 'future weapon' anymore either. THey currently -are- a weapon. But a laser pistol would sure as hell be a 'future weapon' afterall. Since.. far as I know at least those dont exist yet in weaponized form at least.

It's still interesting to see what they do with some of this stuff though. I also find it interesting that dispite constant attempts over.. what? About 20-30+ years now? That they keep trying to go over to caseless weapons. Yet the metal cartridge is still, and will remainf or the forseable future the cartridge of choice.

Mostly becasue their just compartively so damn durable I'm sure, even if you can get a higher ammo capacity out of the same volume of space as I understand it.

I dunno. To some I suppose 'Future Weaponry' such as that presented with the show only applies to stuff that is now currently marketable technology. No longer purely in the development stage. Where as to me, 'Future Weaponry' more implies the stuff thats technically possible, just not perhaps currently feasable untill further technological improvements are made. I mean... dear lord. Look at the first tanks compared to what we have now. The very first ones were pertty much just litterally mobile steam driven pillboxes with machineguns.

Now their Depleated Uranium encased monsters of destruction, speed and agility. Fully capable of fighting in day or night time conditions and all sorts of weather. Even if they still have various faults here and there.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 18 2007, 09:20 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

Yet the metal cartridge is still, and will remainf or the forseable future the cartridge of choice.

Polymer cases might make an impact, at least in the military, in the foreseeable future. But cased cartridges are certainly not going away any time soon.

The fire control and airbursting capabilities of the XM29 shouldn't take 20 years to make feasible for the average rifleman and grenadier, depending mostly on the development of batteries, but I'm not sure how much can be done about the combination of an effective, long range rifle with a large capacity repeating grenade launcher with serious anti-personnel and anti-armor capability.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 09:34 AM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (Kesslan)

Yet the metal cartridge is still, and will remainf or the forseable future the cartridge of choice.

Well as I mentioned earlier one comment I'd at least heard that part of the problem was also all the damned settings you had to make to the thing. Which is abit more involved an issue. Airbursting itself isnt really much of a hard to solve issue. It's timing those airbursts. So yeah if your using an electronic system like that batteries are still a big issue.

I was also given to understand that the thing was not only rather bulky (it certainly looks it) but also rather heavy.

As to the launcher itself.. take away all the other crap. Assume the grenades detonate on contact instead of timed airbursts and such. Was that really much of an issue beyond bulk? From what I understood the XM29's grenades really just ran a gamut of munition types. AP and AI varieties. Just load the type needed. Which you have to do anyway with any ammo. I mean it, to me -seemed- relatively workable. Course I've never actually handled one much less seen the real thing. And pictures dont allways give you a good idea of the weight and bulk of a weapon.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 18 2007, 10:02 AM

If a simple, intuitive interface couldn't be done in 2005, I can't think of any technological development that would allow one soon-ish. They'll just have to cut down on options, keep it down to a few simple settings, and so on. But I never read up too much on how, exactly, the fire control computer on the XM29 functioned, nor how the equivalent systems function in similar projects like the FN F2000 and the various national military programs.

QUOTE (Kesslan)

I was also given to understand that the thing was not only rather bulky (it certainly looks it) but also rather heavy.

Absolutely. AFAIK, the last protos weighed ~7kg/15.5lbs empty, compared to ~5.5kg/12lbs of a loaded M16A2/M203. That's what happens when you slap a long barreled 20mm repeating grenade launcher onto an assault rifle carbine and top it off with a large fire control system and batteries.

The problems with having the combination I mentioned above have mostly to do with exactly size and weight. Having both a long barreled rifle and a long barreled grenade launcher in the same weapon, with two receivers for two automatically cycling weapons and two large magazines means you've got one massive gun.

You'll notice that most of the similar projects currently ongoing only use single-shot 40mm grenade launchers, or a 3-shot Metal Storm 40mm launcher in case of the Australian AICW.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 10:30 AM

Yeah. So far the Metalstorm solution seems to me like it would be the best one. Its... abit of a bitch for changing out ammo when you need to do so quickly however. Shit htis the fan i think the last thing you want to do is swap out several HE for HEAP. And at the asme time you dont really want to limit yourself to just one munition type.

