I'm no expert on guns, but I can't possibly see any benefit, other than bragging rights, to be able to fire so many bullets at once Surely, when you're needing to hit something with so much force, a good old fashioned rocket launcher would be cheaper, lighter and more repeatable, no ? Good old America
I remember a guy invented this or something similar , he lost his son in a tank and designed the gun to take out incoming rounds, if his son had it on his tank he would have survived.
One large incoming projectile can be blocked or destroyed, and with modern technology that becomes increasingly feasible. A thousand incoming small projectiles must be much more difficult to block. It looks pretty easy to see practical military applications for this.
It's more directable and lethal than cluster bombs.......and there appears no chance of unexploded items left behind.
If it kills more people more effectively, it will be adopted. I find it hard to get my head around the sort of people who actually want to spend their lives inventing and perfecting weapons like this. How do they sleep at night?
It's the same line of guys that scream Yeeee haaaa whilst they sit on their fat arses shooting animals for 'sport'
I can see it being more use as a defensive tool.To stop incoming rockets,perhaps on a ship,say.It will be expensive but cheaper than a new ship.
make a cool noise, ffrrrept. just noticed your signature. been trying to remember that one for a while. cool.
As far as I can see its a block of projectiles discharged en masse in a chain detonation. As such they're not bullets at all but mini rockets (That is to say they carry their fuel rather than being inert projectiles propelled by a captive charge). I can completely see a defensive and an offensive advantage if it is possible to maintain the feed and lay down a curtain of fire. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Delivering a dense cloud of projectiles would be useful for neutralising incoming missiles but I doubt this system has the range for that. As it is it would seem to deliver a single big punch which is spectacular but of limited practical application. But as is often the case with new military inventions it'll be the technology and the future developments it is put to rather than weapon itself that will matter. I afraid we can't de-invent war chaps. If only.. Military weapons development isn't necessarily about killing more and more people, its about increasing your capability of killing the enemy while simultaneously reducing the risk of being killed yourself. Designed-in advantage. That is how you win. Any manufacturer who makes a product whether its cuddly toys or weapons of war is entitled to make a profit from their enterprise. In the case of weapons is who they can be legally sold to and why that matters.. that's where the politicians come in.
Oh no. I think the politicians' involvement needs to be throughout, especially during the testing phase. :Angelic:
