User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 12:58:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Pardon me, but some of the 19th century guns firing canister shot were larger than the M1 main.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 12:59:37 PM EDT
[#2]
I want one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:03:12 PM EDT
[#3]
[img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/m1028_pic1.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:09:47 PM EDT
[#4]
[b][size=5]DAMN![/b][/size=5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:12:30 PM EDT
[#5]
But why round shot and not flechette darts?
Nice to have the round back though, since the 105's went away we hadn't had such a round for tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:14:22 PM EDT
[#6]
Added to the "want" list.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:20:09 PM EDT
[#7]
[shock]
Duck season!!! Rabbit season!!! Duck season!!! Rabbit season!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:26:20 PM EDT
[#8]
MAN that's gonna leave a mark! [:p]
[Gettysburg] "Double canister! Give 'em double canister!" [/Gettysburg] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:29:01 PM EDT
[#9]
I could be a world-class skeet shooter with that thing. [:P]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:31:43 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: But why round shot and not flechette darts? Nice to have the round back though, since the 105's went away we hadn't had such a round for tanks. Because employing flechettes are against the Geneva Convention. The Army is also curtailing the use of Cluster Munitions after several incidents of them being used on civilian areas. The AF and Marines have already stopped using them after the 1st GW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:39:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Now that my friends kicks ass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:49:17 PM EDT
[#12]
$3000 for one round?!?! [shock]
So that's why a third of my paycheck gets sucked out of my pocket every week.... I'm all for a well-equipped military and all, but don't you think that's a little high for an overgrown shotgun shell? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:53:02 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: $3000 for one round?!?! [shock] So that's why a third of my paycheck gets sucked out of my pocket every week.... I'm all for a well-equipped military and all, but don't you think that's a little high for an overgrown shotgun shell? Ungrateful America hater! Your opposition to providing our troops with the equipment they need to keep us free has been noted in your file. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:54:28 PM EDT
[#14]
The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:55:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: $3000 for one round?!?! [shock] So that's why a third of my paycheck gets sucked out of my pocket every week.... I'm all for a well-equipped military and all, but don't you think that's a little high for an overgrown shotgun shell? Nope...! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 1:58:34 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: But why round shot and not flechette darts? Nice to have the round back though, since the 105's went away we hadn't had such a round for tanks. Flechettes tend to have less wounding capabilities than round shot. The dart like flechette sails thru the target leaving icepick like wounds because of it's shape. Round shot, having more surface area transfers more energy to the target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:00:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Because employing flechettes are against the Geneva Convention. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2225706.stm[/url] "Leading defence journal, Jane's Defence Weekly, says the use of flechettes in war is not prohibited by the Geneva Convention." The only information sources that say otherwise are from website like Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights Watch, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:01:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's. Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:06:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's. Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling. The Nipponese were a little slow in coming up with a nylon shot cup...! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:07:42 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: But why round shot and not flechette darts? Nice to have the round back though, since the 105's went away we hadn't had such a round for tanks. Flechettes tend to have less wounding capabilities than round shot. The dart like flechette sails thru the target leaving icepick like wounds because of it's shape. Round shot, having more surface area transfers more energy to the target. That has never stopped us from using the darts in the APERS 105mm howitzer round or the 2.75" rocket warhead. And at one time we had them for everything, they seemed to perform well in Vietnam. But I would bet that since they are tungstin instead of steel these things probably punch through a lot more barrier material than the darts though. If we raised $6000 dollars to buy 2 shells, would the Army or ANG loan us a M1 for a afternoon to try one of these at Knob Creek, Bulletfest, or the next Gunstock? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:11:59 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's. Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling. Why would a battleship use this stuff? They had no need to get close enough to another ship to shoot the electronics with is and personnel were not exposed except the AA crews and they couldn't really hurt another ship. If they got close enough to land to use it, they would probably run aground or the round would not have enough energy left to do much damage. Besides, HE would work much better for bombardment. Could it have possibly been used as an AA round? If so, doesn't seem like it would be very effective because as soon as the shot left the barrel, it would begin to spread out and by the time the shot reached the altitude of the aircraft, the pattern would be so large as to be ineffective. Hmm, never heard of any such round for a battleship. Very interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:18:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: $3000 for one round?!?! [shock] So that's why a third of my paycheck gets sucked out of my pocket every week.... I'm all for a well-equipped military and all, but don't you think that's a little high for an overgrown shotgun shell? Then you definitely don't want to know how much we pay for each STANDARD Missile in the Fleet! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:24:17 PM EDT
[#23]
The Japanese canister round was for anti-aircraft. They didn't work well for the reasons mentioned, and the main guns just didn't elevate high enough. They were used once, during the ship's kamakazie run towards an American landing fleet.
