Ironworks Gaming Forum

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=28)
-   -   HOLY CRAP MAN!!! (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88355)

Son of Osiris 11-02-2003 10:50 PM

Before the Iraq War, the Alchemists at the Pentagon came out with an Environmentally friendly nuclear weapon called a MOAB. A weapon so powerful, that even the people watching the blasts on TV fall out of their chairs!

A few months after, they created Metal Storm. A gun that fires 1,000,000 rounds per minute! A MILLION ROUNDS PER MINUTE!!! You don't even have time to say "Oh Sh*t!" You'd be gone! They'd have to sweep what's left of you into a dust pan and put your remains in a mayonase jar!

In October, 2003, the United States and Israel created a Rail Gun that could knock missiles out of the air. If you don't know what a Rail gun is, it's A REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BIG LASER CANNON WITH A BAD ATTITUDE!!!

What's next for Modern Warfare?

Firestormalpha 11-02-2003 11:02 PM

Whackmiester, while I am concerned with the disgusting amount of cash that goes into weapons research I must inform you that a rail gun is not a laser. It is, at least in concept, an array of electro magnets that accelerates a metal projectile to extremely high speeds. It's also referred to as a mass driver cannon. Oh yeah, what's the purpose of a gun firing bullets at 1,000,000 rounds per minute? Is this anti-personel weaponry or anti-vehicle weaponry?

Stormymystic 11-02-2003 11:11 PM

I will say it again..are you out of your damn mind?

Azimaith 11-02-2003 11:34 PM

The rail gun needs to fire tons of ammo for to shoot down missiles probably, plus its supposed to be powerful enough to intercept missiles in flight.

Wouldn't you much rather have a MOAB being researched as an alternative to the hydrogen bomb? It doesn't leave a thousand year radioactivity so why should be bitch that were getting non-nuclear weapons?

Firestormalpha 11-03-2003 12:05 AM

Azi, why are you making such a big deal about it? The Rail gun only needs one shot to be deadly, against anything. It's the Metal storm the fires countless rounds of ammo. For what reason I don't know. You could easily fire fewer rounds, be just as deadly and save money on ammo in the process. As far as MOAB. Kudos on the more ecologically sound weapon of mass destruction, but in the end it still just destroys. War is an unnecessary side effect of world leaders who think they have something to prove. Sometimes they do, and sometimes its just an over-inflated ego.

SecretMaster 11-03-2003 12:18 AM

As much as I hate to say this, war is necessary. And you really can't have world peace, because there is always that one person wanting conflict. It is the sad sad truth behind humanity. The only good thing i see about war is that we learn from it.

Intrepid 11-03-2003 01:37 AM

a metal storm that shoots 1 million rounds a minute is used for intercepting misiles especially approaching a ship,it can fire that many bullets because it has many barrels, it is not used for anti personal purposes. Although it could be usefull when used on annoying blackbirds. And that "safe" nuclear weapon had the nickname "daisy cutter", because instead of causing a spherical blast zone it creats a shockwave that travels along the ground destroying buildings and other stuff on the ground etc.
I have no idea what will be next, possibly germ but they have had germ warefare for well over 50 years so now with genetic engineering etc, they may be able to do something more powerfull
.....scary thought.

Intrepid 11-03-2003 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMaster:
The only good thing i see about war is that we learn from it.
yeah the romans etc had sword battles, since then we have learnt to make nukes, wow aren't we humans smart, we learn to kill ourselves faster and on a larger scale. (not flaming you, just the human race in genral)

Azimaith 11-03-2003 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Firestormalpha:
Azi, why are you making such a big deal about it? The Rail gun only needs one shot to be deadly, against anything. It's the Metal storm the fires countless rounds of ammo. For what reason I don't know. You could easily fire fewer rounds, be just as deadly and save money on ammo in the process. As far as MOAB. Kudos on the more ecologically sound weapon of mass destruction, but in the end it still just destroys. War is an unnecessary side effect of world leaders who think they have something to prove. Sometimes they do, and sometimes its just an over-inflated ego.
Scuse me? First off, a rail gun fired against a person would not always be deadly, dependant on the kind and size of the projectile. Even if it hits at 100 times the speed of a chemical exposion propelled bullet if it goes right through it runs the risk of a deadly richchet to friendlies and it won't do enough damage. Its not 1 hit deadly against everything. Maybe you play to many FPS's.

