@Magni56 As for the answer to the HE-OR's effectiveness,if you didn't read the first part of my response,allow me to elaborate. While MP-AT can detonate inside of a target all it can do is drill a peice of metal into a target deeper this is because HE-OR STILL relies on a shaped charge. And shaped chages focus the lion's share of their energy directly forward which makes them ineffective against structures. Also the whole weight of a HE-OR round is only 25 pounds,nothing like M123's 64 pounds.
I'm not impressed. Cannister dates back to Napoleonic times. These three rounds cost over five hundred dollars each...for what? So we can hear some childish yelps off camera. I want my money back.
The canister round that is fired from the abrams is devastating! I have seen it fired into a group of insurgents at 500 meters (nothing but chunks of haji was left)! And they are much more then $500 each.
I'm afraid not! Cannister even in Napoleon's time was a tin can or even a bag filled with musket balls. "Grape" was round shot smaller than a golf ball but bigger than a musket ball. Grape was effective in naval warfare because of it's effect on masts, spars, and rigging. It was also used by land based field artillery. Smaller caliber field guns limited it's use, however.
@zeekwolfe You're true watch?v=FC8pqXPoyBA ,and there are much more effective and modern solutions,such as High Explosive Squash Head and the dubious anti-personel fleccette,to the non-tank targets problem facing the US Army.
@VickersIndependent actually yes, but i suppose the US army expects to fight red coats or confederate soldiers in the near future, this round is obsolete century technology passing as something new, they ceased to exist because as im sure you know a device called machinegun and HE rounds entered into scene. HE rounds proved more effective at demolishing buildings and killing personnel, shrapnell and can shots simply cant destroy a bunker
@TheWWWdotFRAUDS The reason we used it was be cause of collateral damage. We would use the tanks at major checkpoints and when we had to use the rounds we wouldnt worry about everything behind us. If we were firing .50 cal or any other machine gun. Those bullets are going to be traveling a very long ways after the target. These rounds dissipate at the short distances. If we use tank rounds .. we would not have any neighborhoods around our checkpoints/bases. That is from my own experiance.
@Ibreakthings51 edit**Where I said we wouldnt have to worry about things behind us. I ment didnt have to worry about whats behind the target we are shooting. And these canister rounds have 1100 tungstin berrings (sp?)
@Ibreakthings51 Completely agree. WWWdotFrauds - can a HEAT round do this to a building? Yep, but what if you don't want to take out the next 5 houses in a row? canister is a great round when you need to be cognizant of the SDZ (surface danger zone) for the round firing. per breakthings comment - ideal for check points and vehicles that don't heed warnings...I'm sad I'm no longer an active duty tanker - would loved to have had this round...woulda' made the "Widow Maker" engagement "funner"
@ghemminger1 "can a HEAT round do this to a building" do what? This video only shows a pathetic small set of holes in one portion of the wall. Certainly not the wall smashing foce of an M123A1 HEP which would leveled the walls on the first shot. "would loved to have had this round" interesting considering that the M48 and M60 series and M551 series all had their own cannister rounds.
@VickersIndependent why is that interesting given the 48/60 and 551 are no longer in active duty service??? HEPs a good round too. my, oh my, you're awfully conceited...
@ghemminger1 The fact that its predicessors were all armed with dual-purpose shells gives all the more reason as to why M1A1s/M1A2s weren't armed with multi-purpose rounds. "my, oh my, you're awfully conceited..." That's a bloody personal attack which has no bearing on the arguement at hand.
@ghemminger1 "but what if you don't want to take out the next 5 houses in a row" interesting when one consinders that a HE or HEP shell detonates on contact with a surface! As oppsosed to a cannister that doesn't detonate on contact and flies in uncontrolled directions.
@VickersIndependent it doesn't fly in uncontrolled directions - you aren't going to engage a target at 1000 meters with a cannister round. tight engagements will keep the shot pattern together with less spread...yes, HEAT and HEP detonate on impact with considerable explosion...again, given the liberals of the world, we have to be wary of collateral damage...
@ghemminger1 "it doesn't fly in uncontrolled directions" what doesn't? Because it sure isn't a shotgun style round which spreeds the shot no matter what you do in a tank gun,that is unless you don't use a cannister round! "HEP detonate on impact with considerable explosion" an explosion large enough just to get the job done and nothing more. "ok, go back to your COD4 game now..." my aren't we one for personal attacks?! Once again it has no bearing on the arguement at hand.