The Japanese and American both had figured out by this time that aricraft were the major threat, and that's why the air defense on a late war ship of either nation had WAY more AA on it than an early war ship. The canister round was just a way to try and augment that AA protection. It didn't matter if it ruined rifling, the ship was on a one way mission with only enough fuel to get to the target. Ross |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:29:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's. Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling. Why would a battleship use this stuff? They had no need to get close enough to another ship to shoot the electronics with is and personnel were not exposed except the AA crews and they couldn't really hurt another ship. If they got close enough to land to use it, they would probably run aground or the round would not have enough energy left to do much damage. Besides, HE would work much better for bombardment. Could it have possibly been used as an AA round? If so, doesn't seem like it would be very effective because as soon as the shot left the barrel, it would begin to spread out and by the time the shot reached the altitude of the aircraft, the pattern would be so large as to be ineffective. Hmm, never heard of any such round for a battleship. Very interesting. Yeah, they were intended for AA use. Don't know if they were ever actually used in combat, though. Might have been during each ship's death-struggle, which took a long time for both of them to finally sink. Took something like 27 bombs and 9 torpedoes to sink the Yamato. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:30:15 PM EDT
[#25]
When I went to Fort Knox in 1986(to expose us to tanks and such, not for OBC) we had Beehive in the inventory. I remember being taught to command: "Gunner, Beehive, Crunchies!" These are not new, but are neat.
Now I know what I want for Christmas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:37:30 PM EDT
[#26]
What choke do they use?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:44:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: What choke do they use? Cylinder. The M256 gun is smoothbore and the bores are checked at the factory, after being chromed, with a laser and then honed if needed to be perfectly parallel. I wonder what kind of shotcup the found that would keep the tungstin from scratching the shit out of the tube. Though maybe that isn't such a big issue with a smoothbore. As long as the scratches are parallel down the bore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:00:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: The XM1028 shell holds 1100 [b]10mm [/b] tungsten balls Who said the 10MM was dead? [:D] Danny |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:09:18 PM EDT
[#29]
SHIT! $3000 per shot! That's bullshit... I think I could make soemthing with just good old fashion ball bearings that would do the same thing for about $500 a pop...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:23:59 PM EDT
[#30]
I think this is made by IMI.
USMA 89, we had them for the M1 105mm, but for 120mm, we didn't in 86. TCCAT was fun, wasn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:28:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Hey you guys missed the one right beneath it:
CHARLIE G'S FOR EVERYONE! December 11, 2003: For over a decade, the U.S. Army has resisted adopting the Swedish Carl Gustav portable recoilless rifle. But since watching US Army Special Forces use this weapon in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are reconsidering. This weapon has been around for over two decades, is used by several dozen countries. The Carl Gustav was adopted by SOCOM (first for the Ranger Regiment) in 1990. The Carl Gustav is basically a lightweight (20 pounds) recoilless rifle. The barrel is rifled and good for about a hundred rounds. Range is 500-700 meters (depending on type of round fired.) The 84mm projectiles weigh about four pounds each and come in several different types (anti-armor, combined anti-armor/high explosive, illumination and smoke.) The anti-armor round is very useful in urban areas and against bunkers. The army has since adopted the single shot version of the Carl Gustav (as the AT4), but the Special Forces showed that the Carl Gustav is better because you get more shots for less weight (the AT4 weighs about 15 pounds each). It's easier to carry one Carl Gustav, at about 20 pounds, and a bunch of rocket propelled shells at about five pounds (with packaging) each. The army is discussing the Carl Gustav's with Special Forces officers and users and may adopt it for army-wide use. Now if they will just build a shotgun round for the Charlie G. We will be back to the old 90mm RCLR. They were very useful, apart from being 10pounds heavier than the M3 Charlie G and its composite barrel |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:31:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: When I went to Fort Knox in 1986(to expose us to tanks and such, not for OBC) we had Beehive in the inventory. I remember being taught to command: "Gunner, Beehive, Crunchies!" These are not new, but are neat. Now I know what I want for Christmas. ...crunchies; I just got it.[LOL] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:33:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Pardon me, but some of the 19th century guns firing canister shot were larger than the M1 main. Yeah, but they couldn't get to the fight at 60 mph, reload rapidly and probably weren't lethal at 700 meters. I wonder if some of the cost of the round is because of the use of environmentally friendly tungsten shot instead of lead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:33:55 PM EDT
[#34]
When I was in Panama from '84-'86 our battalion AT platoon was made up of TOW's and 106mm recoilless rifles (with .50 cal spotter rifles mounted over the barrel---you'd fire the spotter tracer round to make sure you were on target then fire the 106 a second later). The 106mm had a flechette round they occasionally fired. A friend of mine was in AT platoon and showed me some of the flechettes one day after a live-fire. Pretty cool.
