Metalstorm has been around for many years, but it's never caught on. It's high fire rate doesn't even last one second, then you have to replace the whole thing. They never mention reloading it because you can't.
Make each barrel a singular shell that can then be loaded as such. The shots fired would be bursts and reload. The singular barrel could be effectively stored and transported. Should be a tradeoff.
@@bubblelyte401 Having each barrel hold a single shot bypasses all the advantages of the Metalstorm. Each shot has it's own electrical connection. That means a dozen or more connections for each barrel. That's why it's never caught on. If one fails to fire, does it act like a barrel blockage and blow the barrel up when the one behind it is triggered?
@@CrotalusHH Each barrel has around say 10 shots and wire connections which is in the barrel and connected electronically out to some control mechanism--which can sufficiently be just two metal plates making contact with the main barrel. Once spent this barrel is ejected and another one (or 4) is loaded into the main barrel. This is a good compromise.
The interesting point with Metalstorm, is that once its been fired your in the same situation as the old arquebus or flintlock. Once you've fired your load, the weapon (and the shooter, if they're still around) is defenseless. With more conventional weapons you can reload on the fly and keep going. If they ever figure out how to overcome that problem with the Metalstorm, you might have the next level of weapon.
i was thinking if you had the 40mm grenade version, you could have that as the warhead of a missile. so CIWS is completely overwhelmed by a cloud of grenades
Instead of a big square canister that holds 2000-3000 rounds, make a smaller cylindrical canister that holds 800-1200 rounds. It could be mounted on an AA-style mount that could be aimed and automatically reloaded with a fresh canister. Bulky as hell for sure, but not much bulkier than a CIWS, and nothing could get by it.
only thing I could think of is that if you use a short barrelled howitzer-like light gun which reloads a shell filled with MS rails ( similar to a M70 Hydra pod) ... fires it ... discards the empty shell and reloads same as a automatic howitzer would. Though how complicated that would be and where it actually had any advantages beats me.
Could possibly be utilized on ships as a kind of super-CIWS, a last-ditch backup for use against anything that gets past the CIWS. Regardless of how slow it is to reload, that might still be worth having. Or maybe not. Maybe it'd be more effective to just add another CIWS.
Yeah this channel is so completely full of shit and it's getting worse with every video. You're not tearing a tank apart with 9mm rounds, I don't give a damn how many you fire at it.
I find it very hard to believe that a 9mm projectile, no matter how many are fired, would ever break through a tank's armor. MAYBE an APC, but not an Abrams or Challenger.....
Depends where you shoot it I suppose, you might break some of the less armored piece on the tank, such as any ERA, cameras, the 50cal mounted on the roof and the glass for the optics, would be expensive but at that point you might as well just try to shoot the tank with a powerful missile or rocket considering the cost of the Metal Storm.
Exactly. The title of this video is shameless click bait. The claim was made with zero explanation or evidence of how such a capability was proven or demonstrated.
@@FayeClegg Eh, 9mm might not have enough weight even with tungsten. Now if it were depleted uranium then it would be truly terrifying. But regardless, the reload time would make a more constant rate of fire weapon preferable over this platform.
In the 80's I read that a 5.56mm version was built that had a 10,000 rounds per minute but never went into production as it was deemed to fast and required to much ammo.
MS never made much sense to me, after much examination, for all the reasons already cited in the other comments - bulky, tedious reloading, and restricted to small calibre (which wouldn't kill a tank under any realistic circumstance), as the recoil of a mass of large calibre rounds would be excessive and hence the range is very restricted with rapid velocity decay. Basically it should be better thought of as a sort of multi-barrelled/multi-round combiantion acting more as a "moderately selective Claymore mine " for fixed sentry or ambush duty, as it can't be moved much for refining the sighting. The startlingly high value for the quoted "rounds minute" (RPM) are only valid if the whole lot are shot at once. The best aspect of the development is the fire-control of multiple caselsss rounds per barrel. But it demands that all ammo be pre-packed into "sheet magazines" for insertion into the firing assembly, for ammo security, moisture control, etc.
The disposavle cluster of barrels (canister) could be smaller, a little longer, aim-able, and auto-loading. Not good for offense, but great for anti-missile duty on land and aboard ships.
It was actually a flint lock version of this back in the 1700s that when you pulled the trigger fired 224 bullets in two minutes -if it didn't explode.
@Hykje -They didn't explode. When you load powder, pached ball over and over again down the same bore the patched ball behind protects its powder from going off. The reason these weren't popular military weapons was they were incredibly hard to make as you need a way to get the fire from the ball in front to fire the next in line. I've built single barrel types. Those were fairly common with your flintlock sliding on a track from touch hole to touch hole manually.
@@mikeblair2594 The one I was talking about was a seven-barreled gun that used special balls with holes drilled in them. When you pulled the trigger the first load of gunpowder was ignited and fired the first set of seven balls and then the next load of gunpowder was ignited and so on until all balls were fired. When you pulled the trigger you could not stop it until all 224 balls where fired.
The ammo is specialised and that’s a HUGE cost from a plant setup perspective. Also the unit didn’t have to fire everything all at once as it could be programmed to fire whatever quantity the operator required. It’s like the electromagnetic rail cannon designated to be used on the Zumwalt class ships.The ammo was too costly to produce due to economies of scale.
similar argument: "Huge breasts are so cumbersome. I mean, the size of that bra and the engineering for their natural seeming support would negate any possible advantage to having such physically ponderous appendages"
@@geargeekpdx3566 Im mean or they use some kinda mini tractor frame for it and control it with a remote or something Edit: I just thought it would be badass strapping it to some robo hounds.