@VickersIndependent I'm sorry, have you ever been a tank commander? I have. cannister, if fired at extended ranges, loses its effectiveness. It's not meant for long-distance engagements. Firing it thru a window or door of some mud hut will neutralize any/all threats within the building without destroying the building completely. HEP will level (or nearly so) the building with the airburst mechanism on it...
@ghemminger1 "Firing it thru a window or door of some mud hut will neutralize any/all threats within the building" there's the problem. Don't expect to have a window or door the size of a building. Also this counts on the fact that the enemy hasn't already fortified his positions like in Fallujah in which the terrorists actually did brick-up entrances and windows forcing troops into their own turf. If you had a HEP round you could mouse-hole an entrance and force the enemy to fight on your terms
@VickersIndependent at close range, cannister is going thru brick, blowing the debris inwards, probably with greater affect (more projectiles zinging around the room)...do you own a company that makes HEP rounds? you sure like this round...
@ghemminger1 "blowing the debris inwards, probably with greater affect (more projectiles zinging around the room" if there is going to be debris it won't be much as the round isn't smashing the wall down or blowing it up,its just going thourgh it. Also the masonry or building in question may be more resiliant to the pellets and therefore the maisonry may actually absorb the lethal affects of the pellets.
@ghemminger1 Also,"more projectiles zinging around the room" you realize that round pellets cannot tumble in flight and if they do riccochet off a wall don't forget it has already lost much of its kinetic energy from peircing a wall. If the pellet could pinwheel in flight,like a 5.56,it would be able to be more lethal,but it can't. "you sure like this round" well HESH is a very useful round but there also are beehive rounds which are also effective in combat.
M908 High Explosive-Obstacle Reduction-Tank. Has been in service for the US Army since the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. It actually performs better agianst hardened structures than the old M123 165mm demolition shell.
@Magni56 I seriously doubt that given that the M908 is essentialy just a re-packaged MP-AT ,the main difference is that there's a steel rod penitrator in place of a charge liner, MP-AT in turn does this to structures... watch?v=CslK8O9rY0Q Don't excpect HE-OR to do much better. What M1s need is their M68A1 105mm guns back which is far more versitile and reliable then the M256.
Yeah. And it turns out that 2 pounds of HE going off inside a block of concrete causes more damage than 25 going off on the outside of it. The live-fire tests don't lie.
And the 105mm L7 is neither more versatile nor more reliable than the M256 outside of a bunch of claims that have been debunked a thousand times over. (Not to mention that the L7 is functionally obsolete on a battlefield against anything more modern than a poor man's T-72 copycat.)
@Magni56 "And it turns out that 2 pounds of HE going off inside a block of concrete causes more damage than 25 going off on the outside of it,"if this comment were true then why did funtionaly indenticle Armour Piercing High Explosive go out of fashion until the US Army re-invented the wheel? "The live-fire tests don't lie,"oh do you mean the tests ATK a subsidary of the lying GDLS performed to show to the world that their round defied reason?
So, your entire answer to HE-OR-T is nothing but a gigantic poisoning the well fallacy grounded on your shitty, unproven claim of aleged "lies" about tests? One that is also founded on complete and utter ginorance about the facts that such tests have been carried out by multiple independent parties, unlike what you claim? If so, let me accept your full conession.
@Magni56 "So, your entire answer to HE-OR-T is nothing but a gigantic poisoning the well fallacy" that wasn't my entire answer did you read the first part at all? Also GDLS alraedy has a knack for lies with its Stryker,EFV,and MP-AT. Also the other tests conducted with HE-OR were by the Army,and they never told us what a single HE-OR round did. "unproven claim of aleged lies about tests,"well you know I'd love to hear of those tests that 'proved' HE-OR's effectiveness against structures.
"They have a knack for lies" is nothing but a poisoning the well fallacy. Not that it matters, given that tests performed by the fucking army itself and the south korean army, after adoption, yielded the same results. Every last result showed it superior to the M123.
@Magni56 "the 105mm L7 is neither more versatile nor more reliable than the M256 outside of a bunch of claims that have been debunked a thousand times over," can I count right then?Because last time I checked a bore life of 400 rounds was far less then 1,000 rounds. Also considering USMC Sgt William J. Orr's report on how inadaqute his 120mm smoothbore gun was in action comapared to how outstanding Candian Leopard's with 105mm guns performed in Afghanistan this quote seems false.
