[youtube][/youtube]
Watercooler cannon
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General

- Posts: 26216
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 576 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
I would put that in the awesome/useless category.
Amazing stuff, but what can it do that a much less bulky frame charge can't?
If you want to do it from some distance away, well:
[youtube][/youtube]
Amazing stuff, but what can it do that a much less bulky frame charge can't?
If you want to do it from some distance away, well:
[youtube][/youtube]
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
Agree but unfortunately we don't have a awesome/useless category on Spudfiles
.
The cost efficiency of this device is pretty good I would say, what could make it attractive to certain organizations.
Another wall breaking alternative would be this device even though it is not intended to be used that way....
[youtube][/youtube]
The cost efficiency of this device is pretty good I would say, what could make it attractive to certain organizations.
Another wall breaking alternative would be this device even though it is not intended to be used that way....
[youtube][/youtube]
- POLAND_SPUD
- Captain

- Posts: 5402
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
It puts holes in stuffI would put that in the awesome/useless category.
thus >>> it is not useless
ohh BTW that vid has already been posted
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
unless we stop them now
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General

- Posts: 26216
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 576 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
I was speaking hypotheticallyMRR wrote:Agree but unfortunately we don't have a awesome/useless category on Spudfiles.
Agreed that the cost per shot much be fairy low, but how expensive is the unit, especially hauling it around? Would it get used enough by a non-military organisation to justify the cost?The cost efficiency of this device is pretty good I would say, what could make it attractive to certain organizations.
Maybe I'm just jealous that someone made the spudgun equivalent of Davidka and turned it into a commercial proposition
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life
- D_Hall
- Staff Sergeant 5


- Posts: 1947
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:37 pm
- Location: SoCal
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
The fact that it is pneumatic and not ordnance based is definitely attractive to certain organizations. The administrative and security requirements and the costs associated with both are major hurdles for many non-front line organizations. Finding ways to perform certain tasks without ordnance is VERY desirable from a cost and logistics perspective.
In other words: I could see it as a useful and cost effective training device for infantry tactics and the like. True, on a battlefield there are better ways to breech a wall, but that's largely incidental if you're doing building insertion/sweep exercises and the like.
In other words: I could see it as a useful and cost effective training device for infantry tactics and the like. True, on a battlefield there are better ways to breech a wall, but that's largely incidental if you're doing building insertion/sweep exercises and the like.
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General

- Posts: 26216
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 576 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
Fair point, that was part of the reasoning behind Vargas for example.
hectmarr wrote:You have to make many weapons, because this field is long and short life