Still ath 15.5 vs 12lbs thats only 3.5lbs more. Thats.. not a huge difference really. Though I can well imagine it might make enough of one to count for something. Also didnt the XM29 have a 50 round caseless mag capacity vs the techcnially 30 or so you get from a typical assault rifle? And something like a 6 round 20mm mag?

NOt to mention you can quickly swap out the grenade mag for what ever one is needed at the time thats a pretty powerful option.

If it works.

Hell.. dump all that computerized shit. Throw on a regular sight. How well will it work then I wonder? Should probaly also loose some weight now that you dont have the batteries and such to worry about.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 18 2007, 10:39 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

Its... abit of a bitch for changing out ammo when you need to do so quickly however.

If the barrel swapping is made easy, it shouldn't take much longer than changing magazines on the XM29 launcher, or indeed reloading an M203.

QUOTE (Kesslan)

Also didnt the XM29 have a 50 round caseless mag capacity vs the techcnially 30 or so you get from a typical assault rifle? And something like a 6 round 20mm mag?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM29

QUOTE (Kesslan)

How well will it work then I wonder?

Without the reliable, accurate airbursting munitions, the 20mm high explosive rounds would have performed quite poorly in the anti-personnel role, which would have seriously gimped the overall effectiveness of the system.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 10:51 AM

Hmm fair enough. I allways thought the use of the 20mm was a touch small. But what the hell do I know about explosives? Not much

As for barrel swapping. Does the AICW actulaly just have a swappable launcher barrel then? Slip one barrel off slip another one into place on the trigger mechanism or something? Cause yeah if thats the case not much time difference at all. At the most it wouldnt take any moer time than say.. fitting a bayonette. Which is actually something alot of firearms are phasing out. Dispite their continued occasional usefuleness. Such as that one incident a while back where some british soldiers in Iraq had to fix bayonettes for some reason or other. Worked damn well for them then apparently. I recall some blurb in the paper at the time about it. Though to be honest I dont follow -too- much of what goes on over in the Middle East these days. It's really just more of the same.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 18 2007, 11:08 AM

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl18-e.htm
It must have a swappable barrel. Current Metal Storm weapons cannot be reloaded on the field in any other way.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 18 2007, 11:12 AM

Huh.. as a top mount too. Though I suppose on the Styr thats the only way to go. If it wasnt for the offest scope I'd wonder where the hell they'd put the sights. Seems.. kinda awkward to me though. Wonder how well it actually works when it comes to weapon balance.

Posted by: Ed_209a Jan 18 2007, 04:39 PM

I could see a metalstorm GL reloading exactly like one of those 40mm GLs that pivot to the side. Open the action, insert barrel, close action.

Hmm I wonder if you could do exactly that. Package a metalstorm system that can literally be loaded as an extra-long round in a 40mm GL.

Posted by: Butterblume Jan 18 2007, 05:10 PM

QUOTE (Ed_209a)

I think that's how it works. If you look closely at the picture at the link austere emancipator provided, you can see where it can be opened at the end (somehow it can't exactly translate what I mean, exactly

). Instead of to the side, you open it upwards.

I never found out if you have to change the whole barrel or only the rear part (the part where the grenades are in, kind of like a magazine). I think the second, but I'm not sure.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 05:18 AM

Well if you look at the theorized metalstorm handgun they use a rear loading system. There's this tube that holds the rounds that you stuff into the back of the handgun. So if their figguring that sort of system will work it's quite likely to work in a similar way for a grenade launcher. I mean for it to be quickly changeable -something- has to stay anchored to the rifle afterall so you can just lock in some quick change part.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 19 2007, 08:41 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

Well if you look at the theorized metalstorm handgun they use a rear loading system. There's this tube that holds the rounds that you stuff into the back of the handgun.

Those "tubes" being the barrels. The http://www.chrisdiclerico.com/2005/12/29/odwyer-vle/ clearly breaks open on a hinge and is reloaded by removing and replacing full barrels. In all the pictures I've seen of the http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/images/20031026T060000-0500_50737_OBS_A__SMART_GUN__THAT_ONLY_AUTHORISED_USERS_CAN_FIRE__1.jpg, the barrels are still quite obviously single units which very strongly suggests a similar method of reloading.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 08:51 AM

So basically its just one barrel loaded inside of another. Ehh.. grit would be a bitch in a case like that I'd think. Though I suppose you could do something to the actual eh.. well I don tknow what the hell you'd call it. It isnt really a magazine well but it is on the handgun that they did with the magazine slot on the Uzi apparently. Which was put in these groves for any grit (like sand) to be pushed away into. Or there's some sorta setup like that or so I've read in several books.