@Magni56 "the L7 is functionally obsolete on a battlefield against anything more modern than a poor man's T-72 copycat," considering that the M68 killed every tank an M256 knocked out and that the latest generation of 105mm apfsds rounds have greater penitrating poer then any of the first 120mm apfsds rounds then the 120mm smoothbore must also be funtionally obsolete.
Yeah, it killed every tank the M256 knocked out... which were T-55s and cheap T-72 knock-offs. Meanwhile, testings made against things that actually pose a challenge told a rather more relevant story. Even primitive ERA or composite armor means that the L7 is in trouble. A ERA-upgraded soviet T-72 back in 1980 would have been all but impenetrable to the L7 on its front aspect.
@Magni56 "Even primitive ERA or composite armor means that the L7 is in trouble." are we forgetting about the tests the Soviets conducted with captured IDF M111 HETZ rounds that they discovered the sabot round created a Star of David straight through their tank's glacies armour. "A ERA-upgraded soviet T-72 back in 1980 would have been all but impenetrable to the L7" USSR didn't even have ERA equipped tanks in 1980.Special pleading,much?
They had no ERA in 1980? Nope, they just had had fucking prototypes in 1976, but hey, lets not let that disturb that particular delusion of yours. Neither the invention of soviet 2nd gen ERA, Kontakt-5, in 1985.
@Magni56 "Nope, they just had had fucking prototypes in 1976" that's irrelevant t the debate as ERA wasn't a staple on Soviet tanks until after the Lebanon War. While yes the Soviets had prototypes they refused to protect their soldeirs with explosives. That must also mean Brittanica online is incorrect as well."invention of soviet 2nd gen ERA, Kontakt-5, in 1985." also irrelevant to the disscussion as that date isn't 1980. It's a full five years after the fact.
And your claim about "the latest generation" of 105mm APFSDS is nothing but a complete and utter lie. Even the oldet still used APFSDS shells for the 120mm smoothbore utterly and completely outperform anything the 105mm has by a massive margin.
@Magni56 "Even the oldet still used APFSDS shells for the 120mm smoothbore utterly and completely outperform anything the 105mm has by a massive margin." the M900 APFSDS penitrates as much armour as the M829,and there's alo the M1060 which penitrates even more armour and then the M1060A3 which slices ever more armour. "a complete and utter lie" you shouldn't be accusing me of lying when you yourself lie.
Nice collection of outright lies. Actual performance statistics put the M1060A3 as being barely BELOW the M829. Which, of course, is also an obsolete round by now and hardly comparable at all to the M829A1 and A2.
And yes, I will keep calling you lon your complete and utter lies. And given how you were utterly unable to present anything but lies and fallacies, I'm getting impatient. Present something worthwhile or consider your concession to be accepted.
@Magni56 "Nice collection of outright lies","105mm APFSDS is nothing but a complete and utter lie"," I will keep calling you lon your complete and utter lies","you were utterly unable to present anything but lies and fallacies"," lets not let that disturb that particular delusion of yours" btw have you ever not used personal attacks in your arguements?
@Magni56 "Even the oldet still used APFSDS shells for the 120mm smoothbore utterly and completely outperform anything the 105mm has by a massive margin," not according to bandepleteduranuim(org which states,"It is claimed that the M900 is capable of penetrating the frontal armour of all current armour systems, as is the M829." "Actual performance statistics put the M1060A3 as being barely BELOW the M829" what performance statistics are those? Janes says the M1060A1 is better then the M900.
@TheWWWdotFRAUDS dont forget the chinese and the iranians .. they will use the "mass of troops" tactic .. like they have used before ( I know the iranians used it on iraq )
@Ibreakthings51 You really think the U.S. is going to face off with China?! The Chinese use mechanized infantry in the Type 90,Yw309,and the potent Type 97. Even if the U.S. had an armoured superiority of the open battlefield that would give all the more reason for the enemy to hide in the cities and not show face in open country where they know they would lose.
@VickersIndependent indeed. the Chinese are the ONLY nation to have mechanized infantry...wow, what a strategic surprise....I think ur analysis is wrong - indeed, hide in the cities. In open country, that's where US/UK weapons systems are most lethal. More open, the better...just ask Iraq in '91 how that open terrain helped them with their superior numbers...fine, hide in the cities. we should add carpet bombing back to our repertoire...
@ghemminger1 I never said,"the Chinese are the ONLY nation to have mechanized infantry," stop making up lies I only said,"The Chinese use mechanized infantry ." I never implied the former. "I think ur analysis is wrong " with the improper quote you provided it seems you're anaylsis is flawed.