I really really doubt, that 9mm ammo with a propellant charge that would not deform the bullet behind the first one, could penetrate the armor of a tank or even APC. The concept looks great on paper and the vidoes are nice too, but its battlefield capabilities are not on par with conventional weapons. (The metal storm 40mm mortar system might be different though, since it doesnt rely on the propellant charge for its destructiveness)
Yeah this channel is so completely full of shit and it's getting worse with every video. You're not tearing a tank apart with 9mm rounds, I don't give a damn how many you fire at it.
@@sikhandtakerakhuvar3372 probably depends on how you design it. Either more ammo and therefore less barrel length for the first bullets or longer barrel length and less ammo. Once you hit a certain length infront of the first bullet, you would have the same ballistics for all of them. (if you burn all powder before the bullet leaves the barrel, you wont get any additional velocity, could even decrease the speed)
@@No_Way_NO_WAY I wouldn't use a propellant powered projectile. Nor would I stack rounds in the barrel. I'd use electromagnetics, like a rail gun, in conjunction with a feeder system.
@@generalkayoss7347 So you mean a Railgun? Yes, that weapon makes more sense ^^ Thats probably why the military is still developing those and not the metal storm ^^
Buddy prioritizes quantity over quality. He did a lame video on the rocks that move slowly via wind and ice on his other channel....might be time to unsub soon
@@Dav3 How's you channel doing? I'd imagine you must have wayyyyy more subs than 280 k... lemme know your channel name so i can watch and enjoy your content.....thanks bud..
Because America needs to believe that it is going to wade through near peer enemies instead of getting beaten to a bloody pulp because of the graft and corruption in the military industrial complex traitors that sold us out. In my humble opinion
At 6:00 I understood you to say the projectile velocity was about Mach 5. This is about 4600 fps. (On my calculator.) That's pretty fast for the barrel steels and propellants available now. Are you sure about that spec?
I was about to ask the same question. To get a bullet to over 5,500 ft/sec would take a large propellant load out which I don’t see with this gun. I really wonder sometimes where they get their facts from. From a practicality perspective, I could see the 40mm grenade launcher as a workable weapon on a drone, but I guess that did not work out for the military.
I met the inventor in 1984, I had questions about a weapon I was trying to develop. He invited me into his home super good dude. There was the VLE and his concepts will see the light of day at some stage....
I remember when this thing hit the scene and it was being sold as a kind of a mine that shot a LOT of ammo at the target, and me being an old 12b, I was like... but mines are hidden for a reason. You can't just have it out there and expect the tank crew or supporting infantry to just ignore that suspicious box over there. But the idea of using it for point defense sounded kind of useful but it seems the Navy had it's own objections.
But that is exactly how the jury rigged RPG "mine" is used in ukrain. Its a RPG launcher rigged to a tripwire. Tank drives by, RPG shoots, tank either damaged or destroyed, panic ensues because of possible ambush)
@@No_Way_NO_WAY Yeah, ok look, an RPG is a LOT lighter to carry around and smaller than a huge box filled with hundreds of pounds of ammo. It's cool but not practical and the Ukrainians are just using everything they can get their hands on. If they have mines, they use them, if they don't, then they jury rig something. This system... well I can only see a huge $ sign along with a ton of logistics... its just to bulky, to expensive, and once used, its almost impossible to recover. A Javelin or a good AT mine can do the same thing for a lot less $ and effort.
There is a highly likelyhood that there continues to be development that isn't revealed. Just as the Kornet (Russian) is a one use weapon that takes time to set up I'm guessing Metal Storm has possibilities too.
@@bruceleealmighty The Kornet is not a one-use system. It is exactly like the TOW system. It consists of a tripod, traversing unit, missile guidance set and the missile itself. This MetalStorm thing has no possibilities. It's way too heavy and ineffective compared to an ATGM like a Kornet or TOW. ATGMs can be transported by foot and can be hidden easier. They can destroy tanks at 3000 meters or more. It makes more sense to fire one precision round to kill a tank than to fire everything at one target, especially since you can't reload it.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 I should have been more precise and suggested shoot and scoot, rather than one time use. Aware that it isn't a one time use and throw away system, but it's use is suggested to immediately move once fired because of several factors, proximity, exposure and plume. It's often interesting how many systems are panned for any number of reasons and down the line something pops up that was just in development, Overcoming difficult problems is precisely why the technology is advancing the way it is. This line of weaponry is not lost to history.
Metal storm is not new tech. The problem with them is loading. Once the tubes are loaded they are amazing and any number of tubes can be stacked together not just 36. This definitely wouldn't be something you'd want to replace a mini gun with or any other gun that is hungry for ammo. Best use for this is ambushes. Behind enemy lines setting up killzones. Once they are setup they can be set automatic fire on anything that enters or can be monitored and activated remotely. It isn't something you'd stick around to watch go off.
The M-60 light machine gun does not have a rate of fire of 6,000 rpm. The M-60 is the American version of the genius German World War II MG-42, a devastating and devastating accurate light machine gun with a rate of fire of up to 1500 rpm. Multiple variants of the MG-42 are still in use today, including the German Army’s MG3, the Italian MG42/59, the Austrian MG74, and the Yugoslavian Zastava M53, among others. The M-60’s rate of fire varies from 500-650 rpm. American troopers in Vietnam called it the pig because of its weight and it’s tendency to jam unless kept scrupulously clean. To my knowledge, there is no single barrel machine or submachine gun in the world with a rate of fire over 2200 rpm.
Metal Storm could be an impressive weapon if the number of barrels were reduced; this would make it easier to reload and cut down the weight, only thing left is making the system mobile and able to track a target. But I see the mini gun being the weapon rolling forward; for now atleast.
Nothing wrong with a rehash of its history for those other than gun nerds we see here. Quite amazing that no-one was ever able to take the Metal Storm concept to fruition and produce a usable weapon though :/ Nevertheless, thanks for posting!
A soldier who knows what they are doing can shoot three rounds per minute maybe 4 with a muzzleloader Musket. With a breech-loader with cartridges approximately 25 rounds per minute.