Once again dependant on what your shooting and what projectile your using. If your trying to shoot down a missile i'm sorry but one bullet might not do the job, by firing thousands of rounds they can fill the area with bullets maximizing the chance of hitting and destroying that missile. You can't just fire less rounds and hope that it destroys it. Its does its job of tearing its target apart. This is why they mount multibarrel vulcans on planes they also use them on helicopters to kill tanks, they're just good at their job.

War is an unecessary side effect of world leaders? I think its more along the lines of its a side effect of being human. No offense but that line sounds rather naive. It would seem to me as the population on the earth gets larger wars will become more and more common, not only is there a battle for scarce resources but also the clashing of cultures and conflicting interests. War is inevitable so long as populations of people come into contact with one another.

Skunk 11-03-2003 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Whackmiester :

What's next for Modern Warfare?

Arnold Schwarzenegger as President :eek:

Ziroc 11-03-2003 05:55 AM

Speaking of high powered rounds.... [img]smile.gif[/img]

My friend, the P-90.

http://www.ironworksforum.com/hosted/iwrank_p90.gif

Stratos 11-03-2003 06:21 AM

Here's some info on a rail gun project at Auburn University, including what it is and how it works.

The Hierophant 11-03-2003 06:22 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Azimaith:
Quote:

It would seem to me as the population on the earth gets larger wars will become more and more common, not only is there a battle for scarce resources but also the clashing of cultures and conflicting interests. War is inevitable so long as populations of people come into contact with one another.
War shall probably not get more common, just more destructive. War was more common when settlements were sparse and technology was crude. Bronze-Age Greek tribes would war with each other on a yearly summer-seasonal basis. War was a necessity just to get the resources needed to keep their settlements going (cattle, weapons and land were the usual prizes for victory). The thing is though, due to the technology used and the tactics employed, each campaign only cost a few hundred lives at the very most. It was more a case of territorial boundary-setting as opposed to the modern idea of ideological competition and extermination (waging war to protect people's freedom, what kind of bulls**t is that?).

The problem with modern technology is that it has given our species, our tiny, fragile, 'no-more-important-than-any-other-species' species the ability to destroy everything. Not just the power to destroy members of our own species, not just the power to destroy the buildings and cities that we huddle ourselves together in, but all living things, from the heights of the mountains to the depths of the sea. This is a bad situation to be in. Favourable conditions on our planet have fostered our animal species (which is still largely governed by aggressive survival instincts), and given us the opportunity to develope the power to destroy the fragile systems that gave us life. Very very dodgy indeed...

[ 11-03-2003, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Zuvio 11-03-2003 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziroc:
Speaking of high powered rounds.... [img]smile.gif[/img]

My friend, the P-90.

http://www.ironworksforum.com/hosted/iwrank_p90.gif

<font color=gold>
Fallout 2 madness [img]tongue.gif[/img]

What was that blocky super-gun called again? That one was massive too. Or the Pancor Jackhammer in Max Payne 1, that one rocked in bullettime [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Wars are a product of human intolerance and stupidity. Religion (islam) is one of the greatest reasons why wars rage on this planet. Power-hungry fanatics (hitler) are another. World-leaders who have a statement and are willing to simply out them to the rest of the world, don't nescessarily go to war over it. It's more the rubbing-against-the-feathers that produces war, disputes over meaningless subjects.

A gun that fires 1.000.000 rounds per minute would need (*GASP*) 1.000.000 rounds X times to take down multiple targets, if fired sequentially. That means holding an ammo supply the size and weight of an elephant [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I think that high-velocity weapons such as the railgun DO kill people in one shot. Like Quake 2, KE-SPLATT!!! Lasers have the same effect, only slowed because their speed is even greater. Let's find out people :D
</font>

Firestormalpha 11-03-2003 10:18 AM

Azi, why do you always sound like you have a bone to pick when you're correcting someone? Calm down and stop being so aggresive.