Funny thing: when they fired the 106mm from the back of the 1/4 ton (this was before Humvees) the force of the blast would knock the front grate off this one jeep! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:39:36 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Pardon me, but some of the 19th century guns firing canister shot were larger than the M1 main. Yeah, but they couldn't get to the fight at 60 mph, reload rapidly and probably weren't lethal at 700 meters. I wonder if some of the cost of the round is because of the use of environmentally friendly tungsten shot instead of lead. We never used lead in any canister load. The ball bearing loads were various size steel balls and the flechettes, I think, were aluminium. The only lead ball canister load I can think of in the last two hundred years in our Army was the one for the M1839 12pdr pack howitzer which had 144 standard 1oz musket balls. The 6 and 12pdr gun and howitzer balls were either .75" or 1" iron balls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:46:58 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: We never used lead in any canister load. The ball bearing loads were various size steel balls and the flechettes, I think, were aluminium. The only lead ball canister load I can think of in the last two hundred years in our Army was the one for the M1839 12pdr pack howitzer which had 144 standard 1oz musket balls. The 6 and 12pdr gun and howitzer balls were either .75" or 1" iron balls. Roger that - thanks for the correction. I phrased that poorly. I wonder how much of the rounds expense is due to the use of tungsten shot versus other materials. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:48:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: When I was in Panama from '84-'86 our battalion AT platoon was made up of TOW's and 106mm recoilless rifles (with .50 cal spotter rifles mounted over the barrel---you'd fire the spotter tracer round to make sure you were on target then fire the 106 a second later). The 106mm had a flechette round they occasionally fired. A friend of mine was in AT platoon and showed me some of the flechettes one day after a live-fire. Pretty cool. Funny thing: when they fired the 106mm from the back of the 1/4 ton (this was before Humvees) the force of the blast would knock the front grate off this one jeep! That is another thing we need to dig out of warehouse and get back. The M40 is a lot more useful in many situations than TOW. They should be allowed to choose which one is appropriate for the mission to put on the Hummers. Austrailia still has them, so does Taiwan and even Japan. But I had thought even in the 80's that they had been pulled from duty everywhere except in the 75th Rangers. The Rangers I think still use some 106's on their Land Rovers. And now the Israelis have a version of their LAHAT cannon-fired AT missile that will chamber in the 106mm RCL. They have a kit that fits a thermal imager and a laser rangefinder/designator to the tube to guide them. They are kind of like a half scale Hellfire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:52:10 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: We never used lead in any canister load. The ball bearing loads were various size steel balls and the flechettes, I think, were aluminium. The only lead ball canister load I can think of in the last two hundred years in our Army was the one for the M1839 12pdr pack howitzer which had 144 standard 1oz musket balls. The 6 and 12pdr gun and howitzer balls were either .75" or 1" iron balls. Roger that - thanks for the correction. I phrased that poorly. I wonder how much of the rounds expense is due to the use of tungsten shot versus other materials. I think they went with Tungstin because of its density AND hardness. Just think of what this would do to a truck or a wood frame house! Neither the steel or lead would penetrate that well, one from deformity and the other from lack of mass. At really close range even concrete block wouldn't survive. Though I wonder if the riccochet riske would be greater than the fragment risk from the HEAT round? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 3:56:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: When I was in Panama from '84-'86 our battalion AT platoon was made up of TOW's and 106mm recoilless rifles (with .50 cal spotter rifles mounted over the barrel---you'd fire the spotter tracer round to make sure you were on target then fire the 106 a second later). The 106mm had a flechette round they occasionally fired. A friend of mine was in AT platoon and showed me some of the flechettes one day after a live-fire. Pretty cool. Funny thing: when they fired the 106mm from the back of the 1/4 ton (this was before Humvees) the force of the blast would knock the front grate off this one jeep! That is another thing we need to dig out of warehouse and get back. The M40 is a lot more useful in many situations than TOW. They should be allowed to choose which one is appropriate for the mission to put on the Hummers. Austrailia still has them, so does Taiwan and even Japan. But I had thought even in the 80's that they had been pulled from duty everywhere except in the 75th Rangers. The Rangers I think still use some 106's on their Land Rovers. And now the Israelis have a version of their LAHAT cannon-fired AT missile that will chamber in the 106mm RCL. They have a kit that fits a thermal imager and a laser rangefinder/designator to the tube to guide them. They are kind of like a half scale Hellfire. The line companies in my battalion also had 90mm recoilless rifles. Kinda looked like a bazooka. At some point during my tour (probably in '85 when we were activated onto jump status and "light" infantry configuration) the 106's and 90's were pulled from service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 4:19:31 PM EDT
[#40]
$3,000.00 Each?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 4:19:41 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: [shock] Duck season!!! Rabbit season!!! Duck season!!! Rabbit season!!! I'll bring the garden hopper! You bring the gun! Samuel |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 4:36:59 PM EDT
[#42]
I'd bet those are going a weee bit quicker then your average load of buck too.