I'm unsure about 9mm (however many penetrating tank armour). Also 9mm's range is very poor so maybe it'd work as a mine but other applications could be hard to do.
Everyone gets stuck on the size of the round, It's the speed and how many rounds on target that make all the difference. **MACH 5** rounds at the same point even if it were needles (or even water) would eventually show wear. Look at a Savot round. It's not the size of the head of the round. It's whether it can penetrate and hit the target that makes the difference.
Metal Storm Limited was a research and development company based in Brisbane, Australia, that specialized in electronically initiated superposed load weapons technology and owned the proprietary rights to the electronic ballistics technology invented by J. Mike O'Dwyer.The Metal Storm name applied to both the company and technology. The company had been placed into voluntary administration by 2012. After several sales of the business to successive owners following its backruptcy, the current successor makes drones, not the impractical non-super weapon.
Their 40mm grande launcher was a thing too. Computer games like Battlefield 4 featured a 3gl (3 grenade launcher) allowing 3 40mm grenades fired before reloading. Also the deployed version lacking any reload Animation.
The rotary clothes line, Google maps, 'black box' flight recorder, electric drills, WiFi (which is ironic really, seeing as the Aussies have the worst Internet in the world!), plastic bank notes, reading glasses, aircraft escape slides, cochlear implants, inflatable life rafts, ultrasound scanners, and last but not least- medical penicillin. 🍄
Probably just using available stock footage but why show a pile of brass cased rim fire .22LR ammo in place of “Case less 9mm rounds” ? Just wondering 💭
Thank you for your fine and detailed decription and the history of the specialty guns/cannons and machineguns and cannons. We all know how it is, once you have an inspiration and you really want to make it real. And so my respect to this guy who developed and invested into his device vor kind of like 15 years is what weapons history is about. But what may flopped never is off the table. Remember the first gatling in all the western movies with the Dillon Gun today. And so one of these days (and I don´t believe it will be two centuries later) metal storm will find or already found it´s role as a defence device on wherever it may be needed. Thanks again for this detailed video. Keep on the good work.
6:10..............."9-millimeter ammunition, and it could easily tear apart any main battle tank in the world." Exactly how does that work? Is there something going on here that I don't understand?
4:05 That's rim fire cal.22. Metal Storm has been around for a long time (prototype 1997). It's electronically ignited and forget about reloading unless it's sent back to the factory. I highly doubt a 9 mm can do anything but scratch the paint of the tank. A million rounds fired wouldn't do a big difference as it's still just handgun ammunition. So in terms of a modern tank, it will "shred" absolutely nothing. It would be highly effective against personnel and non-armored vehicles, though.
"Round after round travelling at MACH 5 will eventually penetrate anything" Except Unicorns. Unicorns are invincible. Some AP rounds depend on velocity of the projectile, some depend on the velocity of the jet of metal, some depend a scab of metal from the inner surface of the armor plate flying around inside the vehicle. Metalstorm depends on credulity. Metalstorm depends on Unicorns and "eventually." Mach 5 velocity? Otay, Buckwheat.
The way it's first shot was from the tip of the barrel, reduces velocity and accuracy, by the time the last shot fired the barrel would be hot or deformed. There would need to be production similar to pipe work, then cut between loaded areas. It could be rigged for single shot then empty a tube, ejecting a single tube how current weapons eject ammo. Ejecting retained heat too.
Um, I was an M1-A2 Abrams tank commander. None of this is correct. Bout the only thing we feared was our own hellfire rockets and the 105 from a 130 gunship. (Which this vid didn't cover) 20mm couldn't touch us...
I don't think he was saying the minigun could take out a modern tank. Actually, just the opposite - this new gun was invented because it supposedly COULD do so. A lot of anti-tank weapons will soon become obsolete anyway when directed energy capability is added to APS.
how will firing more bullets at a tank take it take more damage, its like throwing a stone at a wall or throwing a thousand stones at a wall, will the wall still fall over?
I think it's an amazing weapon system that can be mounted on specially dedicated mobile platforms like tanks, armoured vehicles, ships and on aircrafts like the C-130 gunships. It can easily perform general aerial denial roles for sea, air and land defense. As hypersonic and swarm technologies evolves this is your answer against such threats. Imagine putting these things in the war in Ukraine. Russia will be hastily humiliated out of Ukraine forever. It needs to be developed even further.
Its one really useful possibility is firing small grenads in an arch at an enemy concentration which would have a similar effect as a cluster bomb. Only saturation would be way better. Like most such weapons that are good for only unidirectional use you can only kill people once.
Actually this concept was patented in 1792 by a guy named chambers, his gun had multiple projectiles in 7 barrels that fired one after the other at a rate of 120 RPM with one trigger pull. One of which was on the USS Constitution.
@@davefellhoelter1343 Same, I really love the way he not only details the history of the gun but the developer as well. He is my favorite gun tuber. I learned more from his channel than anywhere else.
This concept was shelved years ago (and the company put into receivership) due to far too much variance in the ballistic performance of rounds in each successive stage (inaccuracy), the inability to scale to the higher "chamber pressures" (intra-round distance alters the effective chamber size for each stage) necessary to fire any ordinance beyond low-pressure pistol/grenade/shotgun cartridges, and the vastly higher logistics costs of shipping entire "barrel units" instead of individual cartridges. Honestly, this was a no-win from the start except, perhaps, for areal mine-clearing or riot dispersal.
I'd never heard that MS could effectively be used against armored vehicles. Why would 9mm rounds be effective against tank armor? Are they traveling faster? Made of depleted uranium? Details would be appreciated. Gotta say I'm skeptical.
