Ground troops get a lot of the action, but it seems like they get less of the innovation dealing with warfare. Much funding goes into research dealing with unmanned, ranged, precision, etc. I introduce a technology implementation that is simple, and meant for the frontline, and NOT frontline support.
Introducing: the Small Arms Fire Control System: A device which allows coordinated firing of multiple small arms. This device, attached to the trigger mechanism of small arms, allows a unit to coordinate their fire by giving control of the trigger to a master trigger, controlled by a leader within the unit. This device will allow individual soldiers to signal when they are "on target", and will relay this information to the master trigger. Once the entire unit is "on target", the unit leader, will activate the master trigger, firing all weapons controlled under this system. You get one loud BANG. After this initial control, the device is easily disengaged or removed.
This device will allow for smoother raids, where many of the enemy drop dead before they ever hear anything. This in turn, will save lives, while providing a psychological effect on all enemies, something akin to paranoia, knowing that, at any second, their entire unit could drop dead without any chance for defense.
This technology would also change guerilla warfare tactics quite dramatically, IMO.-- twitch, Mar 26 2010 Gotta get those guns talking! http://www.youtube....watch?v=QXyuDGBQcb0This is THE standard. [MikeD, Mar 27 2010] Apache at work http://www.globalre...video/apachehit.mpgwould you feel safe with these things looking for you? [MikeD, Mar 28 2010] Baked by Motorola for SWAT teams in the 1980s.-- coprocephalous, Mar 26 2010 coprocephalous, link? From what I found, it was a trigger lock, and didn't allow for 1 master trigger to ACTUALLY FIRE the weapons. Maybe that's why you didn't provide link. For Shame! My idea is for groups against groups, and not purely as a safeguard against friendly fire, although it has an implementation of this idea, for safety of course.-- twitch, Mar 26 2010 I would be more willing to consider this idea if it came from a combat veteran who saw this as a benefit, but I'm going to bet on this idea coming from a career civilian (as am I).-- normzone, Mar 26 2010 I have not made civilization a career, no, but why do you think we have darpa? We've got billions of funding to ALL PRIVATE BUSINESSES, because, and they have said, that's where all the ideas are, where all the innovations are. peesh!-- twitch, Mar 26 2010 Wouldn't work for extreme precision fire (sniper), because the shooter needs to time the shot with movement, both their own and the targets. Might work with small unit assaults but significantly risks a shooter being unable to fire as an enemy brings their weapon to bear.
The primary reason why ground troops are called on so much is extreme flexibility and the ability to respond to situations as they develop, this takes part of that away.-- MechE, Mar 26 2010 This idea is purely for the FIRST SHOT. everything else after that, would be all up to the individual.
Wouldn't work for sniper fire? Don't sniper teams only consist of 2 men? and only 1 of them does the firing? Don't do it with them then. It is purely an assault unit's implementation, or used in guerilla warfare.-- twitch, Mar 27 2010 Never seen it.-- twitch, Mar 27 2010 Was that a question? It sounded like one, so i'll answer it: Really, I haven't seen it. I never grew up with television, and currently don't have any kind of cable hook up. I just have a DVD player, mainly for baby movies or work out videos.-- twitch, Mar 27 2010 If one also had cybernetic augments for the ground forces (a la Starship Troopers, the book version) one could hook these up as well which would allow for synchronized dance punctuated by small arms fire. It would be a fighting war dance, of course. It would be like Robocop meets Michael Jackson's Thriller!-- bungston, Mar 27 2010 I think 'Jarhead' is a recent'ish flick, possibly not on the tube yet.
re idea: sorta like a distributed shotgun.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 27 2010 I reckon yall want my input on this?
In a covert ambush, this could be practical. However such coordination is better left to small elite proffesionals like seals or special forces, which have the training to do such things without the trigger add on.
In your garden variety small arms fire-fight, coordination between gunners is often lost amid the fog of war, but when done correctly, includes something called volley fire;
You fire your machine gun on target for a few seconds, then I do so for a few seconds, then he does so for a few second, then back to you. This produces a constant barrage of bullets on target, denying the enemy an opportunity to return fire with out depleting any one gunner's ammo or burning up a barrel.
I have participated in volley fire with a fellow gunner so seamlessly you couldn't tell by the sound that two machine guns were firing. The connection had a feeling bordering on intimacy.
But back to the idea. Like many of the other gadgets I was *required* to attach to my M240B, this would also be tucked behind the gunners hatch in the turret.
I'm curious as to [8th]'s opinion however.-- MikeD, Mar 27 2010 [Twitch] It's the first shot I'm worried about. Funny thing, but covert insertions don't always remain that way. Sometimes things go wrong. The last the a shooter wants to do is have to radio back to command to unlock his or her trigger because all of a sudden he's up against a squad of bad guys.-- MechE, Mar 27 2010 I don't like the idea of having my weapon controlled by anybody else.-- DIYMatt, Mar 27 2010 Yep. If I had a weapon, I'd prefer to be the one firing it.-- wagster, Mar 27 2010 //knowing that, at any second, their entire unit could drop dead without any chance for defense//
The range of some of our weapons systems have this effect already.-- MikeD, Mar 28 2010 I'm imagining it featuring a "whites of their eyes" detector, but not for any practical reason.-- pertinax, Mar 28 2010 Hmmm. maybe it's best to just carpet bomb the area instead? Could be a little messy but effective. I like the robocop idea though. Like that back street boys music video.-- twitch, Mar 29 2010 So under what situations would this be useful? - Or, to put more a fine point on it, more useful than the traditional method of everyone waiting til somebody goes through the "Ready", "Aim", "Fire!" (i.e. what [pertinax] said) protocol that's been reasonably well proven for some time now - and more useful than that easy to remember protocol to the extent where it's worth spending money on developing, manufacturing, distributing and then training for it, as opposed to, for example, better flak jackets, mine detectors or whatever else you might get for the same outlay of cash?-- zen_tom, Mar 29 2010 one single loud bang has psychological impact on the survivors. There will be much psychological impact.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 29 2010 I don't know, but if I were suddenly ambushed by a bunch of people with guns, and bullets were flying everywhere and I heard the screams and thumps as my companions fell to the floor in bloody pieces, you know what, I don't think the specific detail about exactly how many bangs there were would have a significant bearing on my mood - plus, the number of bangs you heard would be linked to the relative distances of the people firing at you, so even if all the people pressed their triggers at once, but were dotted around at different distances, they'd *sound* as though there were multiple bangs - so this so-called psychological effect would require relative distances to be taken into account. Having said that, if the plan is to kill everyone in one fell swoop, do you really care about the psychological effect? In fact, if the bullets are going faster than the speed of sound, everyone's likely to be dead before anyone hears anything anyway.-- zen_tom, Mar 29 2010 Don't fret, twitch. Any idea on the halfbakery to do with regulating or manipulating gun firing gets the rednecks out shaking their cold dead fists. It doesn't matter if it's for a highly specialised purpose, it offends them that there may be a gun somewhere which can't be fired at whim.-- Loris, Mar 29 2010 I could see a couple of different things being useful. First and most simply, a 2-stage safety, where the middle setting was controlled by command.
Secondly, an LED system that showed when a sniper or other shooter was holding the trigger. This could be used when taking out guys who have hostages, where there are often multiple shooters for each target. Rather than having to ask snipers individually who has a shot and then telling them to fire, the controller could flick a switch to give them the good news.-- marklar, Mar 29 2010 random, halfbakery