Shotgun Tank Round

The Tank Cartridge, 120mm, Canister, XM1028, is a tank round comprised of 1150 (est.) tungsten balls, which are expelled upon muzzle exit. There is no fuse on this round.

Tank Shotgun Round

WMS

nuts...

whats the point?

still, seeing all those targets drop at the last couple of seconds was kinda impressive, in that you really get a sense of the spread of the thing...

oh, and is that a actual shockwave i see on the slowmo part?

Same thing you use a regular shotgun for in the military: urban combat.

Penetrator rounds, heck even solid slugs, would punch through multiple buildings. Explosive rounds are likely to collapse structures. A shot shell will rip through a wall or two but probably won't make it completely through the building.

Otherwise the many heavy armor assets the US has are limited to their coaxial weapons which typically are less than what you'd mount on a Bradley.

Not a very discriminate weapon though. You're mainly relying on the fact that most non-combatants run for cover when the gunfire breaks out.

I'd have to say the point is *shudder* anti-personnel. I'm guessing it won't do much against armored vehicles, but a person will get torn to bits.

Think of it like grape shot.

The Israelis used canister rounds (indirectly) as anti-missile rounds in the 60s & 70s.

The ATGMs of the day had to be manually guided to the target, meaning no fire-and-run-like-hell. The tank crews were trained to fire a canister round at any unexpected puff of dust, because it could be a ATGM launch, with a gunner nearby.

If the guy firing the missile wasn't killed outright, he was forced to duck, which usually made the missile miss.

Yes, that was the shock wave. now just load it with gel rounds for urban pacification.

Egad, what are you going to do, stuff a bean-bag chair down the barrel? *thinks about it for a moment* Hehe, that would be a thing to see.

Based on the muzzle velocity of a 120mm HEAT round (which is probably about the same weight), that cannister round leaves the barrel somewhere around mach 3. So yeah, that is a sonic boom.

It's cool. If you look and watch how the shot clump breaks up into the pattern, that's exactly the same mechanism as a regular shotgun.

More like canister... I believe the round was developed in response to or anticipation of "human wave" attacks, where a single Tank simply can't machine gun or HE enough bodies to stop them overrunning it. Human wave => Human mist.

More like human hamburger. Ewww.

-paws

PS
Q. What's a ghoul's favorite quick-and-easy meal?
A. Manwich

Bringing chunky salsa to a battlefield near you...

Lets go goose huntin'.

I would point out that gel rounds at those speeds will kill. So much for magical nonfatal rounds.

more like thunderbird huntin'...

They'd have to use some kind of compressed foam in the canister. That way when it expanded it would decelerate quickly. Of course, "quickly" and "immediately" are not the same thing and at Mach3+, that's a lot of ground that can be covered at still-fatal velocities.

Plus the cannister cup can take someone's head off. Or maybe leave the head and take out the entire torso.

make it hard-rubber and shoot at ground/walls so they bounce like . . i don't frigging know whatever you english people call them, over here in germany we call them flummis . . now imagine that stuff being shot into a tunnel . . or into a building with not too many windows through one of those windows . . many ouchies . .

Tank fired freeze fome rounds an runners worst nightmare. And would be jolly good at stopping those hostiles getting to your tank when you build a wall around them.

People should park tanks in their house wiht these rounds so as to shoot burglars.

Or we could mix ideas...

I have to admit, the thought of a tank cannon that fires 1,150 superballs down my foyer is quite an attractive idea to me. Makes me wish I had more long hallways.

Hrmm... I suppose a superball at Mach 3 would still be pretty deadly and would probably break my house. Maybe we need to consider Nerf tanks.

They won't be doing mach speeds for very long, though, and if you were designing for nonfatality, you'd limit the velocity so that people not seriously fucked up just by the muzzle blast might not die if hit by the scattering projectiles. But hails of plastic BBs will still take out eyes.

And cause a major tripping hazard as they roll around on the ground after taking out the eyes...