Yes, to both your queries **MACH 5** and studies with depleted uranium were also used. I'm guessing there is a skunk works concept that we haven't been privy to thus far.
the maxim wasn't the first machine gun. there was one before it that was used in the war of 1812 on a naval ship of the u.s. It had 7 barrels that used a special round with a hole in the middle causing a run away fire. While not very practical for use it showed the progression of going to automatic weapons in the 1790's when the founding fathers were still alive. there was also the flint lock revolver from the 1600's.
I thought Metalstorm went out of business... I recall when it first came out and the inventor of it was a manager for a Woolworths Store, Mike O'Dwyer from memory.. The first demo of it was amazing, Mike tried to get the Australian Army interested, but they stupidly said "Nice CGI" in response to the video that Mike showed them... amazing stupidity there..
I always thought this should be combined with the idea of rocket ammunition for infantry use. If you stacked the rounds and fired them electronically out of a single long barrel, you could have a breach loaded horizontal stack that sends a volley of rockets the way a shotgun sends a volley of pellets. You couldn't handle the recoil of conventional ammo, but with 2 stage rocket motors, one to get out of the barrel and one to take over after, you could shoot 5-10 large diameter rockets in one volley and reload it similar to a bolt gun, martini action ect.
@GeneralKayoss The rockets were too small and fired one at a time, it's been 60 years they can do better now. Plus it makes way more sense vs. drones than any other type of firearm.
@@MrLoobu Well if you go with bigger rockets, you're basically just recreating rocket artillery, which has been around for a loooong time. The best use of small projectile based rockets as you describe, today, would be some sort of guidance system. And if you could integrate that projectile based guidance system with third party thermal detection that sends a signal to the guidance system, you'd have the worlds most deadly non nuclear weapon platform. Far deadlier than any blind volley based system.
The only use I can see for this weapon is defensive. Used as a blocking defense in a choke point as troops retreat. Set it up with a wireless remote or a trip wire and just run away from it. I believe they use Claymores for that now.
Clearly, it can't 'shred any tank to pieces'! As mentioned in the piece, it can only shred one that remains directly in its path for sufficient time. So the title should be: 'The weapon that will never shred any tank'
I saw the original video of this here on UA-cam many months ago. It looked really old then so it’s well outdated by now. It was abandoned in 2012 partly due to how inaccurate it was
Metalstorm has been around for many years, but it's never caught on. It's high fire rate doesn't even last one second, then you have to replace the whole thing. They never mention reloading it because you can't.
you can reload, it just takes to long
Make each barrel a singular shell that can then be loaded as such. The shots fired would be bursts and reload. The singular barrel could be effectively stored and transported. Should be a tradeoff.
@@bubblelyte401 it won't work
@@bubblelyte401 Having each barrel hold a single shot bypasses all the advantages of the Metalstorm. Each shot has it's own electrical connection. That means a dozen or more connections for each barrel. That's why it's never caught on. If one fails to fire, does it act like a barrel blockage and blow the barrel up when the one behind it is triggered?
@@CrotalusHH Each barrel has around say 10 shots and wire connections which is in the barrel and connected electronically out to some control mechanism--which can sufficiently be just two metal plates making contact with the main barrel. Once spent this barrel is ejected and another one (or 4) is loaded into the main barrel. This is a good compromise.
The interesting point with Metalstorm, is that once its been fired your in the same situation as the old arquebus or flintlock. Once you've fired your load, the weapon (and the shooter, if they're still around) is defenseless. With more conventional weapons you can reload on the fly and keep going. If they ever figure out how to overcome that problem with the Metalstorm, you might have the next level of weapon.
i was thinking if you had the 40mm grenade version, you could have that as the warhead of a missile. so CIWS is completely overwhelmed by a cloud of grenades
I’m sure it’s not in the warehouse with the ark.
Instead of a big square canister that holds 2000-3000 rounds, make a smaller cylindrical canister that holds 800-1200 rounds. It could be mounted on an AA-style mount that could be aimed and automatically reloaded with a fresh canister. Bulky as hell for sure, but not much bulkier than a CIWS, and nothing could get by it.
only thing I could think of is that if you use a short barrelled howitzer-like light gun which reloads a shell filled with MS rails ( similar to a M70 Hydra pod) ... fires it ... discards the empty shell and reloads same as a automatic howitzer would. Though how complicated that would be and where it actually had any advantages beats me.
Could possibly be utilized on ships as a kind of super-CIWS, a last-ditch backup for use against anything that gets past the CIWS. Regardless of how slow it is to reload, that might still be worth having. Or maybe not. Maybe it'd be more effective to just add another CIWS.
This has been the weapons equivalent of the Moller Flying Car for the last 25 years.
Ooph that burn is worse than the one on my arm I got last week
Yeah this channel is so completely full of shit and it's getting worse with every video. You're not tearing a tank apart with 9mm rounds, I don't give a damn how many you fire at it.
No 9mm round out of that ever penetrated a tank.
That's why it shoots a million of them at a time...
@@VisibilityFoggystill no way dummy
It'd be damn noisy inside though!
they showed it penetrating layers of armor @ 5:59.
You can chisel through anything if you get enough hits on it.
I find it very hard to believe that a 9mm projectile, no matter how many are fired, would ever break through a tank's armor. MAYBE an APC, but not an Abrams or Challenger.....
Depends where you shoot it I suppose, you might break some of the less armored piece on the tank, such as any ERA, cameras, the 50cal mounted on the roof and the glass for the optics, would be expensive but at that point you might as well just try to shoot the tank with a powerful missile or rocket considering the cost of the Metal Storm.
Exactly. The title of this video is shameless click bait.
The claim was made with zero explanation or evidence of how such a capability was proven or demonstrated.
Think of 9mm pieces of tungsten, I'm pretty sure they'd pierce a tanks armour
@@FayeClegg Eh, 9mm might not have enough weight even with tungsten.
Now if it were depleted uranium
then it would be truly terrifying.
But regardless, the reload time would make a more constant rate of fire weapon preferable over this platform.
