AC-130 Toasts Iraqi Terrorists (Amazing Video)

The Nav Log ^ | 1/3/06

[clamper1797]

I don't he was referring to this exact video but a few other that are even better than this one ...

[Red Badger]

Good point.........

[Red Badger]

Too late - they've been on the web for at least a year now. I've got the video on my machine at home, and it's been there for probably 10 months.

You have the right to remain silent...........that is unless you're a liberal demokrat hero patriot leaker whistleblower.......

[Riley]

What, a Hercules carrying a coconut?

[alnitak]

From your link:

"Army officials acknowledged that the 30 mm cannons used by the Apache gunners were far bigger than what was needed to kill the men, but said it is the smallest weapon the Apaches have."

Which I find rather funny, implying as it does the original question "how horrid - did you really have to use such a large gun?"

[Mikey_1962]

Yeah I have had this for at least two years.....

[Zavien Doombringer]

grabs it by the husks...

[Tennessee_Bob]

"Achmed, what the hell *IS* that thing?"

I don't know, Ahmed, but it's big!

Sorry - obscure SNL skit reference.

[fatman6502002]

Great Video.
Just for accuracy's sake it should be noted that the video is not from an AC-130 but rather from a hovering AH-64 Apache helo. On the HUD in the loser left you can see the designation TADS which is the Targetting Acquisition and Designation System, this fire control system is used exclusively with the AH-64. It is also obvious that this attack was done by a hovering helo and not an AC-130 due to the fact that the aspect angle to the target never changes. Consider this, an AC-130 whould hav flow approx 20 miles in the time from the beginning to the end of the video assuming 300mph speed, and consider that the AC-130 fires its weapons from its side and flies circles around its targets in order to keep its weapons trained on its targets, yet the aspect angle, the angle at which the camera is viewing the target never changes. This attack was not done by an AC-130 unless there is a new version that can hover.

[Moose4]

Because the alternative was giving Achmed a Hellfire suppository. And while a 30mm chaingun is overkill as an anti-personnel weapon, it's nothing compared to an anti-tank missile.

Besides, as fighter-pilot friends of mine always said, "there's no kill like a guns kill."

}:-)4

[Zavien Doombringer]

Does it matter the size of the projectile? I mean, the organs aren't going to scream "foul, you hit me with 30mm instead of 5.56!"

[shekkian]

Ping for later

[Berlin_Freeper]

We need new videos guys, this one is old.

[mikegi]

Which I find rather funny, implying as it does the original question "how horrid - did you really have to use such a large gun?"

Apparently, the MSM would prefer that the terrorists be gutshot with a 22 and die over several hours. Of course, I'm not opposed to that...

[MJemison]

Amazing! First there are glow-in-the-dark bad guy figures; then just glow-in-the-dark harmless pieces. (Love the night-vision stuff)

[Riley]

It's not a question of where it grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A 155,000 pound aircraft could not carry a 1 pound coconut.

Oh- waitaminute.

[MeanWestTexan]

And me, I was thinking how expensive those rounds were, when cheaper rounds would do.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

35 years ago..Ahh...the sweet smell of napalm in the morning.....fast forward...the sweeet sight of sending the bad guys for an eternal date with allah in the morning...

[rlmorel]

TERRORIST SCUMBAGS EATING THEIR LAST MEAL OF LEAD PING!!!

[Tennessee_Bob]

Yeah, yeah - I know - drop my carrier and get off the babysitter.