@ghemminger1 "we should add carpet bombing back to our repertoire" carpet bombing levels cities doing so would make the US look bad and we shouldn't further because as you say,"again, given the liberals of the world, we have to be wary of collateral damage." or maybe you just aren't used to the self-defeating arguement?
@VickersIndependent it doesn't matter what the US does, we're always wrong. Therefore, we should do that which ensures our security. The fact that the world cowers in the face of dictators and tyrants and yet likes to ride our coat tails as we take the initiative, throwing stones at us as we go. You obviously missed my sarcasm on carpet bombing - fine. Your deft grasp of argument construction and deconstruction makes me wonder why I continue to write you back...maybe out of fun?
@ghemminger1 "it doesn't matter what the US does, we're always wrong." What about WWII overthrowing a evil dictator. What about saving South Korea? What about overthrowing the dictator of Panama? What about ousting Saddam? I'm guessing all of those were mistakes.
@VickersIndependent Oh, I don't think they are mistakes, but apparently you haven't watched mainstream media or heard our elected liberals who've categorized ousting Saddam as "illegal."
@ghemminger1 If you take into consideration what Saddam did to the Kurds ousting him and giving voting rights to women it doesn't seem so unjustifiable.
@VickersIndependent hey, you don't have to convince me that it was right. but the world court of public opinion continues to think it was an "unjust" war and that it was a GWB vengeance trip...all of which I think is false, but liberals like living in lala-land and euros are more than interested in doing anything to spite America.
@VickersIndependent The Chinese military is not a threat to anyone. The vast majority is in place for population supression. Additionally, in the early to mid 1970s China tried invading Vietnam and got their asses kicked bad. Hanoi had never anticipated an attack from the north and still owned the Chinese.
@Robbob9933 I actually didn't think the U.S. is going toe to toe with China,read the comments. Although there is a much stronger likelihood that the U.S. might have to worry about fighting some very capable supplied Chinese equiptment in an urban setting.
Population suppression? Haha, dream on. Here's a little known fact: The Chinese like their government as long as it provides rising living standards. And if it doesn't, it can't rely on the army, either. And trying to equate the PLA today with 40 years ago is just so much fail, it hurts, even without taking the last ten years of mass reforms into account. The PLA today is a well-equipped and professionaly trained volunteer force.
@Ibreakthings51 if they do they will get destroyed, this round is not useless any hajii caught in the open or under light cover is going to end like swiss cheese, but if they entrench themselves in the field or in a city this round looses most of its punch, distance and the thickness of enemy possitions affects, a HE or HESH both used by the US army by the way :s will cause the same damage at 100 to 3000 m and can obliterate enemy trenches and fortified positions
@Ibreakthings51 actually the M1 could fire HE rounds and Can shot, actually M48 and M60 tanks fired beehive rounds which are similar in operation to the Can, they obliterated the vietcong with them.
but you cant stop using HE or HESH bunkers and fortifications cant be cleared without high explosives a fact since WWI
@VickersIndependent actually the video proves our point it took 2 shots to demolish a wall of cinder block, you don't need expensive rounds to kill people behind cinder block, this material is fragile. this round is just going to scratch the facade of bunkers like it did in WWI
@TheWWWdotFRAUDS It may as well have taken even more then just 2 shots to knock those walls,considering what little damage the first round did to just the first wall. This M123 HEP out of an M728 CEV round shows how it should be done.
Fugging hollow tile wall...let's get serious!
kpadmirer 1 month ago
Fuck, that wall disintegrated.
MichaelxDavid 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mind I ask,who is flaging my comments as spam AGAIN?
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@Magni56 As for the answer to the HE-OR's effectiveness,if you didn't read the first part of my response,allow me to elaborate. While MP-AT can detonate inside of a target all it can do is drill a peice of metal into a target deeper this is because HE-OR STILL relies on a shaped charge. And shaped chages focus the lion's share of their energy directly forward which makes them ineffective against structures. Also the whole weight of a HE-OR round is only 25 pounds,nothing like M123's 64 pounds.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
I wonder who it is flagging my comment s a spam. Whoever it is they are cowardly and they know it as they want to hide the argument they are losing.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
good camera angle, can really see everything
thetrolone 2 years ago
thanks
Ibreakthings51 2 years ago
zeekwolfe - they work fine in afghanistan :)
slaaaaft 2 years ago
Gotta love that can round!
cookie19k 2 years ago
I'm not impressed. Cannister dates back to Napoleonic times. These three rounds cost over five hundred dollars each...for what? So we can hear some childish yelps off camera. I want my money back.
zeekwolfe 3 years ago
iraqi insurgents are impressed...
arasaka2020tm 2 years ago 2
Aww... not impressed? Tell us how to make it better :-(
for what? to meet the threat of dispersed attack teams, take out obstacles(concertina wire), and light structures.