Nonesense on you tube again
I remember seeing this on Future Weapons. Good show back then
now to be seen on Forgotten Weapons
always wondered what happened to this weapon, 10 years later just to find out it got shelved :(
Always the same for caseless ammo weapons :/ *sad looks at G11
I think the reasons it was never picked up by anyone is because it’s basically a parlor trick. Extremely low accuracy was its biggest downfall
@@kwhp1507 still an interesting concept, just remember there promo video when it originally came out. Good to know.
Just like flying wings and other weapons. We wont know until they are suddenly on the battlefield.
In the 80's I read that a 5.56mm version was built that had a 10,000 rounds per minute but never went into production as it was deemed to fast and required to much ammo.
without an ammo feed system those fire rate numbers are worthless.
@@rootbeer4888 I meant a minigun version.
@Andrew Holmes it was done for experimental purposes, nothing further
I love how you just have a random stillphoto of DangerousBob shooting a 37mm bofors gun as the thumbnail for this video...
The thumbnail is from a Forgotten Weapons video from the looks of it. I think I remember that video.
MS never made much sense to me, after much examination, for all the reasons already cited in the other comments - bulky, tedious reloading, and restricted to small calibre (which wouldn't kill a tank under any realistic circumstance), as the recoil of a mass of large calibre rounds would be excessive and hence the range is very restricted with rapid velocity decay.
Basically it should be better thought of as a sort of multi-barrelled/multi-round combiantion acting more as a "moderately selective Claymore mine " for fixed sentry or ambush duty, as it can't be moved much for refining the sighting. The startlingly high value for the quoted "rounds minute" (RPM) are only valid if the whole lot are shot at once.
The best aspect of the development is the fire-control of multiple caselsss rounds per barrel. But it demands that all ammo be pre-packed into "sheet magazines" for insertion into the firing assembly, for ammo security, moisture control, etc.
The disposavle cluster of barrels (canister) could be smaller, a little longer, aim-able, and auto-loading. Not good for offense, but great for anti-missile duty on land and aboard ships.
It was actually a flint lock version of this back in the 1700s that when you pulled the trigger fired 224 bullets in two minutes -if it didn't explode.
love the addition "- if it didn't explode." :D
@Hykje -They didn't explode. When you load powder, pached ball over and over again down the same bore the patched ball behind protects its powder from going off. The reason these weren't popular military weapons was they were incredibly hard to make as you need a way to get the fire from the ball in front to fire the next in line. I've built single barrel types. Those were fairly common with your flintlock sliding on a track from touch hole to touch hole manually.
@@mikeblair2594 The one I was talking about was a seven-barreled gun that used special balls with holes drilled in them. When you pulled the trigger the first load of gunpowder was ignited and fired the first set of seven balls and then the next load of gunpowder was ignited and so on until all balls were fired. When you pulled the trigger you could not stop it until all 224 balls where fired.
The ammo is specialised and that’s a HUGE cost from a plant setup perspective.
Also the unit didn’t have to fire everything all at once as it could be programmed to fire whatever quantity the operator required.
It’s like the electromagnetic rail cannon designated to be used on the Zumwalt class ships.The ammo was too costly to produce due to economies of scale.
Problem is, it requires an enormous weapon platform not only to house it, but to contain all the extra ammo.
I would just strap it on the back of one of those robotic dogs they have.
similar argument: "Huge breasts are so cumbersome. I mean, the size of that bra and the engineering for their natural seeming support would negate any possible advantage to having such physically ponderous appendages"
Sell your house for range day!
@@geargeekpdx3566 Im mean or they use some kinda mini tractor frame for it and control it with a remote or something
Edit: I just thought it would be badass strapping it to some robo hounds.
@@geargeekpdx3566 My wife would agree.
I really really doubt, that 9mm ammo with a propellant charge that would not deform the bullet behind the first one, could penetrate the armor of a tank or even APC. The concept looks great on paper and the vidoes are nice too, but its battlefield capabilities are not on par with conventional weapons. (The metal storm 40mm mortar system might be different though, since it doesnt rely on the propellant charge for its destructiveness)
Yeah this channel is so completely full of shit and it's getting worse with every video. You're not tearing a tank apart with 9mm rounds, I don't give a damn how many you fire at it.
Also, wouldn't the effective barrel length be pretty short for the first rounds = lower velocity?
@@sikhandtakerakhuvar3372 probably depends on how you design it. Either more ammo and therefore less barrel length for the first bullets or longer barrel length and less ammo. Once you hit a certain length infront of the first bullet, you would have the same ballistics for all of them. (if you burn all powder before the bullet leaves the barrel, you wont get any additional velocity, could even decrease the speed)
@@No_Way_NO_WAY I wouldn't use a propellant powered projectile. Nor would I stack rounds in the barrel. I'd use electromagnetics, like a rail gun, in conjunction with a feeder system.
@@generalkayoss7347 So you mean a Railgun? Yes, that weapon makes more sense
^^ Thats probably why the military is still developing those and not the metal storm ^^
Why is this even a video at this point? This is decades out of date, and the company has been out of business for nearly a decade.
Buddy prioritizes quantity over quality. He did a lame video on the rocks that move slowly via wind and ice on his other channel....might be time to unsub soon
how's life under the bridge? How are the goats?
@@Dav3 How's you channel doing? I'd imagine you must have wayyyyy more subs than 280 k... lemme know your channel name so i can watch and enjoy your content.....thanks bud..
Because America needs to believe that it is going to wade through near peer enemies instead of getting beaten to a bloody pulp because of the graft and corruption in the military industrial complex traitors that sold us out. In my humble opinion
I enjoyed it.
You got better content?
Metal Storm has been around for a long time.
At 6:00 I understood you to say the projectile velocity was about Mach 5. This is about 4600 fps. (On my calculator.) That's pretty fast for the barrel steels and propellants available now. Are you sure about that spec?