Interesting. Apparently the US military has had these for a while.

My concern as the tank commander would be, what's it do that the three machine guns also mounted on the Abrams tank don't already do at least reasonable well? One of the major limitations on tanks is their ammo capacity on the main gun. I would be concerned about using up ammo capacity on these when I could have had HEAT or HE rounds instead.

But I guess they see some use, so what do I know? The Abrams Wikipedia entry says you can use the shotgun rounds to knock man-sized holes in concrete walls at 75 meters - you can use them to make doors for infantry.

I tend to think of tanks as existing to battle and defeat other tanks, not as urban infantry support. The more nimble Striker and Bradley are built for that job.

Since 1776.

A triplet of MGs doesn't have the area of effect that one of these rounds does, and can not cause as much potential damage, either. We'd need to see how tank commanders adapt their tactics to integrate the weapons before we can evaluate their worth. I believe that making more options available to commanders in the field is always a good idea.

What use is HEAT in an Urban warfare situation? Same goes for APFSDS rounds. Until tanks become a common feature of urban warfare (hint: they're not, right now) there's no need to mount Anti-Tank weaponry for urban missions. HE does not perform adequately for anti-infantry purposes in urban warfare, where infantry are more likely to be dispersed and deployed in ambush due to the complex terrain.


I suspect that anyone on the other side would find the situation rather unpleasant, as well.


This is one of those strange misconceptions, if tanks existed to take out other tanks why do nations not avoid spending millions on new tanks? Common claims, of course, will be "military-industrial complex" because a scapegoat has to exist to cover peoples' ignorance. I think the misconception originates in "strategy" games, where tanks are used to battle tanks and buildings to "balance" tanks.

Tanks are mobile artillery, they exist to bring the strength of the gun into direct fire roles to support deployed infantry assets equipped with small arms. Tanks are best targetted like artillery and kept moving to avoid exposing their weaknesses to enemy fire. Tank vs. tank warfare originated because, as artillery, they're one of the few direct fire weapons deployed with infantry that can counter another tank in the field of battle.

I learned from Operation Flashpoint that Abrams > M113 because whereas the Abrams can absorb a number of main gun hits from a T82, a Bradley is toast with a single hit, and so is everyone inside. While playing that game I began to regard M113s as deathtraps for the player character.

HE/HEAT is actually one of the most practical large caliber tank shells for urban combat. It is great for digging snipers and ambushers out of buildings. The armor penetration of the HEAT round isn't very useful, but a mix of Sabot and HEAT gives you something for almost any situation.

Things are a little different with autocannon rounds, since a reinforced building wall could conceivably stop a 25mm HE round.

Tanks in Cities.

Urban Renewal by any other name.

Not exactly.

The role of artillery is best handled by, you know, artillary. The original tanks were used much like cavalry (and are, in fact, classified as armored cavalry), which became useless due to a combination of modern weapons (as evidenced by the Light Brigade) and the advent of the internal combustion engine. The point of the tank was to punch holes in enemy lines and then go through those holes, either breaking apart the infantry line or gaining a foothold behind the line. As the use of armored vehicles and tanks became more prominent, especially this particular tactic, the size of tank guns began to increase to better combat enemy tanks, either defensively or offensively. The modern main battle tank evolved from the universal tank, which combined the armor of an infantry tank (designed to kill enemy infantry and break holes in lines) with the speed and firepower of a cruiser tank (designed to exploit the holes made by infantry tanks through lines and kill enemy tanks as well as APCs). The two primary roles of main battle tanks are, thus, punching holes in enemy infantry formations, lines, and fortifications and killing other MBTs before they can do the same to your forces. The role of mobile artillery comes in third, and it generally better served by actual mobile artillery directed by a spotter with a laser designator a role with could easily be served by a UAV).

Changing realities of warfare are, of course, forcing the roles of the tank to change, as well. Modern MBTs were designed to fight World War III (which would would expect to be a total war) against a technologically equal force using regular military tactics. Limited wars against technologically inferior guerrilla forces weren't expected to be the most pressing of concerns when these vehicles were designed.

