Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
This will be a thread devoted to people who have ideas or suggestions to improve the hardware of the military (U.S. or otherwise).
What about having some anti-crowd capability instead of only lethal?
For example, shots coming from a housing complex, the ability to fire tear gas mortar or RPG rounds instead of only using lethal force? Not uncommonly the insurgents hide in populated buildings, knowing that civilian casualties will be blamed on the USA
Commanche deemed not a priority - sure it looks cool, but the Army's not interested in it. The Apache is filling that role fine for them, and the Cobra on the USMC side... with the AH-1Z slowly being brought online.This will be a thread devoted to people who have ideas or suggestions to improve the hardware of the military (U.S. or otherwise). First thought, GET THE FREAKIN COMMANCHE INTO SERVICE ALREADY!!! Ok, now that the random thought is out, would a 6.8mm or 6.5mm round married to a 7.62mm shell make any good points? I think it would be large enough to not be destroyed by the extra power, and it would probably have more punch that the normal 5.56mmX45. Make anti-armor weapons more portable, not just for the sake of knocking out armor, but also for when the infantry NEEDS fire to blow something up and air support or tanks can't reach them for a little bit. A good example of how portable I'm thinking would be the LAW....If the US military can some how shrink a weapon to that size, or just a bit bigger, and make it functional, it would DEFINITELY help. These are just a few of my ideas, and I probably have a few more that I've forgotten and need to remember, so lets hear all of your ideas, suggestions, thoughts, etc.
In that instance, the use of non-deadly force in such a manner is not tactically sound. There are various forms of non-lethal weapons, such as shotguns firing bean bags, rubber bullets, and more technical weapons like mentioned below.What about having some anti-crowd capability instead of only lethal?
For example, shots coming from a housing complex, the ability to fire tear gas mortar or RPG rounds instead of only using lethal force? Not uncommonly the insurgents hide in populated buildings, knowing that civilian casualties will be blamed on the USA
High freq sound devices and microwave radiation are showing much promise.
Robotics are changing warfare forever
Portable anti-armor weapons that can say bust bunkers and concrete... check out the SMAW. It is in the process of being upgraded now too.
Obviously, leathal or non-leathal will be welcome in this thread, its more about what we thing the militaries should be upgrading/changing/implementing.
I'm thinking something more along the lines of folding up or collapsing for storage so that almost every soldier could carry one, instead of being a crew served weapon.
In that instance, the use of non-deadly force in such a manner is not tactically sound.
Why not? If you could blast a few TG rounds into the building it would perhaps flush out the snipers, but would at least interfere with their accuracy would it not?
What is the S.O.P. when you have a squad surrounding a large building in which there are a few snipers and suspected 12 - 40 {supposedly innocent} civilians, probably hostages? If the snipers have a dominating field of fire in all directions?
I would agree. I'm increasing concerned with the troubling notion of fighting a war where the Order of Battle is dictated by nobody getting hurt. At some point in time somebody has to stand up and say, look we can't outfit every US warrior with $1M of non-lethal "weapons", when every enemy combatant carries $200 worth of highly lethal weaponry. At some point it has to be recognized that the cost benefit equation just doesn't add up.
Perhaps I'm thinking of the wrong anti-armor weapon as an example. I was trying to refer to the collapsing one used by US forces in Vietnam. I think it was either 66mm or 70mm caliber.Like what - a leatherman anti-armor knife?
I'm thinking that if somebody is trying to kill you, a soldier should be able to kill back. I know that we are trying not to hurt people but I don't think its worth it to put American soldiers in danger.