I was about to ask the same question. To get a bullet to over 5,500 ft/sec would take a large propellant load out which I don’t see with this gun. I really wonder sometimes where they get their facts from. From a practicality perspective, I could see the 40mm grenade launcher as a workable weapon on a drone, but I guess that did not work out for the military.
I wasn't buying it.
Mach 5 was the velocity of the money being spent to reload this thing.
I swear a vid about metal storm was one of the very early YT viral vids
Just wanted say, thank you very much for all your informative content on all your channels!
I met the inventor in 1984, I had questions about a weapon I was trying to develop. He invited me into his home super good dude. There was the VLE and his concepts will see the light of day at some stage....
I still remember the older Popular Science/Mechanics magazines that mentioned this weapon.
You blow your load at a target and then play paper, rock, scissors to see who reloads the damn thing.
I love this dude voice… i can listen for hours
Anti-drone possibilities? Set to auto, stationed with mini-radar suite? Maybe even using one of the many radar systems in new cars. Cheap? Effective?
I remember when this thing hit the scene and it was being sold as a kind of a mine that shot a LOT of ammo at the target, and me being an old 12b, I was like... but mines are hidden for a reason. You can't just have it out there and expect the tank crew or supporting infantry to just ignore that suspicious box over there. But the idea of using it for point defense sounded kind of useful but it seems the Navy had it's own objections.
But that is exactly how the jury rigged RPG "mine" is used in ukrain. Its a RPG launcher rigged to a tripwire. Tank drives by, RPG shoots, tank either damaged or destroyed, panic ensues because of possible ambush)
@@No_Way_NO_WAY Yeah, ok look, an RPG is a LOT lighter to carry around and smaller than a huge box filled with hundreds of pounds of ammo. It's cool but not practical and the Ukrainians are just using everything they can get their hands on. If they have mines, they use them, if they don't, then they jury rig something. This system... well I can only see a huge $ sign along with a ton of logistics... its just to bulky, to expensive, and once used, its almost impossible to recover. A Javelin or a good AT mine can do the same thing for a lot less $ and effort.
There is a highly likelyhood that there continues to be development that isn't revealed. Just as the Kornet (Russian) is a one use weapon that takes time to set up I'm guessing Metal Storm has possibilities too.
@@bruceleealmighty The Kornet is not a one-use system. It is exactly like the TOW system. It consists of a tripod, traversing unit, missile guidance set and the missile itself. This MetalStorm thing has no possibilities. It's way too heavy and ineffective compared to an ATGM like a Kornet or TOW. ATGMs can be transported by foot and can be hidden easier. They can destroy tanks at 3000 meters or more. It makes more sense to fire one precision round to kill a tank than to fire everything at one target, especially since you can't reload it.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 I should have been more precise and suggested shoot and scoot, rather than one time use. Aware that it isn't a one time use and throw away system, but it's use is suggested to immediately move once fired because of several factors, proximity, exposure and plume. It's often interesting how many systems are panned for any number of reasons and down the line something pops up that was just in development, Overcoming difficult problems is precisely why the technology is advancing the way it is. This line of weaponry is not lost to history.
Dark
Cool video. I remember the History channel show. Great video. Keep up the great work.
Metal storm is not new tech. The problem with them is loading. Once the tubes are loaded they are amazing and any number of tubes can be stacked together not just 36. This definitely wouldn't be something you'd want to replace a mini gun with or any other gun that is hungry for ammo. Best use for this is ambushes. Behind enemy lines setting up killzones. Once they are setup they can be set automatic fire on anything that enters or can be monitored and activated remotely. It isn't something you'd stick around to watch go off.
The M-60 light machine gun does not have a rate of fire of 6,000 rpm.
The M-60 is the American version of the genius German World War II MG-42, a devastating and devastating accurate light machine gun with a rate of fire of up to 1500 rpm. Multiple variants of the MG-42 are still in use today, including the German Army’s MG3, the Italian MG42/59, the Austrian MG74, and the Yugoslavian Zastava M53, among others.
The M-60’s rate of fire varies from 500-650 rpm.
American troopers in Vietnam called it the pig because of its weight and it’s tendency to jam unless kept scrupulously clean.
To my knowledge, there is no single barrel machine or submachine gun in the world with a rate of fire over 2200 rpm.
This Documentary is all over the place.
how many barrels to fit one million rounds?
Metal Storm could be an impressive weapon if the number of barrels were reduced; this would make it easier to reload and cut down the weight, only thing left is making the system mobile and able to track a target.
But I see the mini gun being the weapon rolling forward; for now atleast.
Nothing wrong with a rehash of its history for those other than gun nerds we see here.
Quite amazing that no-one was ever able to take the Metal Storm concept to fruition and produce a usable weapon though :/
Nevertheless, thanks for posting!
I believe i first heard about this from a TV show called FutureWeapons (if my memory serves me right). But that was years & years ago.
With the bald headed guy? Yep, that was it. 👊 😎
@@josephpacchetti5997
Yeahhh lol
A soldier who knows what they are doing can shoot three rounds per minute maybe 4 with a muzzleloader Musket. With a breech-loader with cartridges approximately 25 rounds per minute.
I'm unsure about 9mm (however many penetrating tank armour). Also 9mm's range is very poor so maybe it'd work as a mine but other applications could be hard to do.
Yeah, I was confused and thought they were going to talk about something new that had bigger rounds for the anti-tank claim.
Everyone gets stuck on the size of the round, It's the speed and how many rounds on target that make all the difference. **MACH 5** rounds at the same point even if it were needles (or even water) would eventually show wear. Look at a Savot round. It's not the size of the head of the round. It's whether it can penetrate and hit the target that makes the difference.
Another question is how they were able to get a bullet, from that length barrel, to get to Mach 5.