I would not want to be in your average arabian Adobe or brick house when one of these is let loose. Would likely leave a puff of smoke standing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 5:00:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Because employing flechettes are against the Geneva Convention. The Army is also curtailing the use of Cluster Munitions after several incidents of them being used on civilian areas. The AF and Marines have already stopped using them after the 1st GW. The reason for balls vice flechettes is there is no spin to spread them. An APERS round shot from a smooth bore that used fin stabilized submunitions would have too tight a pattern. There has been some question about the use of bomblet submunitions, but the question is why not use dud safing ones. Which ever surface delivered submunition dispensing round made since the mid 90s has had dud safing submunitions, the new 105mm DPICM and the M26A1 MLRS rounds' bomblets self destructed after a few seconds on the ground. The problem with OIF was we shot allot of ammo out of the war reserve made in the late 80s, M483A1, M864 and M26, all of which contained non-dud safing submunitions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 5:05:17 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: $3000 for one round?!?! [shock] So that's why a third of my paycheck gets sucked out of my pocket every week.... I'm all for a well-equipped military and all, but don't you think that's a little high for an overgrown shotgun shell? Then you definitely don't want to know how much we pay for each STANDARD Missile in the Fleet! [lol] Ain't THAT the truth! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 9:44:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's. Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling. Why would a battleship use this stuff? They had no need to get close enough to another ship to shoot the electronics with is and personnel were not exposed except the AA crews and they couldn't really hurt another ship. Could it have possibly been used as an AA round? If so, doesn't seem like it would be very effective because as soon as the shot left the barrel, it would begin to spread out and by the time the shot reached the altitude of the aircraft, the pattern would be so large as to be ineffective. When I was a little kid, I had a book about naval warfare thatdescribed the AA shell for the Yamato-class battleships. The rounds were proximity-fused to explode the cannister shot up in the air. It wasn't like a grapeshot shotgun effect right out of the gun's barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 10:02:40 PM EDT
[#46]
F*cking pea-shooter...
The 8-inch howitzer could be made into a point-blank weapon by using an HE round with a time fuze at a particular setting (I forget which; 2 seconds?) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 10:55:36 PM EDT
[#47]
Would be interesting to see if could bring down aircraft, or maybe a couple flocks of birds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 10:59:29 PM EDT
[#48]
from the book "The Battelship Yamato" by Janusz Skulski, pg.19:
"46cm Type common 'San Shiki' Model 3. This was originally dessigned and constructed as AA, acting as an incendiary 'shotgun' projectile. It was fitted with 900 incendiary tubes (rubber thermite) and 600 steel stays. The projectile was supplied with a time fuze set to go off at a suitable height when the contents of 1600 incendairy tubes and stays exploded in cone of about 20 deg. towards any incoming aircraft. In a fragment of a second after firing, the projectile shell was destroyed by a bursting charge, increasing the quantity of shell splinters. The incendiary tubes ignited about half a second later and burned for five seconds at 3000 deg. C, giving a flame about 5m long." Ths book is from the "Anatomy of the Ship" series published by Naval Institute Press. It's a technical history of the ship, and given how little info has survived the war, it's still a very good book for those who want to see the "details"( mostly model builders ). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 11:55:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Would be interesting to see if could bring down aircraft, or maybe a couple flocks of birds. We don't need it. The new type HEAT round already fills the anti-air role. [url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m830a1.htm[/url] (scroll down) I remember these things were just deploying in my last unit as I was ETSing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2003 2:46:56 AM EDT
[#50]
The Beehive stlye APERS was adopted with the limitation of the of the MPAT round in mind.
Zardoz The Killer Junior rounds are actually more effective in the direct fire role because you cannot duck to avoid being hit. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