[ 11-03-2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Firestormalpha ]

Calaethis Dragonsbane 11-03-2003 12:07 PM

Lies! The next weapon will be *gasp & drum roll* THE LIGHT SABRE! Or failing that - METAL GEAR SOLID REX! (and no, I'm not being serious). If you want a serious opinion, I would say that some jerk will go ahead with the Star Wars project, or Son of Starwars or whatever they're currently calling it.

Nanobyte 11-03-2003 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Firestormalpha:
Azi, why do you always sound like you have a bone to pick when you're correcting someone? Calm down and stop being so aggresive.
How do you come by that? He's making a rebuttal against your arguement, and you're taking it as a personal attack. Maybe you need to calm down.

Just remember: we're all friends here [img]smile.gif[/img]

Rokenn 11-03-2003 03:47 PM

Metalstorm article on CNN

They have weapons ranging from handguns to million round a minute tripod model to 16 barrel granade launching systems.

Their website http://www.metalstorm.com/ has some cool videos of test firings.

[ 11-03-2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

Firestormalpha 11-03-2003 05:15 PM

Sorry, I seem to be a bit over reactive Nano. It's just that when the first words in someones response read, "Scuse me?". It sounds like they're trying to get on your case. As if you slapped them in the face with a handy insult and they are trying to hit back harder. That's at least what it seems like to me.

Again, my sincere apologies if I'm the one being over-sensitive.

Azimaith 11-03-2003 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Hierophant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Azimaith:
[qb]
Quote:

It would seem to me as the population on the earth gets larger wars will become more and more common, not only is there a battle for scarce resources but also the clashing of cultures and conflicting interests. War is inevitable so long as populations of people come into contact with one another.
War shall probably not get more common, just more destructive. War was more common when settlements were sparse and technology was crude. Bronze-Age Greek tribes would war with each other on a yearly summer-seasonal basis. War was a necessity just to get the resources needed to keep their settlements going (cattle, weapons and land were the usual prizes for victory). The thing is though, due to the technology used and the tactics employed, each campaign only cost a few hundred lives at the very most. It was more a case of territorial boundary-setting as opposed to the modern idea of ideological competition and extermination (waging war to protect people's freedom, what kind of bulls**t is that?).
</font>
Yeah I mean like,going to fight Hitler during the Holucast, what bull, we all know the Jews were having the time of their life in 5 star concentration camps where they enjoyed nerve gassings and machine gun acupuncture. And Korea! Even stupider, just because south korea, the side we just happened to be fighting for, became a productive stable country and north korea became a destitute hell hole doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact with the war. Naturally the South Koreans just decided communism was no good for them and didn't fight at all since we all know that we can't fight to protect peoples freedom. Wait, what about the stupidest hypocrasy of them all! Thats right folks, the Gulf War, I mean, to repel Saddam all Kuwait had to do was say "sorry saddam old chap, we don't want to become your territory giving you an oil monopoly!" it had nothing to do with the fact we annhilated Saddams fighting force that caused him to conditionally surrender. You obviously must be right that you can't wage wars to protect a peoples freedom, complete and utter bull.

Azimaith 11-03-2003 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Firestormalpha:
Sorry, I seem to be a bit over reactive Nano. It's just that when the first words in someones response read, "Scuse me?". It sounds like they're trying to get on your case. As if you slapped them in the face with a handy insult and they are trying to hit back harder. That's at least what it seems like to me.

Again, my sincere apologies if I'm the one being over-sensitive.

Don't worry to most people my personality is like sharkskin coated with razor wire doused in ignited napalm. Oh also, in that scuse me remark I misread your post the first time as you saying I was posting it to inflate my ego, lol, but I just never got around to changing the scuse me.