Metal Storm Limited was a research and development company based in Brisbane, Australia, that specialized in electronically initiated superposed load weapons technology and owned the proprietary rights to the electronic ballistics technology invented by J. Mike O'Dwyer.The Metal Storm name applied to both the company and technology. The company had been placed into voluntary administration by 2012. After several sales of the business to successive owners following its backruptcy, the current successor makes drones, not the impractical non-super weapon.
Metalstorm can't even chew up a bucket of baseballs, it's anti-personnel that doesn't explode and kill people behind it.
Not sure bro, I mean how do you get that ammo to the font line, tens of tons. And tanks move pretty fast nowadays.
"still holds the record for the fastest rate of fire for any military weapon" It was never adopted by any military.
Their 40mm grande launcher was a thing too. Computer games like Battlefield 4 featured a 3gl (3 grenade launcher) allowing 3 40mm grenades fired before reloading. Also the deployed version lacking any reload Animation.
And no love for the mitrailleuse? The grandpappy of the volley gun.
name a single thing the aussies ever invented except for vegemite literally lmao
The rotary clothes line, Google maps, 'black box' flight recorder, electric drills, WiFi (which is ironic really, seeing as the Aussies have the worst Internet in the world!), plastic bank notes, reading glasses, aircraft escape slides, cochlear implants, inflatable life rafts, ultrasound scanners, and last but not least- medical penicillin.
🍄
Probably just using available stock footage but why show a pile of brass cased rim fire .22LR ammo in place of “Case less 9mm rounds” ?
Just wondering 💭
Thank you for your fine and detailed decription and the history of the specialty guns/cannons and machineguns and cannons. We all know how it is, once you have an inspiration and you really want to make it real. And so my respect to this guy who developed and invested into his device vor kind of like 15 years is what weapons history is about. But what may flopped never is off the table. Remember the first gatling in all the western movies with the Dillon Gun today. And so one of these days (and I don´t believe it will be two centuries later) metal storm will find or already found it´s role as a defence device on wherever it may be needed. Thanks again for this detailed video. Keep on the good work.
even paul
Oh, look! Yet another M1!
I think you should make a video about everything that is called M1, it would be fun.
Love the videos. Keep up the good work
Thanks for the video, I remember this from Modern Weapons show on History channel and from the Popular Mechanics/Science magazine
So you're telling me all that fancy, highly classified, tank armor can be defeated by 9mm rounds. Press X to doubt.
This would make a pretty good defensive weapon for active tank protection if you can pair it with fast radar detection
Or pair it up with all available sensors combined, if possible
I love seeing the stuff you guys put out. A million rounds a minute ..... omg. Could you imagine showing this to someone who was in WWI?
Well what would be the point ? Pretty useless
@@jantschierschky3461 👽
@@jantschierschky3461 - Are you normally an asshole... or did you have to work at it? My guess is that it came naturally.
Another problem is variable barrel length since rounds are loaded behind one another (upto 5 ). So rounds have differing velocities and accuracy.
6:10..............."9-millimeter ammunition, and it could easily tear apart any main battle tank in the world."
Exactly how does that work? Is there something going on here that I don't understand?
Hate to tell you their darktech there's a difference between a coil gun and a Gatling gun
i love the articles but Metalstorm has been around for years and very well covered.
4:05 That's rim fire cal.22. Metal Storm has been around for a long time (prototype 1997).
It's electronically ignited and forget about reloading unless it's sent back to the factory.
I highly doubt a 9 mm can do anything but scratch the paint of the tank. A million rounds fired wouldn't do a big difference as it's still just handgun ammunition. So in terms of a modern tank, it will "shred" absolutely nothing. It would be highly effective against personnel and non-armored vehicles, though.
Not necessarily. Shoot them in the engine area. Very little armour there. You don't have to destroy a tank, just disable it.
"Round after round travelling at MACH 5 will eventually penetrate anything" Except Unicorns. Unicorns are invincible. Some AP rounds depend on velocity of the projectile, some depend on the velocity of the jet of metal, some depend a scab of metal from the inner surface of the armor plate flying around inside the vehicle. Metalstorm depends on credulity.
Metalstorm depends on Unicorns and "eventually." Mach 5 velocity? Otay, Buckwheat.
im not convinced. how do you reload it? how is the ammo stored? belt feeding solves all sorts of logistic issues.
The way it's first shot was from the tip of the barrel, reduces velocity and accuracy, by the time the last shot fired the barrel would be hot or deformed. There would need to be production similar to pipe work, then cut between loaded areas. It could be rigged for single shot then empty a tube, ejecting a single tube how current weapons eject ammo. Ejecting retained heat too.
Metal storm is a blast from the past. Had shares in that company. Wasn't a sound investment.
They really included the metalstorm not including the fact it's been discontinued for its inconsistency.
This is beautiful
What is the point when an anti tank weapon is smaller, lighter, has better range and more destructive power? It's a weapon without a purpose.
natures dictate of survival of the fittest has been taken to such a high level by the human male it is truly mind numbing
That is next level for sure!!!!
I need a metallstorm for rabbits on the farm.
Um, I was an M1-A2 Abrams tank commander. None of this is correct. Bout the only thing we feared was our own hellfire rockets and the 105 from a 130 gunship. (Which this vid didn't cover) 20mm couldn't touch us...
I don't think he was saying the minigun could take out a modern tank. Actually, just the opposite - this new gun was invented because it supposedly COULD do so. A lot of anti-tank weapons will soon become obsolete anyway when directed energy capability is added to APS.
I wonder if an Uzzi would prevail over simple buckshot? I'd place my confidence with buckshot scoring at trigger.
how will firing more bullets at a tank take it take more damage, its like throwing a stone at a wall or throwing a thousand stones at a wall, will the wall still fall over?
I think it's an amazing weapon system that can be mounted on specially dedicated mobile platforms like tanks, armoured vehicles, ships and on aircrafts like the C-130 gunships.