The soldiers and tankers love it, money well spent.
boobtuber06 2 years ago
That was called grape shot back then.
The canister round that is fired from the abrams is devastating! I have seen it fired into a group of insurgents at 500 meters (nothing but chunks of haji was left)! And they are much more then $500 each.
USMCDEVILDOGZ 2 years ago
I'm afraid not! Cannister even in Napoleon's time was a tin can or even a bag filled with musket balls. "Grape" was round shot smaller than a golf ball but bigger than a musket ball. Grape was effective in naval warfare because of it's effect on masts, spars, and rigging. It was also used by land based field artillery. Smaller caliber field guns limited it's use, however.
zeekwolfe 2 years ago
LIKE IN TOTAL WAR
Marko11111111111 2 years ago
I would love to see that video! Hoorah! I figured at 500m they would have spread too far. We sure got this one right!
bluerazors 2 years ago
@zeekwolfe You're true watch?v=FC8pqXPoyBA ,and there are much more effective and modern solutions,such as High Explosive Squash Head and the dubious anti-personel fleccette,to the non-tank targets problem facing the US Army.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent actually yes, but i suppose the US army expects to fight red coats or confederate soldiers in the near future, this round is obsolete century technology passing as something new, they ceased to exist because as im sure you know a device called machinegun and HE rounds entered into scene. HE rounds proved more effective at demolishing buildings and killing personnel, shrapnell and can shots simply cant destroy a bunker
TheWWWdotFRAUDS 1 year ago
@TheWWWdotFRAUDS The reason we used it was be cause of collateral damage. We would use the tanks at major checkpoints and when we had to use the rounds we wouldnt worry about everything behind us. If we were firing .50 cal or any other machine gun. Those bullets are going to be traveling a very long ways after the target. These rounds dissipate at the short distances. If we use tank rounds .. we would not have any neighborhoods around our checkpoints/bases. That is from my own experiance.
Ibreakthings51 1 year ago
@Ibreakthings51 edit**Where I said we wouldnt have to worry about things behind us. I ment didnt have to worry about whats behind the target we are shooting. And these canister rounds have 1100 tungstin berrings (sp?)
Ibreakthings51 1 year ago
@Ibreakthings51 Completely agree. WWWdotFrauds - can a HEAT round do this to a building? Yep, but what if you don't want to take out the next 5 houses in a row? canister is a great round when you need to be cognizant of the SDZ (surface danger zone) for the round firing. per breakthings comment - ideal for check points and vehicles that don't heed warnings...I'm sad I'm no longer an active duty tanker - would loved to have had this round...woulda' made the "Widow Maker" engagement "funner"
ghemminger1 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 "can a HEAT round do this to a building" do what? This video only shows a pathetic small set of holes in one portion of the wall. Certainly not the wall smashing foce of an M123A1 HEP which would leveled the walls on the first shot. "would loved to have had this round" interesting considering that the M48 and M60 series and M551 series all had their own cannister rounds.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent why is that interesting given the 48/60 and 551 are no longer in active duty service??? HEPs a good round too. my, oh my, you're awfully conceited...
ghemminger1 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 The fact that its predicessors were all armed with dual-purpose shells gives all the more reason as to why M1A1s/M1A2s weren't armed with multi-purpose rounds. "my, oh my, you're awfully conceited..." That's a bloody personal attack which has no bearing on the arguement at hand.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 "but what if you don't want to take out the next 5 houses in a row" interesting when one consinders that a HE or HEP shell detonates on contact with a surface! As oppsosed to a cannister that doesn't detonate on contact and flies in uncontrolled directions.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent it doesn't fly in uncontrolled directions - you aren't going to engage a target at 1000 meters with a cannister round. tight engagements will keep the shot pattern together with less spread...yes, HEAT and HEP detonate on impact with considerable explosion...again, given the liberals of the world, we have to be wary of collateral damage...
ok, go back to your COD4 game now...
