Abrams firing Canister

[MikeyD]

Let's see if I have better luck linking a photo here.

Its not much to make out, but its a photo of an Abrams firing the new 120mm cannister round at a target from near point blank range. Look at that little grey cloud of tungsten balls. Ooooh, i can just imagine Dick Cheney salivating at the thought of blasting a quail with one of these babies!

[Slappy]

Or one of his friends. Either way, just another day for Dick.

[hellfish]

I was talking to some guys at Knox about it. They like the round a lot, but they said it's totally unpredictable. You could shoot at someone 200m away and miss him completely or shoot at a squad at 500m and kill each and every target. Vice-versa as well. Something about the dynamics of 1200 ball bearings flying through the air.

[MikeyD]

I recall a similar story with the old (and much smaller) U.S. 37mm cannister round. It was beloved in the Pacific for its ability to stop human wave attacks, but in Europe there was an anecdote about a M5 Stuart firing at a group of German infantry from extremely close range. The only effect was the bang frightened them and caused them to throw up their hands in surrender!

[Tarquelne]

The only effect was the bang frightened them and caused them to throw up their hands in surrender! [/QB]

Ya know, that makes me think... they really had the right idea.

All these rounds - cannister, DU (for the discriminating penetration), tumbling, blah blah blah _all_ of them are WAY too likely to cause undue pain and suffering.

Everyone should just use paint balls and the honor system.

I understand that some people might find the temptation to break the rules difficult. After all, if you're a terrorist with the children's ward of the local hospital, you may just not "get" why you shouldn't use some cordite, or not fall down when splattered.

That's why I also think there should be referees armed with dum-dums, napalm and, as weapon of choice, tac-nukes.

[Guest Mike]

Tac nukes?

Are there any left?

I thought the definition of a Tac Nuke wa any let off in Germany but I guess that's out of date now - what's the new definition? Any let off outside Con-USA??!!

[MikeyD]

Tac nukes?

Actually, Bush has been quietly (VERY quietly) building up a stockpile of new-style mini-nukes. As the old comment goes if a weapon's too horrible to use what's the point of having so many? The administration's response, instead of retiring the thousands of pointless old doomsday weapons, is to downscale them to make them more 'user-friendly'.

[Peter Cairns]

Though I am not a fan of bush if you need to replace old warheads and can make more accurate smaller yield ones that do the same job with less damage and use smaller cheaper missiles, and you don't go crazy and end up spending three times what you thought you would then modernisation makes some sense.

If it tempts you to use them it's definitely a very bad idea.

Peter.

[GSX]

Cannister! What for? Is this due to a lack of HE round?

[Dogface]

No for use when a HE round wouldn't do the job.

[MikeyD]

Actually, a common practice at least in Vietnam (and I've read about it happening elsewhere) has been for one tank to 'scratch the back' of another that's in the process of being overrun by infantry. That means either hosing the other tank down with mg fire or firing a canister round in its direction to knock off enemy infantry that are scrambling onto it. That's not exactly something you could do with a dual-purpose HEAT round :eek:

[Loaf]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Actually, a common practice at least in Vietnam (and I've read about it happening elsewhere) has been for one tank to 'scratch the back' of another that's in the process of being overrun by infantry. That means either hosing the other tank down with mg fire or firing a canister round in its direction to knock off enemy infantry that are scrambling onto it.

I can't remember the exact deatils off the top of my head, but I remember reeading about an incident exactly like this in Korea shortly after the start of the Chinese offensive... US Shermans with no infantry support were fighting Chinese infantry who were not equipped with anti-tank weapons... The Chinese would climb on the tanks to try and disable them, and the buttoned tanks would spray MG fire from their co-axial guns at other tanks to keep the infantry away...

Obviously not a scenario that is likely to occur nowadays due to the prevalence of RPGs...

[Wallybob]

Gunner, Beehive, timed 1 2 00, Troops.

Identified.

Fire.

One the Wayyyyyyy!

(Big boom noise)