less ebil thingz to dooz to doez pore pore Iraquis3

 

1. I can’t tell what I’m more impressed with, your research, that cute little rocket or the Army doing a fine Catch 22 with a functional and inexpensive weapon.

   Posted by Dr. Jeff       03/15/2008  at  03:14 AM  



2. 120mm shotgun shell! That could really ruin a jihadis day!

   Posted by LyndonB       03/15/2008  at  04:31 AM  



3. love these in depth posts! lots of research/work. keep up the good work drew!

   Posted by Rancino       03/15/2008  at  12:34 PM  



4. Rancino, I could have written 10 times as much with ease. Who besides me really wants to know what CEP means, or how fixing artillery distance is only half the job if you can’t correct the line? Lemme tell ya, the background to this post was a real edumacation. The science is amazing, though the goal is terribly lethal.

   My actual bottom line is that the US of A will never again fight a war in the classic sense. It can’t be done. No matter how much armor, how many airplanes, how many big ships, how many eager and well trained boots you put on the ground, we can kill them all in a matter of minutes with little or no wasted effort. That’s a damn frightening thought. The only kind of conflict we will ever face again is either surprise nuclear armageddon or rinky-dinky guerilla insurgency. Regular armies don’t stand the slightest chance against us anymore. But, who other than red China even has a regular army anymore? “Video killed the radio star” and high technology may have killed the entire concept of armed forces. Well, those that stand against us at any rate.

   Posted by Drew458       03/15/2008  at  10:00 PM  



5. Doze pore pore jihoddiz!! Heheheheh! I see that a few older ideas are hitting as well.. A lot of tanks in WWII had phones. Made it harder for Jerry to climb on and feed a few potato mashers to the crew, and easier to give spotting info, orders, etc to them. The Shotgun shell is also an older idea, but modernized a bit. Turns infantry in small splatters on the scenery.
   It is an excellent article, though, I always like seeing the state of the art in weaponry.  IMHO there isn’t enough we can do to make sure our boys come back alive, and do their jobs, which is making sure their boys don’t.
   
   Bill

   btw: I feel honoured at your lifting my quote as the name of the article.

   Posted by Doctor DETH       03/17/2008  at  01:42 AM  



6. Now all they need is a choke mechanism to fit the end of the bore. While shot shells have existed before, this is the first practical one for US tanks given that all our older stuff had rifling.
   I am suprised at the cost on the grenade launcher. A civilian version of our 203 sells for under $1000. I considered outfitting one of my AR15 packages, but decided it had no practical value being it only shoots flares.

   Posted by Jeremy       03/17/2008  at  10:18 AM  



7. Jeremy, from the looks of it the launcher probably costs about $75. Ugliest POS I’ve ever seen. The mount has to be worth $50 or so too, seeing how it’s such a bit of “custom” design that it’s built to fit on a Picatinny Rail system. Which was designed prior to WWI and is just a longer version of the old Weaver scope mount base. No, the big expense comes from the new “laser” sights with rangefinder. I guess using “eyeballs” is just too passe.

   Sorry, didn’t mean to be snarky. Most military equipment is priced 10 times higher than what it would sell for in the real world.

   Posted by Drew458       03/17/2008  at  01:36 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.