ghemminger1 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 "it doesn't fly in uncontrolled directions" what doesn't? Because it sure isn't a shotgun style round which spreeds the shot no matter what you do in a tank gun,that is unless you don't use a cannister round! "HEP detonate on impact with considerable explosion" an explosion large enough just to get the job done and nothing more. "ok, go back to your COD4 game now..." my aren't we one for personal attacks?! Once again it has no bearing on the arguement at hand.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent I'm sorry, have you ever been a tank commander? I have. cannister, if fired at extended ranges, loses its effectiveness. It's not meant for long-distance engagements. Firing it thru a window or door of some mud hut will neutralize any/all threats within the building without destroying the building completely. HEP will level (or nearly so) the building with the airburst mechanism on it...
ghemminger1 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 "Firing it thru a window or door of some mud hut will neutralize any/all threats within the building" there's the problem. Don't expect to have a window or door the size of a building. Also this counts on the fact that the enemy hasn't already fortified his positions like in Fallujah in which the terrorists actually did brick-up entrances and windows forcing troops into their own turf. If you had a HEP round you could mouse-hole an entrance and force the enemy to fight on your terms
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent at close range, cannister is going thru brick, blowing the debris inwards, probably with greater affect (more projectiles zinging around the room)...do you own a company that makes HEP rounds? you sure like this round...
ghemminger1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ghemminger1 "blowing the debris inwards, probably with greater affect (more projectiles zinging around the room" if there is going to be debris it won't be much as the round isn't smashing the wall down or blowing it up,its just going thourgh it. Also the masonry or building in question may be more resiliant to the pellets and therefore the maisonry may actually absorb the lethal affects of the pellets.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 Also,"more projectiles zinging around the room" you realize that round pellets cannot tumble in flight and if they do riccochet off a wall don't forget it has already lost much of its kinetic energy from peircing a wall. If the pellet could pinwheel in flight,like a 5.56,it would be able to be more lethal,but it can't. "you sure like this round" well HESH is a very useful round but there also are beehive rounds which are also effective in combat.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent
M908 High Explosive-Obstacle Reduction-Tank. Has been in service for the US Army since the beginning of Iraqi Freedom. It actually performs better agianst hardened structures than the old M123 165mm demolition shell.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 I seriously doubt that given that the M908 is essentialy just a re-packaged MP-AT ,the main difference is that there's a steel rod penitrator in place of a charge liner, MP-AT in turn does this to structures... watch?v=CslK8O9rY0Q Don't excpect HE-OR to do much better. What M1s need is their M68A1 105mm guns back which is far more versitile and reliable then the M256.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent
Yeah. And it turns out that 2 pounds of HE going off inside a block of concrete causes more damage than 25 going off on the outside of it. The live-fire tests don't lie.
And the 105mm L7 is neither more versatile nor more reliable than the M256 outside of a bunch of claims that have been debunked a thousand times over. (Not to mention that the L7 is functionally obsolete on a battlefield against anything more modern than a poor man's T-72 copycat.)
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 "And it turns out that 2 pounds of HE going off inside a block of concrete causes more damage than 25 going off on the outside of it,"if this comment were true then why did funtionaly indenticle Armour Piercing High Explosive go out of fashion until the US Army re-invented the wheel? "The live-fire tests don't lie,"oh do you mean the tests ATK a subsidary of the lying GDLS performed to show to the world that their round defied reason?
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent
So, your entire answer to HE-OR-T is nothing but a gigantic poisoning the well fallacy grounded on your shitty, unproven claim of aleged "lies" about tests? One that is also founded on complete and utter ginorance about the facts that such tests have been carried out by multiple independent parties, unlike what you claim? If so, let me accept your full conession.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 "So, your entire answer to HE-OR-T is nothing but a gigantic poisoning the well fallacy" that wasn't my entire answer did you read the first part at all? Also GDLS alraedy has a knack for lies with its Stryker,EFV,and MP-AT. Also the other tests conducted with HE-OR were by the Army,and they never told us what a single HE-OR round did. "unproven claim of aleged lies about tests,"well you know I'd love to hear of those tests that 'proved' HE-OR's effectiveness against structures.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent
"They have a knack for lies" is nothing but a poisoning the well fallacy. Not that it matters, given that tests performed by the fucking army itself and the south korean army, after adoption, yielded the same results. Every last result showed it superior to the M123.
