26 replies to this topic

[̀̀̀̀█]

Nuclear rifle....

It is quite literally the nuclear siege soldier. The video even says that they didn't use it because the soldiers were affected by the radiation. Sound familiar?

Sorry if this has been posted before. Searching Nuclear rifle turned up every page in the forum, and searching "Nuclear rifle" Did not turn up anything.

Also: I know this will be shot down as a cosmetic change (Making it low priority) but I found a really cool add on to the delivery of the FAB. MOAB Video And yes I know that it says MOAB video but I am suggesting the parachute deploy method seen in the video for the FAB. Yes it is a cosmetic change but so is revamping particle effects. (Not really because those also make the game run smoother but you catch my drift) It even uses the same plane I believe.
I see absolutely no reason that Shockwave couldn't be rereleased after it is finished as a high quality version. This includes fixing all the infantry models and making the game look really nice. (Yes that was a bit random, but ignore it...)

That is a discussion for after 1.0 though, so discuss the Nuclear rifle and the parachute drop method.

[mktz]

O_o for some reason, the nuclear rifle video, I see a video of someone robbing a liquor store? WTF? lol, but its damn funny!

[IPS]

lol

[Amdrial]

After the liquor store robbery comes the movie about the Nuclear Rifle.

[Whitey]

Now if ther ewas a way to up the firing range of the thing....

[TheDR]

What a stupid person who invented that.

[Crazykenny]

Don't you flame the Davy Crockett Infidel!

[Pandut]

i want a nuklear rifle

[Soul]

The thing could only fire a maximum of 3 miles, which is one(I'm sure there was more) reasons it was scraped.

[BillyChaka]

The guy who narrates Futureweapons makes it sound like the Iraqis surrendered BECAUSE of the MOAB.

[Foxhound]

I believe the rumor was proven wrong- the Davy Crockett was a desperation weapon, yes, but it did not pose a danger to the firing crew. Just remember to not look directly at the explosion.

Oh, and about the MOAB, it's not the largest conventional bomb ever made. You have to remember England's 22,000lb Grand Slam bomb. And the United States once tested a 44,000lb bomb.

Edited by Foxhound, 25 July 2007 - 04:01.

[Comr4de]

While not exactly the one the siege soldiers mortar weapon, this could well be the real life equivalent.


Fun fact: This weapon also appears as the "recoilless rifle" in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater.

[̀̀̀̀█]

The difference between the FAB and MOAB are as follows. This MOAB is an air burst. It is a type of Fuel-air bomb. Instead of using the heat dispersion method like the FAB ¹ , the real MOAB uses a cold dispersion. This is a special fluid, and a blast charge that flares. ²³ The special liquid is able to aerosolize from the initial blast.

1: (The 5 Star general power that upgrades to the MOAB)
2: (The regular FAB uses a flared metal as well)
3: (Flare is a property of a metal compound charge that means that stays very hot even for a good time after the initial explosion)

This result is that: while weaker the cold dispersion method can be made larger. Not too much charge is needed for higher volumes to aerosolize. The FAB requires a heating core. The only problem is that the heating gets harder and harder the bigger the bomb gets.
The MOAB in generals looks to be a regualr explosive bomb, just that it is really big.

If anyone want I can go into the guts of a regular FAB.
Also the nuclear rifle weapon can defiantly be used now, if need ever be. Now we have strong enough Radiation proof suits that the crew could be standing next to the explosion and not get radiated at all. The only problem with doing that is the blastwave would turn him to mush.

And can someone delete the first two or three replies of this? They detract from the topic at hand...

Edited by pyrobob, 25 July 2007 - 17:02.

[Razven]

That's a Recoiless Rifle, not a Mortar, so it's not the Nuclear Seige >_<.

Anyway, good find,.

[ToushirouNL]

hehe,it's says: Hi there :stickattack2:

[Thorazine]

And of course, there's this.

[̀̀̀̀█]

*gasp* It is the new Air force generals Burton!

And I was wrong about the plane that dropped the FAB, it is not the same one that drops the MOAB in the video. With a small remodeling it could be made to be able to do the paradrop though. Hell, I think I could do it myself. Time to go find out what type of model file is used by Generals.... Gonna be boring <_<

[Shirou]

Foxhound, on 25 Jul 2007, 5:52, said:

I believe the rumor was proven wrong- the Davy Crockett was a desperation weapon, yes, but it did not pose a danger to the firing crew. Just remember to not look directly at the explosion.

O rly, and do you think your back likes to be bombarded by all the invisible radiation? Three miles isn't gonna save your ass. You have to be out of the explosion radius and out of the radiation radius which is even moar.

And again, this belongs in the warfare forum.

Edited by Shirou, 25 July 2007 - 20:12.

[̀̀̀̀█]

Awww, but it was Shockwave related!..... O well. Anyone want me to describe how to make a FAB?

[Razven]

actually, the MOAB is not a FAB. It was using the video to demostrate the effects of the Shockwave.

The MOAB is more of a conventional explosive, thermobaric at best.

[̀̀̀̀█]

PLA You might be right. I believe the contents are just a bit classified, so we can't be sure. Just see the post I made for info about cold and hot Fuel air explosives. Meh stupid me misunderstood the MOAB.....

[AllStarZ]

A crew with light NBC protection or none at all could fire that thing, and still have a good chance of survival and not losing hair. The reason why it really wasn't implemented was because it simply wasn't practical. In other words, why? Why bother to send a potentially vulnerable crew to launch the bothersome thing if you have so many other more viable and successful ways of delivering the same ordinance? Furthermore by that time recoilless launchers were more or less in their twillight. Still used today oh yes, but guided missiles have more or less replaced them as a means of delivering explosive ordinance of all sorts.

Edited by AllStarZ, 26 July 2007 - 05:36.

[Razven]

Depends on where the wind is blowing, actually. If say you're firing into a valley or pass a forest, then maybe the geographic location would make it less likely for the radioactive dust and crap to fall back onto your face, but if you're firing say...opposite of the wind and on a open plain, then you're going to want to go to MOPP 4 or make a quick run to the nearest fall-out shelter.

[AllStarZ]

Even with wind, it will take time to spread radioactive materials. Time enough to ensure your child isn't born without a nose. People really do exaggerate the effects of fallout.

Edited by AllStarZ, 26 July 2007 - 20:50.

[Razven]

It doesn't go "Radioactive particles touch body = Cancer", it's a percentage that it does. I'm quite keen on keeping myself cancer free and my children having noses. No way in hell am I going to touch that thing even if I get a 0.1% chance of increasing my chances of getting cancer.