"This future Army grenade could kill enemies hiding ..." Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Action Log
14 Sep 2014 7:06 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill
- Removed from Modern Media board
- Crossposted to Ultramodern (2004-2014) board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article For the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| Tango01 | 10 Sep 2014 10:59 p.m. PST |
…behind walls. "When U.S. combat troops are caught in a firefight, one of the quickest ways for them to turn the tide in their favor is to use grenades. The 40mm rounds can be fired from a launcher attached to a rifle, landing on enemies a few hundred meters away. But they have limitations, especially when enemy fighters take cover behind a wall or other obstacle. The U.S. Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey is working on a new round to address that. "Small Arms Grenade Munitions" would double the lethality of the grenades against enemies who are "in defilade," meaning they are using obstacles or barriers to shield themselves from harm, Army officials say. As outlined in these old briefing slides, the Army began the first phase in 2012. It entailed making the fuse on the grenade smaller while maintaining its functionality. That left room for new sensors that were developed during the second phase that enable the grenade to explode in the air when it passes over an obstacle, rather than only when it lands…" link Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| cloudcaptain | 11 Sep 2014 7:31 a.m. PST |
That's basically twice as big as the XM25 airburst. Nasty. Can you imagine how expensive a firefight using these would get? |
| Tango01 | 11 Sep 2014 11:00 a.m. PST |
|
 Legion 4  | 11 Sep 2014 11:54 a.m. PST |
"No Bucks … No Buck Rogers" … Bigger Bangs cost bigger bucks ! |
| Mako11 | 11 Sep 2014 2:36 p.m. PST |
"Can you imagine how expensive a firefight using these would get?". Certainly, a lot cheaper than all those Hellfires, and/or other PGMs being used to take out one, or a handful of soldiers. |
| zoneofcontrol | 11 Sep 2014 3:58 p.m. PST |
Also keep in mind that the firefight itself may be shorter if the targets are dealt with more quickly. Agreed about savings from not having to use larger munitions to do a "small" job. (small is in quotes as I do not wish to infer that anyone in a firefight has a "small" job on their hands.) |
| kidbananas | 11 Sep 2014 5:16 p.m. PST |
Can you imagine how expensive a firefight using these would get? I'd rather spend the money on these if it means fewer of our service personnel being killed or wounded. |
| capncarp | 11 Sep 2014 5:57 p.m. PST |
Isn't that what the XM-8 OICW was supposed to do with a 20mm explosive round?
And remember, if you make one of them and it costs a million bucks that's expensive. But if you make a million of them and it costs 3 million bucks, that's cheap. |
|
tackles two subjects from his favorite sculptor.
