Any of you guys ever see or fire this round? Video. That sucker looks like it could put a world of hurt on people.

Semper Fi

Johnny Blaze

That's our canister round. We don't use it alot, but it tends to hurt people.

I would like to try that. We had the Apears Rd.
back in the day.
It had a timer or you could set for muzzle.
Thousand's of nail's with fin's on them.

quote:

Originally posted by king_voodoo:
That's our canister round. We don't use it alot, but it tends to hurt people.

I may be a little dense but isn't that the point?

Yep.

Several years ago I was amazed and appalled to learn that the M1 tank had not anti-personnel rounds.

The answer that I was given was, "The Abrams tank was designed to fight massed Soviet armor on battlefields in Europe. The tank's machineguns will take care of any enemy personnel problems.

It was obvious that the "Brass Hats" that helped design the ammo for the maingun of the M1 had not been tankers on active duty during the Vietnam War or they'd have known that the cannister and (less so) the beehive rounds were probably the most fired 90 mm round during the war.

I was very pleased to hear that they finally come out with that round. I am sure that any tankers who have to fight anywhere besides in built up areas will be pleased and thankful for that round as well.

quote:

Originally posted by TankComm92:
I would like to try that. We had the Apears Rd.
back in the day. It had a timer or you could set for muzzle. Thousand's of nail's with fin's on them.

I believe that you are referring to the Beehive or Flachette round. The "timer" was for distance. The round could be fired up to max range and then the flachettes would deploy with a yellow smoke marking where they deployed.

Yes Sir you are correct.
You could set for a range or for muzzle if they were to close. Muzzle setting would deploy about 75 meter's out.
Some freind's of mine got to use this round in Beruit Leb. when Marine's were there in the early 80's. They said it worked well there.
Quote RagHead Pincushin's.

I forgot to add that when the jungle was too thick to fire HE safely, we'd fire a cannister and blow the $hit out of the vegetation and then unload a HE or WP in to the g o o k s.

The APERS round would disperse its devastation upon command, where as the canister round is more like a really big shot gun. Also effective, but in a different manner.

If I had to choose between the two, I want an APERS round because I can control when it disperses the flechettes. Those 3 inch darts are a great weapon whether it is to clear out vegetation or to take out an entire platoon or company of infantry personnel.

quote:

Originally posted by LettheHogsEat:
...to take out an entire platoon or company of infantry personnel.

I agree that a controled disbursal is better but "taking out a platoon or comapany" is a bit far fetched.

In my book an arms manufacturer will promise the world and report all sorts of fairly tales but actual combat & limited results is a fact. I've seen controled dibursal flachette rounds completely miss their target and I have seen them go off on a squad of enemy soldiers and only hit one.

How would you rate this compared to a claymore?

quote:

Originally posted by technoviking:
How would you rate this compared to a claymore?

Bwhahahaha, apples and oranges.

Sorry Track heads for the intrusion. Claymores are great in the defence or a ambush, but useless on an attack. Tanks attack.

Semper Fi

John

hahaha I was thinking more of the firepower of the rounds compared, They are obviously for completely different things.

quote:

Originally posted by johnwear:

quote:

Originally posted by LettheHogsEat:
...to take out an entire platoon or company of infantry personnel.

I agree that a controled disbursal is better but "taking out a platoon or comapany" is a bit far fetched.

You are probably correct about not taking out a platoon or company, unless they are dumb enough to be that bunched up.

Nonetheless, being a young Marine and being shown the awesome firepower our tanks had at the time, I was obviously fired up and getting a woody like most Marine Tankers did when watching something like that. The videos they have online now so that you can see even more of the awesome power our tanks have is just incredible, I can't seem to get enough of it sometimes. Anyway, as a Tanker I would prefer an APERS over a Claymore, primarily because of one the sayings we had about opposing infantry was calling them 'Crunchy's'. You know...that sound they would make when they got run over. It may be a rolling coffin to some, but to me it was a position of control and extreme firepower for our Marines.

Semper Fidelis
John

I forgot to qualify my comparison between APERS and claymore, well there is none as the Gunny put it...apples and oranges.

Hmm I always thought of both of them as the equivalent to giant shotgun shells, one was from a tank and the other from a fixed position. Obviously the tank round has alot longer useful range.
Im assuming the tank round would have more "oomph" but after looking at some of those shaped charges out there and the mach 5 velocity of the slug, I dont know what to think about the hitting power of the claymore anymore.
What I really want to know is about how much power does each individual slug have (I mean, just a general estimate, what kind of crap can they go through), like comparible to the pentration of a 30-06 round, or a 223, or whatnot. Do they have any trouble punching through concrete walls and things of that nature? I saw that one of you said they rip up the forest pretty damn good, same for the claymore? Im just curious, since you guys are the only service members out there that would know how well both work.

Oh, and do you guys know how many grains the slugs in that round are?

I don't recall the exact details to the APERS round other than the range and area of effect once the round explodes and disperses the flachettes. I would need to read my TM again. I am sure there are some real good documents online some where to answer your question. Unless, we have someone on active duty who can obtain the answers to your questions. If I come across something though, I will post it.

Semper Fidelis.

Ok, I found out they are supposed to be 154 grains each, which is close to what I use in my 50 cal muzzle loader. I used one on a deer last year and it dropped like a wet blanket. I can only imagine what one would do to a person, especially considering the incredible velocity of anything that comes out of the 120 or 105.
The Claymore is only about 11 grains, about the same as a 22, but at 1200m/s the slugs are twice as fast as even a 22 magnum round.
I was not expecting either of those numbers. Im pretty impressed by both.

quote:

It was obvious that the "Brass Hats" that helped design the ammo for the maingun of the M1 had not been tankers on active duty during the Vietnam War or they'd have known that the cannister and (less so) the beehive rounds were probably the most fired 90 mm round during the war.

That's not 100% correct. A very good book, published in 1989, titled "King of the Killing Zone" by Orr Kelly describes the development of the M1 and M1A1 tanks. He does not directly address the reason that only HEAT and APFSDS rounds were developed, but does mention that the decision to upgrade to the German 120mm gun was a result of judgments (maybe assumptions is just as good a word.)by both designers and potential users about how the tank would be used. The designers weren't "Brass Hats' with just book learning- for the most part they thought in terms of what was required for the most likely situation- the needs of the Army in Europe.The Army wanted to kill the Russkie tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap and across the North German Plain.
There were many debates in the Marine Corps about the wisdom of buying the M1A1. Many centered on weight vs lift capabilities and the logistical tail required to support the M1A1, plus reservations about the lack of WP rounds, HE Rounds, AP (flechette or canister)rounds and the lack of an externally mounted tank/ infantry phone. In fact, I remember that there was a good argument for buying the M1 with the same 105mm gun that was on the M60 and thus able to fire more types of ammunition.
Just now, 25 years after the first M1's were fielded, there are improvements in these areas,based on requirements in Iraq.