The Earlier M-48 W/ the 90 mm gun had a can round available, The M-60 had a 105mm (English L7 gun) no can round, but we did have a thing called a Bee Hive round, (fletchette round for the dogmatic) which loaded 5,000 13 gram hard steel darts. This round could be set to function just a bit out the tube, or at any distance available on the fuze ring. The problem with fly swatting is that the darts would cause alot of collateral damage to softer parts of the tank. Plus the nearest bursting distance is 75 mtr from the muzzle, too far to do any good close up. Vehicle intervals were 50 mtr. So, the best thing was the .30 cal coax MG. That is if it felt like working that day, they were cantankerous, that was the old M-73, a later version, the M-219 was little better. mechanically, a clumsy machine, too Rube Goldberg to depend upon. In the heat of things one used whatever was at hand, better to damage the tank, than lose the crew.
So, I hope you don’t mind me asking, but did you actually ever have to do that?
You shot up their beer…:mrgreen:
Schultz:
If you were asking me if i ever had to fire on a friendly, no, I didnt nor was I ever in need of “grooming” ,but it was a part of our unit doctrine,sort of an agreement among Brigands.
That’s a warcrime.
Sad and true, all hail the ale that hit the ground before its time…
It might be a perspective issue as the rounds seem to get a bit shorter from right to left, but the first round on the left seems to be a lot shorter than the others, and maybe fatter or maybe it just has a different link around it?
It’s worse than that.
Particularly when inflicted by one’s own side. 
That is an exellent idea. In Vietnam the M-60 had lots of trouble with dirt in the links. Since they had bandoleers for M-16 ammo, I fail to see why we didn’t make such for the M-60.
Deaf
That is truly unique for stores. Tell me, is he still serving and where can I find him?
A number of questions points so I will do them in one go rather than 3 or 4 posts.
On closer look it does not seem right but I hope you get the idea. If you look at the 4th rd from the right you can see a loop that the end rd would go though to keep it at the opening. It was possible to feed from the case if needed.
tankgeezer
Same with me and only in Canada.
I read in a book about the Ausy use of tanks in VN and using AP rounds very effectively to remove undergrowth and expose enemy positions, it was titled something like “The Big Battalions” and covered the early history involving the transition form Malaya to VN
pdf27
It’s a lot easier to account for kit if you only need to go through 1033s. But a truly remarkable store man.
Australian tanks certainly used AP to destroy bunkers and underground positions in Vietnam. The round would penetrate under the position before detonating and was much more effective in that application than whatever other rounds the tanks were carrying in infantry support roles. Apparently it was quite effective. I seem to recall reading that the enemy were often killed or wounded by concussion from the detonation.
Lt Col Anthony Herbert. He authored a book about his Army experiences. If one has the opportunity, Soldier is a remarkable story. Ultimately he was forced out for his compelling and critical assesment of the US Army in Nam.
Sorry, I have cause you to misunderstand and due to my use of abbreviations that can be interpreted in different ways. :oops:
Where I have AP I mean Anti-personnel not armoured piercing, or I would have used HESH or APDS. Totally my fault. The AP round would cut through the undergrowth and clear it way. Not sure which round was used but I think it was developed following experience in Korea.
In Burma they used APDS and caped to destroy Japanese bunkers made from hard wood that were impervious to other fire. It was a very good tactic as the HE tank rounds had little to no effect.
The US Army used their tank destroyers’ 76mm HEAT rounds against Japanese bunkers during WWII in the Pacific, mainly because there were few Japanese tanks. And for most of the War, the Army/Marines often used HE rounds against the flimsy tanks in the IJA arsenal…
Signing out kit is a very old trick amoungst suppliers, if all your kit is signed out, then wheres your worry?
Ah! That makes more sense, as I was wondering how HEAT or HESH rounds could clear scrub.
Are the anti-personnel rounds you are talking about like a giant shot gun round with lots of little balls? We called them ‘canister’ during the Vietnam era (may still do for all I know). They would clear scrub. I’ve mentioned this elsewhere on the forum, but a bloke I knew who served as an Australian tank crew member in Vietnam was involved in a situation where tanks used canister on other Australian tanks (same as TG mentioned above as was agreed in his group) to clear VC off them. He said that all that was left was just shreds of flesh and clothing.
As you mentioned earlier, it also made a mess of their bins and everything else outside the hull and turret.
Off topic, but when I was training as a machine gunner (M60) during the Vietnam era we used to use the weapon to clear fire lanes in light scrub. And a lot of fun it was, too.
Following up on this discussion, yesterday I asked a bloke who served in an Australian armoured - but cavalry, not tanks - unit in Vietnam about using tank rounds as bunker busters. He confirmed that armour piercing rounds were used effectively in that role and caused injuries by concussion, but as he wasn’t directly involved in such events he couldn’t recall whether they were HEAT or HESH. After reasoning out the way each round operates he came to the conclusion that he was buggered if he knew which one was used as he could see applications for both.
Maybe both were used. HESH for bunkers with an above ground element, HEAT for bunkers or tunnels etc which were below ground?
I think there might be a reference to tanks using armour piercing rounds during an Australian operation against enemy bunkers in Vietnam in Gary McKay’s book In Good Company - One Man’s War in Vietnam.
More off topic: this reminds me of Maxim travelling around pre-WWI to sell his machineguns. He’d set up a demonstration where he’d use the machinegun to cut down a fairly large tree.
I have a vague recollection of seeing a photo of that, after the event, possibly on this site but I can’t find it.
Anyway, Maxim’s effort has been considerably improved upon. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f6e_1203989047
Beats me how there is no recoil on that weapon. I suppose it must be due to the mount.
Yeah, definitely has to be the mount. I’d love to see them try to hold that gun while firing ^^.
I’m also surprised there’s no army guys around them watching, they must’ve been behind the camera - I highly doubt they’d be allowed to play with that toy without supervision.
That video is from the show Mythbusters…I love that show!
And army supervision??? Why would they possibly need that??? Being American IS enough. Afterall, miniguns are perfectly legal for civilians to own and use. (See #2)