previous post next post  

The Whatziss, Day Three.

Today you'll get it. You're really very close and have the target bracketed.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

This will put you over the top.

Okay. More help is needed. Try this.

Update!

And, we have a winner. MajMike, who finally divined the gizmo as the 21mm sub-caliber training rocket for the Brit version of the M72 LAW.

Thank you for playing our game.

Tomorrow - something completely different, and probably just as maddeningly frustrating.

Heh - these things make me look smart and all that - but anytime Bill puts up one of his challenges, I'm just as baffled as you guys are. Controlling the subject matter is to control the illusion!

21 Comments

Oh hell why is it blue and so long? Blue blue heart attack? no that's hospitals. humm the end bit explodes. Can't see any propellant what is that thinner bit in the middle? Is it a grenade like thing i'm guessing it's more for people than armour.
 
...and Trias takes a detour down a dead end...! Blue *does* mean something. The warhead does *not* explode.
 
It doesn't explode? You take the fun out of everything. Is it a battering ram or perhaps a training tool? Or maybe it burns blue smoke?
 
Trias, If I'm not mistaken based on some previous whatzis and a few earlier comments, blue usually denotes a training device.
 
Kinda looks like a fuze. The thread end is the tip. The larger silver ring is the screw stop. The tippie thingie is the part that protrudes from the front of the shell. Or not.
   
inert training round used in lieu of a marking round that designates that which must be fired at... but "fired from what" appears to be the question???
 
To help with that... it's the British version of an item which is also in the US inventory. The US version functions differently in it's details, if not principles. And, the US version does have a spotting charge in it. In function, it apes that which it is a trainer for. Which pretty much narrows the field to one certain type of weapon, and, I believe, in terms of this particular class of weapon, the US and UK have only one system in common - though the ones the Brits use are made in Norway, and not procured from a US source. The Brit "M" number equivalent would be L1A1.
 
21mm for M72
 
Bingo. We have a winner.
 
although i'm loathe to admit any familiarity at all with something that presumes to be "anti" my beloved panzers... (those grunts have such pretty little toys)
 
You might want to ask the Israeli tankers about the pounding the Merkava's took this time 'round.
 
true... true.... (but if i could get the crunchies to promise to always fire a spotting round at me first, then maybe it wouldn't be such a problem.)
 
A new truck for the moat? What a LARC! You could paint it pink, with a loverly striped cover as well. Tours on the moat!
 
You might want to ask the Israeli tankers about the pounding the Merkava's took this time 'round. – John Now that you bring it up, just how deadly are these weapons in Hezbollah’s hands? From what I have read some “experts” say some of the older stuff was not that effective on Israeli tanks but was very effective on buildings and smaller vehicles. Yet, other “experts” say the newer stuff was very effective. Here is the stuff the Hezies are supposed to have: The Metis-M, the Kornet, the Milan (?), the SA-18 MANPAD (anti-aircraft), the RPG 29, and some other wire guided stuff. Could you give us a quick run down on the potency of these weapons and the ability to field them (The shelf-life; having all the parts to fire them and the training necessary to use them). Which one you deem the most dangerous to Israeli equipment. The last question I ask because it seems to me that if the Hezies have the ability to knockout tanks that’s a very serious setback for Israel. So, what is the real deal on Hezbollah’s weapons?
 
It's Helen Clarks super strength dildo. Normal materials corrode on contact. Look closely at the bottom left you can make out the parlimentry crest indicating it was paid for by the taxpayer.
 
It depends on how finely you parse the data. To truly answer your question would break my rule about mixing blogging and work, so I'll leave it at this... Remember - to be effective, it doesn't have to be a catastrophic kill that blows the vehicle up. A tank, to really be a tank, needs to move, shoot, and communicate. All you have to do is immobilize it, render it incapable of accurate fire, or kill the comms, and it's not a tank. In that condition, outside of defending itself to get away, it's really not a tank anymore.
 
It is a Thumper, used to summon the Great Worms of the planet Arrakis.
 
Would that make the sensor box on the barrel a vulnerable thing?
 
Trias - if you're referring to the artillery discussion in a different thread, artillery are *not* tanks, even though they superficially resemble them. From the artillery perspective, the chronograph is useful, but there are other ways to account for muzzle velocity variation. If that isn't what you meant... what did you mean?
 
Yes i meant tanks. A couple of posts up you talk about tanks and i remembered the velocity meter. I slip off topic faster than er uhm a recruit slips out of volunteering?
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.