| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| M1 Abrams finally gets its canister round |
| 2005-12-11 |
| The M-1 tank has finally, oficially, gotten its M1028 "shotgun shell" for its 120mm gun. This is for use against hostile infantry. The XM1028 shell holds 1100 10mm tungsten balls that are propelled out of the gun barrel and begin to disperse. The tungsten projectiles are lethal at up to 700 meters. The official requirement of the XM1028 is to kill or disable more than 50 percent of a 10 man squad with 1 shot and do the same to a 30 man platoon with 2 shots. Production of the shell began in 2002, with plans for up to 30,000 shells (costing over $3,000 each) being produced. After initial production of some 2,000 shells, another 3,000 were to be built in 2004 and 5,000 in the year after that. But numerous delays over effectiveness, safety and reliability issues, delayed official introduction until now. Only small numbers of M1028 shells were shipped to Iraq since the round first became available in 2003. In the meantime, army and marine tank crews were getting more and more vocal in their displeasure at the leisurely pace of M1028 development. In terms of technology, there’s nothing particularly special about it. Similar shells have been in service for decades. In Iraq, M-1 tank crews want a "shotgun" type shell to deal with groups of hostile Iraqis, especially at night when the Iraqis still don't realize that the thermal sight on the M-1 makes people clearly visible at night to the gunner, especially if they are carrying AK-47s or RPG launchers. The Iraqis still tend to bunch up, which allows one XM1028 round to wipe out entire teams of hostile fighters. The M-1 using the XM1028 shell is the world's largest shotgun, and makes tanks much more effective in urban combat. The 10mm projectiles are also effective against vehicles and lightly built structures. Israel has been using a similar round for years, making American tank crews even more impatient about when they would get an American made version. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #11 Sounds like your cookie is messed up. That's odd, though, since you could post that last comment. Try putting a link or two in a comment here and let's see if that works. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-11 22:31 |
| #10 DAMNIT! Three times now I've sent some nice economic, supply availability, and price links for tungsten v. steel. Every time I've ended up at roadsideamerica.com. Is this a hint? SCREW IT!!!! (Tungsten makes sense, and I'd just like to pass on the info-- unless you're lotp and already know...;)). |
| Posted by: ArmChair in Sin 2005-12-11 21:25 |
| #9 It's called canister because the 1100 tungsten balls are held in a canister until the round clears the barrel. It was very dealy when used during the Civil War. The Abrams can fire it because the Abrams has a 120mm smoothbore cannon, therefore the round doesn't rotate. It does indeed act like a big shotgun. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-12-11 20:11 |
| #8 You ARE aware that tungsten has replaced lead in other US army ammo, right? A while ago??? |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-11 20:03 |
| #7 No problem with bang for the buck on this end. Rust isn't a problem when in a canister (a little oil goes a long way), and lead is very toxic in quantity. Steel doesn't seem that bad for the price, though. I understand the power of tungsten when propelled from a cannon, but that encompasses anything that's heavy and not soft (no lead). C'mon, let's here from some material science/ordinance geeks...I'm not satisfied. Plus, I don't see anything about tungsten alloys, just tungsten. Then again, this isn't my field; I'm a physical anthropologist turned bartender, and my roommate is a tenured physical chemist at a UC. We'll eventually figure this out or find someone on campus who can really put down some knowledge, but we know someone out there has the quick answer (plus, I hate campus-- thus, my bartending); otherwise, my first instinct is follow the money... |
| Posted by: ArmChair in Sin 2005-12-11 19:53 |
| #6 As a taxpayer, I'm good with more expensive munitions and fewer jihadis. $3K a piece seems like great value for the outcome and the fact it allows our guys to deal death from a distance. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2005-12-11 18:28 |
| #5 Same reason the military uses tungsten in shotguns. It's heavy, it's /harder/ than lead and it retains more energy at range than lead does. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick 2005-12-11 16:59 |
| #4 Tungsten alloys are known for their impressive hardness. I suspect that would translate into pentrating power where lead would fail, such as concrete block. If the "horizontal" supposition is correct, then the munition would probably also have an adjustable distance fuse, which would be very expensive. Impressive results, however. With 1100 1cm balls penetrating everything in the blast area, it would be a serious drag to be downrange. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-12-11 16:35 |
| #3 Lead is indeed messy for the gun and environmentally an issue, if only for the millions of rounds of all sorts of ammo expended in training. Congress has mandated significant environmental cleanup / prevention for military training areas. Steel is okay for ducks and geese, to save the environment, maybe not ideal for military use? Others here would know more than I on that one ... |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-12-11 13:45 |
| #2 Rust? I suspect these balls are not shot out like a shot gun, but in some sort of jacket that opens upon leaving the barrel to dsiperse the shot in a horizontal rather than a conical pattern. The chemicals in the charge are also probably pretty expensive as they have to have a shelf life of decades. Finally, it's hard to make money on spares and service parts for ammo:-) |
| Posted by: Grearong Ulinegum9149 2005-12-11 13:36 |
| #1 Why tungsten? While heavy and brittle, with a high melting point, it's also expensive, hence the $3,000 price tag. What's wrong with steel? Not as good of a kill range? Lead? Too messy for the gun and too environmentally unfriendly (does that matter to the Army?)? Will someone explain this to me? |
| Posted by: ArmChair in Sin 2005-12-11 13:24 |