idga stats

Answer this Question

Question Status: Open

To whom it may concern, where does one go to present an idea for the advancement of weapons systems that will necessarily be needed in the near future? Take for example this review of the main battle tank. It should be considered a &quote;light infantry fighting vehicle&quote; after I had advanced the &quote;direct fire&quote; system of the M-4 Sherman with a rotating shield for better defense in the &quote;direct fire confrontation. This will remove the M1A2 Abrams from direct fire engagement: especially since the Soviet T-90 has greater range and accuracy than the M1A2 that would be struck before reaching their Soviet counter-part with their own main battery fire. Now the &quote;solution&quote; for the M1A2 is the &quote;tube launched vertical missile&quote; that I called the 3M (Military M3) that is only needing to be a three inch design (28 inches long) but can at firing reach a rapid speed and can move through the arc range in greater distance of coverage than the main battery of the T-90. Because of the &quote;frontal armor&quote; defense the best penetration means would be with the plunging fire coming down from the top as the &quote;weakness&quote; in the Soviet design. A missile reaching mach two could minimize the error in hitting a moving vehicle that cannot move as fast as a plunging hammer on the anvil. Next the M1A2 could use defilade out of direct fire engagement and &quote;raise aloft&quote; an &quote;electrically&quote; operated helicopter tethered by a small cable: to avoid electronic warfare jamming of a &quote;remote control vehicle&quote; directly above the tank to give a &quote;modern day periscope&quote; to see the enemy beyond the hill top and target the enemy with this plunging fire; without need for a direct fire engagement. This deployed helicopter could even be played out in a variety of scenarios to widen the vision of the tank from a more optimum vantage point than just limited to ground level. We should not limit the fighting capability to the advantage of the enemy when we can &quote;create the rules of engagement&quote; for our own advantage. We can and should hide from the fire of the enemy; while making the necessary technology advancements to be able to reach out and strike the enemy from the impossibility of his armor avoiding destruction. Of course this is the chess game of mobile warfare. where the advent of the need to advance into the teeth of the enemy fire: we should then have the &quote;M-4 Sherman&quote; and the rotating shell leading the front as being impervious to penetration from whatever fire that would be delivered against it. If we do not re-invent the battlefield we are doomed to failure of letting the enemy make their design rule the battlefield for advantage over our self-imposed limitation. Assured defeat is not a protection of the future freedom of this nation: that if we allow the enemy the advantage; we shall never regain the initiative for conflict is so rapid in today's world: the lack of forethought will not be replaced when the &quote;fighting edge&quote; is surrendered and time will not be allowed to regain the advantage lost. Gregory Alan McKown. 12/22/2010.

Author: christnostradamus
Posted: 05/23/2016
Rate this Question: 
Be the first!


Add new answer

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.