Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/15/2003 12:55:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 1:15:20 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTARM.HTM

One reason M-1 tanks are still frequently used for combat operations in Iraq is because they have a new shotgun type shell for use against hostile infantry. The XM1028 shell holds 1100 10mm tungsten balls that are propelled out of the gun barrel and begin to disperse. The tungsten projectiles are lethal at up to 700 meters. The official, "… requirement is to defeat equal to or greater than 50% of a 10 man squad with 1 shot and equal to or greater than 50% of a 30 man platoon with 2 shots."


Production of the shell began last year, with up to 30,000 shells (costing over $3,000 each) to be produced. Some 2,000 shells have been produced so far, with another 3,000 being built in 2004 and 5,000 in the year after that. In Iraq, the M-1 tank rolls down the road with an XM1028 round loaded and the gunner looking through his sight for potential targets. If attackers do pop up, a hail of 10mm projectiles can be fired at them in seconds.

At night, the XM1028 is even more lethal, for many hostile Iraqis still don't realize that the thermal sight on the M-1 makes people clearly visible at night to the gunner, especially if they are carrying AK-47s or RPG launchers. The Iraqis still tend to bunch up, which allows one XM1028 round to wipe out entire teams of hostile fighters. The M-1 using the XM1028 shell is the world's largest shotgun.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 12:58:41 PM EDT
Pardon me, but some of the 19th century guns firing canister shot were larger than the M1 main.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 12:59:37 PM EDT
I want one.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:03:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 1:04:14 PM EDT by Lumpy196]
[img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/m1028_pic1.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:09:47 PM EDT
[b][size=5]DAMN![/b][/size=5]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:12:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 1:13:20 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:14:22 PM EDT
Added to the "want" list.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:20:09 PM EDT
[shock] Duck season!!! Rabbit season!!! Duck season!!! Rabbit season!!!
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:26:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 1:27:09 PM EDT by Zaphod]
MAN that's gonna leave a mark! [:p] [Gettysburg] "Double canister! Give 'em double canister!" [/Gettysburg]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:29:01 PM EDT
I could be a world-class skeet shooter with that thing. [:P]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:31:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:39:50 PM EDT
Now that my friends kicks ass.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:49:17 PM EDT
$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?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:53:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch: $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?
View Quote
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]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:54:28 PM EDT
The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:55:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch: $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?
View Quote
Nope...!
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 1:58:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:00:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Scht0nk: Because employing flechettes are against the Geneva Convention.
View Quote
[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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:01:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Noname: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's.
View Quote
Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:06:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Originally Posted By Noname: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's.
View Quote
Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling.
View Quote
The Nipponese were a little slow in coming up with a nylon shot cup...!
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:07:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 2:10:03 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By RiffRandall:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: 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.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:11:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Originally Posted By Noname: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's.
View Quote
Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:18:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch: $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?
View Quote
Then you definitely don't want to know how much we pay for each STANDARD Missile in the Fleet!
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:24:17 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:29:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By redleg13a:
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Originally Posted By Noname: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's.
View Quote
Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:30:15 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:37:30 PM EDT
What choke do they use?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 2:44:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior: What choke do they use?
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:00:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NYPatriot: The XM1028 shell holds 1100 [b]10mm [/b] tungsten balls
View Quote
Who said the 10MM was dead? [:D] Danny
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:09:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:23:59 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:28:45 PM EDT
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.
View Quote
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
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:31:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By usma89: 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.
View Quote
...crunchies; I just got it.[LOL]
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:33:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Pardon me, but some of the 19th century guns firing canister shot were larger than the M1 main.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:33:55 PM EDT
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!
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:39:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Pardon me, but some of the 19th century guns firing canister shot were larger than the M1 main.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:46:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:48:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ABNAK: 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!
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:52:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: 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.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 3:56:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Originally Posted By ABNAK: 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!
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 4:19:31 PM EDT
$3,000.00 Each?
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 4:19:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Bricklayer: [shock] Duck season!!! Rabbit season!!! Duck season!!! Rabbit season!!!
View Quote
I'll bring the garden hopper! You bring the gun! Samuel
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 4:36:59 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 5:00:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2003 5:01:27 PM EDT by STLRN]
Originally Posted By Scht0nk: 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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 5:05:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LWilde:
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch: $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?
View Quote
Then you definitely don't want to know how much we pay for each STANDARD Missile in the Fleet!
View Quote
[lol] Ain't THAT the truth!
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 9:44:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By redleg13a:
Originally Posted By ABNAK:
Originally Posted By Noname: The main guns (460mm-18.1in's) on the Yamato and the Musashi had grapeshot rounds. The AP round weighed 3200lb's.
View Quote
Yeah, and IIRC the barrels were only good for one shot of the canister rounds as it totally f****d up the rifling.
View Quote
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.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:02:40 PM EDT
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?)
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:55:36 PM EDT
Would be interesting to see if could bring down aircraft, or maybe a couple flocks of birds.
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 10:59:29 PM EDT
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 ).
Link Posted: 12/15/2003 11:55:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Maggot: Would be interesting to see if could bring down aircraft, or maybe a couple flocks of birds.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 12/16/2003 2:46:56 AM EDT
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top