Comments for The Gunner's war

The Gunner's war

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 07:51:47 -0600

How to tell you're in an immature theater or a war of maneuver (or garrison-based training)... You live under a net. And in this case you'll probably be home tonight, or at least by the weekend. If you're in a war, that war may morph into something like this - If you are in a pretty rich Army, but are fighting in the "economy of force" theater, which is *not* characterized by static lines...

Comment from Josh on 2009-02-14

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:02:50 -0600

I wasn't referring to the XM1028/M1028, I was referring to any rounds like that, packed with flechettes. I am of course very happy to see that we are loading our tanks up with what is basically grapeshot, though.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:08:31 -0600

Ryan! Long time, no see!

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:41:26 -0600

Hey, the *video* was of a developmental shot. The M1028 has been type classified and issued.

The XM1040 is still in development, but it's just going to be a junior version of the M1028, so the timeline will be shorter, the hard work already having been done.

Comment from Ryan on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:41:08 -0600

You live under a net. And in this case you'll probably be home tonight, or at least by the weekend. If you're in a war, that war may morph into something like this -

If you are in a pretty rich Army, but are fighting in the "economy of force" theater, which is *not* characterized by static lines...

Or your guns could outrange what he has left. Look all the 5.5s 7.2s, 155s and their ilk in WWII that were firing from revetted/covered/concealed positions at the Germans. Of course in THAT war, when you rolled up to a mobile fighting position, you took pains to conceal yourself from casual observation. You at LEAST want to get shots off before you start taking return fire.

Comment from Josh on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:07:34 -0600

Flechettes are more effective. Would you rather shoot thirty or so cast iron marbles at an approaching horde or twenty-five hundred fin-stabilized 3-penny nails?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm COMPLETELY enchanted with the idea of flechette-packed rounds, but are we actually using any of them these days? I'm not talking about some "XM"-round that lives on experimental test ranges, I'm saying are there any deserts littered with finely-shredded, bloody dishtowels? I thought they were limited to civilian-use shotgun shells these days...but if I'm wrong, hooray for the artillery!

Does this mean 3 penny nails are the grapeshot equivalent? What are 3 penny nails anyway and who is cheating on their building orders?

It has to do with another purposefully confusing and illogical system of measurements brought to you by America, the country that absolutely will not adopt your meters and kilograms.

Comment from Argent on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:58:17 -0600

You've misread me Ry. I was talking about number 5 mentioned in the article for WW1. The civil war post is where I was having a subtle as a sledgehammer dig at the fossils.

Does this mean 3 penny nails are the grapeshot equivalent? What are 3 penny nails anyway and who is cheating on their building orders?

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:36:12 -0600

[Kicks self] I meant to do that.

And, the modern equivalent of grapeshot is the canister round, the M1028, and the XM1040, which will be for 105mm tank gun systems. And those 00 buck loads for the combat shotguns.

Comment from BillT on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 05:15:03 -0600

Unknown survivor at Marathon? Bill.

Thermopylae. I was on R 'n' R at Phryne's place when Marathon kicked off.

Last one of those farkin' Iranistanian bronze arrowheads finally dissolved in '03, so at least I don't set off TSA metal detectors any more...

Comment from BillT on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:50:28 -0600

I'm pretty sure nobody used chemical shells before the turn of the century.

Chemical weapons started out as chlorine generators fired up when the wind was favorable, allowing the cloud to drift several hundred yards over the Other Side's trenchlines. Until some genius decided that you could get the same effect *and* achieve surprise by dropping the gas directly on top of those trenches. Grampa Tuttle got a lungful of chlorine during a counter-battery mission when his intake hose got nicked. They found him unconscious, with a wet rag wrapped around the cut.

Speaking of that, why DON'T we use grapeshot anymore?

Flechettes are more effective. Would you rather shoot thirty or so cast iron marbles at an approaching horde or twenty-five hundred fin-stabilized 3-penny nails?

Comment from Josh on 2009-02-13

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 01:01:07 -0600

I'm pretty sure nobody used chemical shells before the turn of the century. Not exactly my field of expertise, but I always thought the most advanced thing the Union had was grapeshot.

Speaking of that, why DON'T we use grapeshot anymore? It seems like it would be so much FUN to shoot...

Comment from ry on 2009-02-12

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:20:13 -0600

Um, pretty sure that books refers to WW1, Argent. Chemistry was a *real* science around 1864 but not far enough advanced to make chemical warfare really a viable weapon. The methods for making, collecting, and then condensing something like phosgene---one of the simpler chemical agents to make--- didn't allow for large scale manufacture. YOu couldn't fire 3 shells a minute because you likely only had 3 circa 1870 in your whole stock(if you had them at all). I don't know if cannon and shell designs had made chem munitions trully possible by then, but, then, that's why we have the Big Tribble with Leggs that Doubles as Encyclopedia to rectify the situation.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-12

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:58:23 -0600

You must be thinking of Bill, Argent. He's the Auld Phart.

Horatio at the Bridge? Bill was his shield holder.

Unknown survivor at Marathon? Bill.

Phaeroh's chariot driver at Meggido? Bill.

Comment from Argent on 2009-02-12

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:11:32 -0600

Now I wonder why you had to clarify that. I guess you had to leave that war to the young whipper snappers after holding back Lee's boys in Gettysburg.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-02-12

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:15:00 -0600

And, just to make clear - I didn't write that last bit, I just scanned it in because it was so good, and the book is long out of print.

Comment from steve cpo usnr-ret on 2009-02-12

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:25 -0600

Superb writing. That whole WW1 thing.....So brutal, but slowly fading into history.

Comment from Argent on 2009-02-12

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:51:13 -0600

Good writing I think, kinda captures the salient points with the right level of emotion.

Oh I surely hope such a war isn't repeated anytime soon. Everyone has lots of improved number 5 now.

Comment from Viper Chief on 2009-02-12

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:50:14 -0600

"I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!"

Sherman had it right...