Comments on: A Super-Weapon That Works

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:56:26 +0000

Range, bearing, and position? There’s an app for that! Seriously, with a laser range-finder, a modern smartphone could become a forward observer’s best friend. How do I get the government contract?

By: Isegoria

Isegoria — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:53:07 +0000

A David Friedman piece on the economics — game theory, really — of war, from a 1984 Jerry Pournelle-edited collection on war? Excellent find, Sconzey! Friedman's game-theoretic take emphasizes the machine-gunner's rational assessment of his ability to affect the outcome of the battle. He's less likely to hide, because he personally can win the engagement — or, by hiding, lose it. This would imply that a whole squad armed with light automatic weapons would be no more likely to use them than a squad armed with bolt-action rifles — which would go against one of the key rationales for moving to the M16 assault rifle. It would also contradict the evidence that insurgents love shooting full-auto AKs, even though the old bolt-action Lee-Enfields their grandfathers used were more effective at scoring kills. I don't doubt that there's a lot of truth in what Friedman says, but David Grossman takes a different approach, emphasizing the emotional non-reasoning we use to arrive at Friedman's rational strategy. Battle is largely about posturing, about convincing yourself and your enemy that you're bigger, meaner, and scarier, and automatic weapons are really, really loud and really, really scary — or, if you're the one shooting, really, really loud and really, really awesome. They're like monster trucks or Harleys. Also, many soldiers may hide rather than fight, but most at least go through the motions of shooting back, because they're held at least somewhat accountable for pulling their own weight, by officers and comrades alike. Highly conspicuous weapons — especially crew-served weapons — don't lend themselves to shooting in the air from behind a rock. Everyone's watching you and what you're shooting.

By: Sconzey

Sconzey — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:54:23 +0000

The success of the XM-25 may actually be due to the BAR effect. Briefly: soldiers carrying heavy weapons feel a disproportionate responsibility for the success of the unit and are thus more likely to exhibit bravery discharging their weapon -- firing them more often, and more accurately. As I understand it the XM-104 is literally just a laser rangefinder that does some math and sets a timer on the grenade. It's assumed that the operator is already pointing the weapon at the target. For the behaviour you desire it would be neccessary for the targeting software to know range, bearing, and position of the spotter, as well as range, bearing and position of the mortar itself. Then do some math to compensate for wind etc. (as the mortar's firing arc is higher and longer), align the mortar, set the timer, and discharge the round. With that said... it would be ridiculously cool.