So needs to develop a cheaper vehicle with heavy armour and mobility, with a less-powerful weapons system. Perhaps something similar to the original tanks of WWI, which bristled in armoured machine guns?

how about replacing one .50 machinegun with a belt feed shotgun?

Actually, IIRC, back in WWII, one of the Officers at the time stated the the purpose of Tanks were to go forward and get stuck, whereupon it became a Moralistic thing for the Infantry to "Go out there and save the stupid tankers. Again."

But, he was in the Infantry, so might have been a touch biased. Wish I could remember where I heard this quote.

You can't overestimate the importance of a highly mobile heavily armed vehicle in warfare. When they weren't commanded by total morons, calvary, and mounted archers in particular, kicked a great deal of ass.

The important thing is to maintain versatility in armament so that one can respond to any potential situation. The problem is that the battle between armor and arms is a pendulum and right now we're swinging on the arms side in regards to vehicles. The better solution is highly mobile and well-armed disposable platforms. This is best served with armed high-speed unmanned ground vehicles, essentially fast-moving gun robots.

Waves of Steel Lynx!!!

Yeah, it's called the Striker. It can mount a 105mm cannon if needed, and all sorts of goodies otherwise, is much more mobile, faster, easier to transport, uses less fuel, costs a lot less, etc. You can give that thing all sorts of different armament really.
I'm thinking that a turreted pair of automatic HV 25mm smart grenade launchers would be pretty hard to beat in urban terrain. Just lase for range, set the fuses to blow up around, behind, over, or whatever cover your target is using and cut loose. Hell, you could even make the round dual-purpose like the M789 shaped charge/anti-personnel rounds used by the A-10 back in the day for taking out light armored vehicles as well. Add a delayed fuse type and it will penetrate walls before detonating.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, General Electric GAU-8/A Avenger... For when you absolutely, positively need to turn everything into swiss cheese!

Oh, yeah. Two words: Parthian Shot.

The shotgun would be too short ranged to be useful, would not penetrate any sort of heavy cover all that well, would require additional logistics difficulties, etc.

As for urban combat vehicles, there's the BMPT and Achzarit. I'm sorta surprised the US hasn't come up with something similar, though I think the Stryker MGS + add or armor is supposed to fill this role.

Hey as for why the USM has not come up with some thing along those lines...The same USM that was going to "retire" /get rid of the Warthog, until the first Desert Storm, The Sergent York, and other boondoggles.

WMS

Exactly. The Stryker in it's various mods of operation fits the roles of these other slower, heavier vehicles and even covers a few that these vehicles do not.

The striker, however, even with improved armor, is substantially less survivable than a tank, due to the fact that its armor will never be as good as a tank's. It provides protection from far fewer threats. This is the tradeoff of less expensive and less heavily armored. The driver of an unmanned vehicle, on the other hand, always survives no matter how badly damaged his vehicle is. This is the huge advantage that drones have in combat. It is cheaper easier and faster to replace them than it is to replace a human.

and less of a public outcry back home...

i just wonder how long it will take for this to show up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQX_TcVDFnI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQkkYKi8bKw





If I was a tank commander, I'd rather have a few of those shot rounds in my ammo storage and not have to use them, than not have them and run into a situation where they'd be needed.



Bah, these guys just took Neill Blomkamp's "Tetra Vaal" animation short and stuck propaganda text over the end, and then didn't bother to even credit the creator.

Neill also created the three Halo live action shorts, for reference.


-karma

Did you even read the description of the basis for those other vehicles? They're from old-ass tanks that really aren't really any more survivable than a Stryker. A T-72 and a T-55? Any AT weapon made in the last 30+ years will take those things out. Now add that the new turret tops look even weaker than the original ones and they ain't exactly bouncing much of anything off really serious off of them except crappy old RPG warheads.