Magni56 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Magni56 "the 105mm L7 is neither more versatile nor more reliable than the M256 outside of a bunch of claims that have been debunked a thousand times over," can I count right then?Because last time I checked a bore life of 400 rounds was far less then 1,000 rounds. Also considering USMC Sgt William J. Orr's report on how inadaqute his 120mm smoothbore gun was in action comapared to how outstanding Candian Leopard's with 105mm guns performed in Afghanistan this quote seems false.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@Magni56 "the L7 is functionally obsolete on a battlefield against anything more modern than a poor man's T-72 copycat," considering that the M68 killed every tank an M256 knocked out and that the latest generation of 105mm apfsds rounds have greater penitrating poer then any of the first 120mm apfsds rounds then the 120mm smoothbore must also be funtionally obsolete.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent
Yeah, it killed every tank the M256 knocked out... which were T-55s and cheap T-72 knock-offs. Meanwhile, testings made against things that actually pose a challenge told a rather more relevant story. Even primitive ERA or composite armor means that the L7 is in trouble. A ERA-upgraded soviet T-72 back in 1980 would have been all but impenetrable to the L7 on its front aspect.
Magni56 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Magni56 "Even primitive ERA or composite armor means that the L7 is in trouble." are we forgetting about the tests the Soviets conducted with captured IDF M111 HETZ rounds that they discovered the sabot round created a Star of David straight through their tank's glacies armour. "A ERA-upgraded soviet T-72 back in 1980 would have been all but impenetrable to the L7" USSR didn't even have ERA equipped tanks in 1980.Special pleading,much?
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent
They had no ERA in 1980? Nope, they just had had fucking prototypes in 1976, but hey, lets not let that disturb that particular delusion of yours. Neither the invention of soviet 2nd gen ERA, Kontakt-5, in 1985.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 "Nope, they just had had fucking prototypes in 1976" that's irrelevant t the debate as ERA wasn't a staple on Soviet tanks until after the Lebanon War. While yes the Soviets had prototypes they refused to protect their soldeirs with explosives. That must also mean Brittanica online is incorrect as well."invention of soviet 2nd gen ERA, Kontakt-5, in 1985." also irrelevant to the disscussion as that date isn't 1980. It's a full five years after the fact.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent
And your claim about "the latest generation" of 105mm APFSDS is nothing but a complete and utter lie. Even the oldet still used APFSDS shells for the 120mm smoothbore utterly and completely outperform anything the 105mm has by a massive margin.
Magni56 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Magni56 "Even the oldet still used APFSDS shells for the 120mm smoothbore utterly and completely outperform anything the 105mm has by a massive margin." the M900 APFSDS penitrates as much armour as the M829,and there's alo the M1060 which penitrates even more armour and then the M1060A3 which slices ever more armour. "a complete and utter lie" you shouldn't be accusing me of lying when you yourself lie.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent
Nice collection of outright lies. Actual performance statistics put the M1060A3 as being barely BELOW the M829. Which, of course, is also an obsolete round by now and hardly comparable at all to the M829A1 and A2.
And yes, I will keep calling you lon your complete and utter lies. And given how you were utterly unable to present anything but lies and fallacies, I'm getting impatient. Present something worthwhile or consider your concession to be accepted.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Magni56 "Nice collection of outright lies","105mm APFSDS is nothing but a complete and utter lie"," I will keep calling you lon your complete and utter lies","you were utterly unable to present anything but lies and fallacies"," lets not let that disturb that particular delusion of yours" btw have you ever not used personal attacks in your arguements?
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Magni56 "Even the oldet still used APFSDS shells for the 120mm smoothbore utterly and completely outperform anything the 105mm has by a massive margin," not according to bandepleteduranuim(org which states,"It is claimed that the M900 is capable of penetrating the frontal armour of all current armour systems, as is the M829." "Actual performance statistics put the M1060A3 as being barely BELOW the M829" what performance statistics are those? Janes says the M1060A1 is better then the M900.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@TheWWWdotFRAUDS dont forget the chinese and the iranians .. they will use the "mass of troops" tactic .. like they have used before ( I know the iranians used it on iraq )
Ibreakthings51 1 year ago
@Ibreakthings51 You really think the U.S. is going to face off with China?! The Chinese use mechanized infantry in the Type 90,Yw309,and the potent Type 97. Even if the U.S. had an armoured superiority of the open battlefield that would give all the more reason for the enemy to hide in the cities and not show face in open country where they know they would lose.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent no but the world is a retarded place. and I am sure they have all sorts of plans in some dusty back room in the government.
