• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Opinion Active denial systems and sound-based weapons are not used, why ?

tonil

Silver Card
Joined
Jan 26, 2015
Messages
12,676
Reaction score
7,009
Given the existence of sound-based weapons such as LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) or Active denial systems used in riot control, why are such technologies not widely deployed in modern warfare for front-line combat? Are there technical, ethical, or strategic limitations preventing their effectiveness against infantry?
 
Last edited:
Given the existence of sound-based weapons such as LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) used in riot control, why are such technologies not widely deployed in modern warfare for front-line combat? Are there technical, ethical, or strategic limitations preventing their effectiveness against infantry?
Expensive, limited effectivity for trench warfare etc.

Actually sound still does work and a lot: different explosions near soldier etc...
Soldiers does have concussions, hearing problems etc even without acoustic weapons used with intent as acoustic stuff.
 
If the reports of people who were there are accurate, it sounds fucking hellish. This shit scares me way more than the chance of nuclear war
 
Given the existence of sound-based weapons such as LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) used in riot control, why are such technologies not widely deployed in modern warfare for front-line combat? Are there technical, ethical, or strategic limitations preventing their effectiveness against infantry?

To do what with? What would be the purpose in using such a device in combat?
 
Root the enemy out of a building in which they're taking cover. More closely group the enemy together in order to take them out with less munitions. Just to name a few.

Since the LRAD operates around 160dB at one meter distance, headphones or hearing protectors are probably pretty effective against it, especially in a building with concrete walls.

Most likely, the reason why the protesters in the video ran was because they weren't wearing hearing protection.
 
Since the LRAD operates around 160dB at one meter distance, headphones or hearing protectors are probably pretty effective against it, especially in a building with concrete walls.

Most likely, the reason why the protesters in the video ran was because they weren't wearing hearing protection.

Not seeing any earpro

talibanes-de-Afganistan.jpg
 
Since the LRAD operates around 160dB at one meter distance, headphones or hearing protectors are probably pretty effective against it, especially in a building with concrete walls.

Most likely, the reason why the protesters in the video ran was because they weren't wearing hearing protection.

Its not sound in classic sense of the word how i understood, it goes through ear protection apperantly

Best defence is apperantly shield or something of sort





My friend said best option is old school satellite antenna disc since it reflects back the sound to whoever is using it lol
 
Last edited:
Back
Top