Unmanned vehicles are great except that they're only great now because our enemies have yet to figure out a way to jam them up. In the world of SR where money talks rather than mil-only companies and money, it won't be quite so cut and dried between "We gots the goodies and you doesn't" that you see so much today in TV and the interwebs.

You've never seen an M1 running cross country. An M1 or a Brad are much more mobile cross country. They can also drive across surfaces that would leave a stryker bogged to the axle's. And both are hugely more survivable than a stryker and can both kill a stryker from >3000 meters away. A stryker can kill neither at any range, as .50 cal MGs just don't do much to them.

A stryler is good against 14.mm HMG bullets, a Brad is good against 30mm cannon.

You can transport two strykers armored against 14.5mm HMGs in a C17, OR two brads. You can't move either by C130. The strykers have two .50 cal MG, the Brads two 25 mm autocannon and two TOWs and much heavier armor. I can clearly see how it's much more useful to have less firepower and survivability when you have a limited amount of airlift.

Well, having just seen a Stryker pass cold weather testing with a 105mm howitzer, that a Bradley has no hope of matching, I would have to disagree. The Stryker can fire this weapon on the fly and from a full 360 degree rotation as well. There are also variants of the Stryker either being tested and/or being developed that will include those missile packages and the like. The Brad has those besides-a-cannon goodies after 20+ years of development. After 20 years the Stryker or the vehicle that replaces it will have them as well, I'm sure. Add that the new-gen Strykers have a 120mm mortar, the newly improved armor, the AT weapon screens, and other improvements and you can see that this system is going places or at least allowing the US Army to see the potential for similar weapons systems for future development. And how many Brads can haul an 11-man squad with full equipment and then over fire support of a direct and indirect nature to that unit at mobility speeds exceeding 60 mph?

This is a vehicle for the new "Find, Fix/Flank, and Destroy" US Army, not the old "Let's slug it out" US Army of the Cold War the the Brad represents. The Stryker doesn't replace the Brad but it is more mobile on roads, faster to deploy via airlift with some concessions, and offers another option that is proving very effective In Iraq despite some shortcomings that are slowly being worked on. I feel that the best reason for this vehicle is the proof in the pudding, the end-soldier who uses the things. I have heard great praises from both the Stryker units and the units that they support.

Yeah, but, honestly, when is the US going to have to deal with much Cold Weather assaults, unless they decide to put up a fight over the resources found in the Canadian Arctic?

Hopefully see the Canadian Rangers get some funding finally.

I mean, last I checked, it didn't snow that often in The Sandbox, even if it does get very cold there at night.

I think the Stryker would be a good starting place for an urban tank.

I like that it is wheeled. Wheeled vehicles are much more resistant to mobility kills from IEDs. If one wheel gets blown off, you still limp home. If one track segment gets cut, you are _stuck_.

Eliminate the infantry compartment. This probably cuts the armored volume in half, letting you double the thickness of the armor. This will probably let you move from a 8x8 to 6x6, saving even more weight. I wouldn't go to 4x4, because you can't lose any one wheel at that point. (Yeah, it's no longer a Stryker at this point...)

Use an unmanned turret (maybe like a jumbo CROWS) with a 120mm direct-fire, autoloading mortar, and coax MG. Cannon are really only required for driving sabot through tanks, or hitting distant or fast moving targets. All of which would be unlikely in urban fighting. Put an armored box of FGM-148 Javelin, for when they have a target outside the envelope of a 120mm HEAT round.

If possible, automate things to the point that the commander can also be the gunner.

Since a RPG is going to cause a large explosion anyway, use a claymore-like close-in defense screen to try and knock down missiles and rockets.

AKA: Reactive Armour.

Well, if China decides to get uppity and grabs a foothold in Hokaido in the middle of winter. And, of course, any unstable former Soviet country, such as Chechnya. Russia still sees that area a their playground, but they might call in help of those Chechen rebels get too fierce. And, of course, North Korea can get mighty cold and is still at war with South Korea (technically). You shouldn't forget those Axes of Evil.