You'd deifnately need some sort of easy to grab and pull on end piece to the gunbarrel or sleve what ever you want to call it that he rounds are loaded into. Overall I just.. really don tsee that as being terribly practical if you cant field load the munitions.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jan 19 2007, 09:29 AM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

So basically its just one barrel loaded inside of another.

Well, no. It's a barrel inside a barrel-holder.

The barrel doesn't have to fit in perfectly with zero tolerance, it can just be slid in and locked into place. If you get +/- 2 MoA zero shifts in reloading it, no worries, a Metal Storm gun is too inaccurate to bother with something like that.

QUOTE (Kesslan)

You'd deifnately need some sort of easy to grab and pull on end piece to the gunbarrel or sleve what ever you want to call it that he rounds are loaded into.

From http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1200/1218.htm, it seems that either the barrels automatically protrude slightly from the rear of the receiver when it is flipped up on the hinges or else they can be very easily made to protrude so as to allow quick swapping. However it's made, there can be a simple switch that will release the barrel and make it easy to remove.

QUOTE (Kesslan)

Overall I just.. really don tsee that as being terribly practical if you cant field load the munitions.

You can field swap barrels. At some point in the (near?) future, it might be possible to swap only the rear part of the barrel where the cartridges are. Loading rounds into a barrel in field conditions is not going to happen without massive changes into how the weapon operates, as discussed in several threads about the Sakura Fubuki.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 19 2007, 09:47 AM

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)

QUOTE (Kesslan)

Overall I just.. really don tsee that as being terribly practical if you cant field load the munitions.

Which.. really just holds the point up even more. I mean its a good and for some things practical idea. But if your going into an all out war who really has the advantage here? The guy who can load rounds into his mags or the guy who has to buy replacement barrels pre-loaded from the factory?

Not to mention that if you can reload the mags that means that if you only have one or tw rounds left per mag you can combine them all neatly into one fully loaded magazine. Which.. is not something you can readily do with this system. To me thats a pretty serious negative right there when your in a situation where your really desperate for ammo.

Still.. in cases where thats not really an issue.. such as say law enforcement thats a pretty decent if not quite as cost effective an application I supose.

Posted by: kigmatzomat Jan 19 2007, 05:13 PM

QUOTE (Kesslan)

I mean its a good and for some things practical idea. But if your going into an all out war who really has the advantage here? The guy who can load rounds into his mags or the guy who has to buy replacement barrels pre-loaded from the factory?

That's the basic problem to MetalStorm. In a way it's like some of the better Nazi designs that were military failures because there wasn't the material or manufacturing back-end to let enough be built despite being highly efficient and effective.

MS will almost definitely make its way onto Phalanx systems if it hasn't already. It may also make for multi-use anti-personnel charges on vehicles. It could be valuable for some aircraft, possibly gunship weapon pods where you would trade the mass/volume of the ammo handling system for increased capacity.

MetalStorm in the hands of infantry ...... Nahh, not so much. Ammo management is a pain, the supply line is limited, cross-loading is out, and I wonder about ammo cook-off in destroyed vehicles in combat.

Posted by: Kesslan Jan 20 2007, 04:23 AM

Well ammo cookoff in destroyed vehicles is going to be pretty much the same anyway. Just look at the Bradley, or alot of the tanks that go up when destroyed.

Your mention of gunships does however make a great deal of sense however. I mean as I understand it most of those weapon pods can very quickly be removed so you can swap out fully loaded pods on the pad and it can jump right back into the fight while reloading crews deal with reloading the spent pods for the next chopper.

Some aircraft weapon pods might benifit from it as well, but not so much I think. I suppose ultimately it would work well enough in any properly established base to a reasonable degree. But the moment any such base starts to feel a serious logistics squeeze it could become a problem. Then again.. I suppose most bases these days are flat out wasted or abandoned before they ever get to that kinda point.