Ibreakthings51 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent indeed. the Chinese are the ONLY nation to have mechanized infantry...wow, what a strategic surprise....I think ur analysis is wrong - indeed, hide in the cities. In open country, that's where US/UK weapons systems are most lethal. More open, the better...just ask Iraq in '91 how that open terrain helped them with their superior numbers...fine, hide in the cities. we should add carpet bombing back to our repertoire...
ghemminger1 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 I never said,"the Chinese are the ONLY nation to have mechanized infantry," stop making up lies I only said,"The Chinese use mechanized infantry ." I never implied the former. "I think ur analysis is wrong " with the improper quote you provided it seems you're anaylsis is flawed.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 "we should add carpet bombing back to our repertoire" carpet bombing levels cities doing so would make the US look bad and we shouldn't further because as you say,"again, given the liberals of the world, we have to be wary of collateral damage." or maybe you just aren't used to the self-defeating arguement?
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent it doesn't matter what the US does, we're always wrong. Therefore, we should do that which ensures our security. The fact that the world cowers in the face of dictators and tyrants and yet likes to ride our coat tails as we take the initiative, throwing stones at us as we go. You obviously missed my sarcasm on carpet bombing - fine. Your deft grasp of argument construction and deconstruction makes me wonder why I continue to write you back...maybe out of fun?
ghemminger1 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 "it doesn't matter what the US does, we're always wrong." What about WWII overthrowing a evil dictator. What about saving South Korea? What about overthrowing the dictator of Panama? What about ousting Saddam? I'm guessing all of those were mistakes.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent Oh, I don't think they are mistakes, but apparently you haven't watched mainstream media or heard our elected liberals who've categorized ousting Saddam as "illegal."
ghemminger1 1 year ago
@ghemminger1 If you take into consideration what Saddam did to the Kurds ousting him and giving voting rights to women it doesn't seem so unjustifiable.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent hey, you don't have to convince me that it was right. but the world court of public opinion continues to think it was an "unjust" war and that it was a GWB vengeance trip...all of which I think is false, but liberals like living in lala-land and euros are more than interested in doing anything to spite America.
ghemminger1 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent The Chinese military is not a threat to anyone. The vast majority is in place for population supression. Additionally, in the early to mid 1970s China tried invading Vietnam and got their asses kicked bad. Hanoi had never anticipated an attack from the north and still owned the Chinese.
Robbob9933 1 year ago
@Robbob9933 I actually didn't think the U.S. is going toe to toe with China,read the comments. Although there is a much stronger likelihood that the U.S. might have to worry about fighting some very capable supplied Chinese equiptment in an urban setting.
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@Robbob9933
Population suppression? Haha, dream on. Here's a little known fact: The Chinese like their government as long as it provides rising living standards. And if it doesn't, it can't rely on the army, either. And trying to equate the PLA today with 40 years ago is just so much fail, it hurts, even without taking the last ten years of mass reforms into account. The PLA today is a well-equipped and professionaly trained volunteer force.
Magni56 1 year ago
@Ibreakthings51 if they do they will get destroyed, this round is not useless any hajii caught in the open or under light cover is going to end like swiss cheese, but if they entrench themselves in the field or in a city this round looses most of its punch, distance and the thickness of enemy possitions affects, a HE or HESH both used by the US army by the way :s will cause the same damage at 100 to 3000 m and can obliterate enemy trenches and fortified positions
TheWWWdotFRAUDS 1 year ago
@Ibreakthings51 actually the M1 could fire HE rounds and Can shot, actually M48 and M60 tanks fired beehive rounds which are similar in operation to the Can, they obliterated the vietcong with them.
but you cant stop using HE or HESH bunkers and fortifications cant be cleared without high explosives a fact since WWI
TheWWWdotFRAUDS 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent actually the video proves our point it took 2 shots to demolish a wall of cinder block, you don't need expensive rounds to kill people behind cinder block, this material is fragile. this round is just going to scratch the facade of bunkers like it did in WWI
TheWWWdotFRAUDS 1 year ago
@TheWWWdotFRAUDS It may as well have taken even more then just 2 shots to knock those walls,considering what little damage the first round did to just the first wall. This M123 HEP out of an M728 CEV round shows how it should be done.
watch?v=8KvikyTbi4M
VickersIndependent 1 year ago
@VickersIndependent yeah thats what im talking about no fortified position can survive that, you leave the enemy no place to hide
TheWWWdotFRAUDS 1 year ago
Do you have any demos of the M908 Demolition Round?
I really want to see that in action.
boobtuber06 3 years ago