It can easily perform general aerial denial roles for sea, air and land defense. As hypersonic and swarm technologies evolves this is your answer against such threats.
Imagine putting these things in the war in Ukraine. Russia will be hastily humiliated out of Ukraine forever.
It needs to be developed even further.
Its one really useful possibility is firing small grenads in an arch at an enemy concentration which would have a similar effect as a cluster bomb. Only saturation would be way better. Like most such weapons that are good for only unidirectional use you can only kill people once.
This reminds me of the YF-23 Gray Ghost where we'll see iterations of Metal Storm in future generations.
Shouldn't let Hippies drive a rig like that.
Nukes be like ,what the hek is this.
Actually this concept was patented in 1792 by a guy named chambers, his gun had multiple projectiles in 7 barrels that fired one after the other at a rate of 120 RPM with one trigger pull. One of which was on the USS Constitution.
I think Ian did a show on this very gun? already.
@@davefellhoelter1343 The Chambers gun? Yes that's where i saw it.
@@Jimtheneals Me too! watched his show for about 10 yrs now or MORE?! LOVE his Knowledge! Love his passion for More Knowledge!
@@davefellhoelter1343 Same, I really love the way he not only details the history of the gun but the developer as well. He is my favorite gun tuber. I learned more from his channel than anywhere else.
The problem with metal storm is that there isn't any really need to fire that fast. Current multi barrel guns can shoot plenty fast enough.
The Challenger 2 begs to differ.....
I didn't come here for a complete history lesson going all the way back to Moses.
Think of it more like an ambush weapon, or ground based anti-air device. It can lie in wait like a land mine, but provide direct fire capabilities.
This concept was shelved years ago (and the company put into receivership) due to far too much variance in the ballistic performance of rounds in each successive stage (inaccuracy), the inability to scale to the higher "chamber pressures" (intra-round distance alters the effective chamber size for each stage) necessary to fire any ordinance beyond low-pressure pistol/grenade/shotgun cartridges, and the vastly higher logistics costs of shipping entire "barrel units" instead of individual cartridges. Honestly, this was a no-win from the start except, perhaps, for areal mine-clearing or riot dispersal.
I'd never heard that MS could effectively be used against armored vehicles. Why would 9mm rounds be effective against tank armor? Are they traveling faster? Made of depleted uranium? Details would be appreciated. Gotta say I'm skeptical.
Yes, to both your queries **MACH 5** and studies with depleted uranium were also used. I'm guessing there is a skunk works concept that we haven't been privy to thus far.
Sounds like it could be useful against hypersonic weapons
the maxim wasn't the first machine gun. there was one before it that was used in the war of 1812 on a naval ship of the u.s. It had 7 barrels that used a special round with a hole in the middle causing a run away fire. While not very practical for use it showed the progression of going to automatic weapons in the 1790's when the founding fathers were still alive. there was also the flint lock revolver from the 1600's.
Last I heard Metalstorm was deemed impractical and not purchased by the Pentagon.
It's nothing but a reloadable Claymore mine.
recoil recoil recoil. that is a killer.
I thought Metalstorm went out of business... I recall when it first came out and the inventor of it was a manager for a Woolworths Store, Mike O'Dwyer from memory.. The first demo of it was amazing, Mike tried to get the Australian Army interested, but they stupidly said "Nice CGI" in response to the video that Mike showed them... amazing stupidity there..
Came to see a tank get shredded, left disappointed.
I always thought this should be combined with the idea of rocket ammunition for infantry use. If you stacked the rounds and fired them electronically out of a single long barrel, you could have a breach loaded horizontal stack that sends a volley of rockets the way a shotgun sends a volley of pellets. You couldn't handle the recoil of conventional ammo, but with 2 stage rocket motors, one to get out of the barrel and one to take over after, you could shoot 5-10 large diameter rockets in one volley and reload it similar to a bolt gun, martini action ect.
Rocket guns have been made and they're just not worth the trouble to fire a single projectile, much less hundreds.
@GeneralKayoss The rockets were too small and fired one at a time, it's been 60 years they can do better now. Plus it makes way more sense vs. drones than any other type of firearm.
@@generalkayoss7347 Are you saying one projectile is better than many? Obviously that makes no sense lol
@@MrLoobu Well if you go with bigger rockets, you're basically just recreating rocket artillery, which has been around for a loooong time.
The best use of small projectile based rockets as you describe, today, would be some sort of guidance system. And if you could integrate that projectile based guidance system with third party thermal detection that sends a signal to the guidance system, you'd have the worlds most deadly non nuclear weapon platform. Far deadlier than any blind volley based system.
The only use I can see for this weapon is defensive. Used as a blocking defense in a choke point as troops retreat. Set it up with a wireless remote or a trip wire and just run away from it. I believe they use Claymores for that now.
On a small ship with autmated loader or the 40mm nade version as carpeted destruction within seconds.
Well it's great to know at least ONE inventor in the military industrial complex has scruples and didn't sell out to the Chinese.
wasn't this on the tv show future weapons in 2002'ish? i dont think almost any of that stuff made it to theater of war other than the nlaw
Whats next ? A gun like Metal Storm that shoots lazer frag. Once the projectile gets to its target lazers spread all over putting holes in everything.
"Power is nothing without control"
I saw a video about this like 10 years ago.. like in TV.
Clearly, it can't 'shred any tank to pieces'!
As mentioned in the piece, it can only shred one that remains directly in its path for sufficient time. So the title should be: 'The weapon that will never shred any tank'
I saw the original video of this here on UA-cam many months ago. It looked really old then so it’s well outdated by now. It was abandoned in 2012 partly due to how inaccurate it was
We had these mounted on our M113A1 APC. Something you never forget! BRRRRRR!
Chuck Norris's EDC...
Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket!
Wasnt this tech all the rage like 20 years ago? i remeber seeingf pop Sci articles on this tech years ago. So awesome though