The Hierophant 11-03-2003 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Azimaith:

Yeah I mean like,going to fight Hitler during the Holucast, what bull, we all know the Jews were having the time of their life in 5 star concentration camps where they enjoyed nerve gassings and machine gun acupuncture. And Korea! Even stupider, just because south korea, the side we just happened to be fighting for, became a productive stable country and north korea became a destitute hell hole doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact with the war. Naturally the South Koreans just decided communism was no good for them and didn't fight at all since we all know that we can't fight to protect peoples freedom. Wait, what about the stupidest hypocrasy of them all! Thats right folks, the Gulf War, I mean, to repel Saddam all Kuwait had to do was say "sorry saddam old chap, we don't want to become your territory giving you an oil monopoly!" it had nothing to do with the fact we annhilated Saddams fighting force that caused him to conditionally surrender. You obviously must be right that you can't wage wars to protect a peoples freedom, complete and utter bull.

Ah, I knew you'd come around to reason eventually Azi ;)

Timber Loftis 11-03-2003 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Firestormalpha:
Oh yeah, what's the purpose of a gun firing bullets at 1,000,000 rounds per minute? Is this anti-personel weaponry or anti-vehicle weaponry?
Or anti-missile weaponry? What would an <s>AWACS</s> {Correction: Phalanx} mounted in space on a satelite be able to do to an outbound, inbound ICBM? What if it could fire 1 million rounds per minute? Bet it could even have a shot at taking out 50 individually-targetted warheads.

(As for being on the ground when it shoots downward, the bullets would burn up on re-entry.)

[ 11-04-2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Night Stalker 11-03-2003 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stratos:
Here's some info on a rail gun project at Auburn University, including what it is and how it works.
For those of you out there that aren't electrical engineers/physicists/mathmaticians ......

A 'rail gun' is a device that accelerates an object with an electro-magnetic pulse. In this case the object is a projectile. Other ways of firing projectiles include: stored mechanical energy (bows, catapults, your arm ...), gravity (trebuchette), chemical (your average firearm, rockets), and stored kinetic energy (BB guns, paintball guns).

Anyway, the projectile is 'fired' with an electro-magnetic pulse. It is not nessissarilly a 'super' weapon. A .45 cal bullet travelling 480 feet per second still hits you the same wether fired from a Colt M1911 or a rail gun (though one small enough to be hand held doesn't exist). It's a mass x velocity thing. It does allow for much greater energy effiency and much higher muzzle velocities than current chemically launched projectiles. This basically means you can get greater destructive effect, longer ranges, and such with smaller projectiles.

Weapons aren't the only use for rail guns though. They have great potential for mag-lev (magnetic levitation) trains, air craft catapults and other uses. The "Linear Induction Motor" for the Batman and Robin: The Chiller roller coaster at Six Flags Great Adventure is a rail gun.

Also, someone mentioned the MOAB is the Daisy-cutter. Not quite right. The MOAB (Massive Overhead Air Burst - NOT Mother Of All Bombs!!) and Daisy-cutter are both fuel-air type bombs. They are non-nuclear large yield weapons. The MOAB has a greater yield than the Daisy-cutter does.

And to address, the million round gun, it's a defensive stand off proctection weapon for incoming missiles and aircraft. They are used on ships. They protect the ships by placing a "cloud of steel" in the flight path of the incoming threat. For other weapons of this class, check out CWS (Seawiz) or Phalanx.


EDIT: And NO! A rail gun is not a laser. Lasers are light based technology. While light is a type of electro-magnetic wave, lasers do not use electro-magnetic induction to accelerate objects. They accelerate and focus light.

[ 11-03-2003, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Ronn_Bman 11-04-2003 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Firestormalpha:
Oh yeah, what's the purpose of a gun firing bullets at 1,000,000 rounds per minute? Is this anti-personel weaponry or anti-vehicle weaponry?

Or anti-missile weaponry? What would an AWACS mounted in space on a satelite be able to do to an outbound, inbound ICBM? What if it could fire 1 million rounds per minute? Bet it could even have a shot at taking out 50 individually-targetted warheads. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think I'd want to be under it though. ;)

BTW, I'm disappointed; I thought this thread, "HOLY CRAP MAN", was about a new super-hero. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Bahamut 11-04-2003 12:32 PM

man.. i am loving this thread... very informative... ;)

Thoran 11-04-2003 03:11 PM

Metal Storm (the Million round/minute gun) was developed by a guy in Australia, not the US military... although I believe the US Military was one of his first customers.

[ 11-04-2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved