'Mythbusters' stunt goes wrong, cannonball damages suburb property

[SilverCider]

Myth - Can you really make flubber?

 

[Emexrulsier]

can tell many ppl here are American, something bad happens first thing you think is "cool we can sue"

 

[red1776]

can tell many ppl here are American, something bad happens first thing you think is "cool we can sue"

1) perhaps you can point out for use where here in this thread "cool we can sue" has been stated?

2) The only mention of a lawsuit was made by a member from South Africa.

3) A lawsuit stemming from ones home coming under cannon fire probably won't go down in the annals of history along side the guy who spilled a cup of McDonalds coffee in his own lap.

 

[nazartp]

paynetrain007 said:
What did they shoot out of the cannon? A giant Bouncy Ball?

Well, strangely enough, that's how old cannons operated. Against infantry a cannoneer would try and target it to hit the ground right in front of the enemy ranks. Depending on the surface, the ball would either shatter, sending shards through the ranks, or plough through the ranks on the bounce. Not sure why it was done that way. I guess aiming higher ran a risk of overshooting the target.

 

[Adhmuz]

Haven't the Mythbusters already fired cannon balls at water filled barrels, also tried using "other" projectiles which takes place in the 2nd Pirate Special. Guess they must be revisiting a myth somewhere in there. As for the accident? Well thats why insurance exists and from what I can tell from watching the episodes its the insurance company that tells them things are too dangerous. If they were given the okay for whatever they were testing then their insurance company will cover the damages.

 

[Guest]

"through a bedroom where three people were sleeping". Three people? yeah right they weren't sleeping..

 

[dividebyzero]

Well, strangely enough, that's how old cannons operated. Against infantry a cannoneer would try and target it to hit the ground right in front of the enemy ranks. Depending on the surface, the ball would either shatter, sending shards through the ranks, or plough through the ranks on the bounce. Not sure why it was done that way. I guess aiming higher ran a risk of overshooting the target.

True. The same applies to coastal defence guns before the modern era. Mounted close to near the shore, they could skip a cannonball into a ship near it's waterline (the same method was used in World War II). On a land battlefield, the reasoning is a little more pragmatic - it ensured the greatest amount of damage (before the advent of fused and timed explosive), and a large amount of casualties. A wounded soldier continues to eat up your enemies resources (medical, food, water, transport, economic) whereas a dead soldier does not.

 

[Guest]

ha ha


this is a laugh riot !

 

[Guest]

what is this a MAGIC cannon ball ???
the u.s army should really look into to this new weapons tech a cannon ball the knows how to enter a house through the door climb up the stairs jump out the window onto a couple of rooftops
finally hitting its target a toyota van ,,, what will they come up next

 

[mados123]

dividebyzero said:

Well, strangely enough, that's how old cannons operated. Against infantry a cannoneer would try and target it to hit the ground right in front of the enemy ranks. Depending on the surface, the ball would either shatter, sending shards through the ranks, or plough through the ranks on the bounce. Not sure why it was done that way. I guess aiming higher ran a risk of overshooting the target.

True. The same applies to coastal defence guns before the modern era. Mounted close to near the shore, they could skip a cannonball into a ship near it's waterline (the same method was used in World War II). On a land battlefield, the reasoning is a little more pragmatic - it ensured the greatest amount of damage (before the advent of fused and timed explosive), and a large amount of casualties. A wounded soldier continues to eat up your enemies resources (medical, food, water, transport, economic) whereas a dead soldier does not.

Good info here with both of these posts!

 

[caravel]

That show has turned majorly stupid the last 2-3 seasons.

I'm afraid it's actually Discovery which turned "majorly stupid" in the last decade. Instead of concentrating on educational, science and fact based programming, they opted for the "wow! factor" and nowadays screen sensationalist "reality" crap.