Is this really unexploded ordnance?

CNN.COM ^ | 10-15-01 | me

[finnman69]

I wonder if this is really unexploded ordnance or is this maybe a drop tank? Any experts care to weigh in? The scale of this picture is a little misleading with that figure in the background, but on news footage i saw this weekend this object appeared to be 8' to 10' long.

[michigander]

Believe it or not, I think both of these pictures are of the same object.

[Steve0113]

Make that "tank".

[Steve0113]

You beat me by less than a minute!

[michigander]

I think you beat me. :-)

[Terrorista Nada]

I saw a pic of that same ordnance from the back, and the rear was squared-off or broken-off. I think it was a Taliban AA missile or tactical surface missile that was broken-in-two as a result of our bunker and cave attacks yesterday that caused a hugh almost-nuke-looking secondary explosion that flashed and burned for about 4 1/2 hours afterward.

We hit something very big in that cave! And the "collarteral damage" the Taliban is crying about was caused by their own weapons raining back down on them mostely.

[Steve0113]

I think you beat me. :-)

I realized that immediately after hitting "Post", but having just screwed up two posts in a row, it seemed like a good idea to put the mouse down and step away from the computer. :)

[Redcloak]

I think that you're right. That is the same object. Nice depth of field in that one shot. I wonder if it was deliberate on the photographer's part.

[Steve0113]

BTW, that picture that we both posted still has this caption: "Residents from a nearby village look at unexploded munitions in the village of Koram, Afghanistan"

Link to story.

[finnman69]

Ahhhhh!!!! I knew there was another photo of this object that put its true size in perspective. Amazing how camera angles and wide angle lenses can increase the 'size' of an object.

[Terrorista Nada]

I also think that the Taliban pixel people (or the commies at US News) have been playing with that photo... either that or, the cobbles in Kabul are very large, or they have 5" midgets living there.

[LJLucido]

Maybe the guy in the second picture is just really small....

[Terrorista Nada]

If the US press (or the Taliban) is doctoring these photos to exploit the so-called "collateral civilian damage," this pic is a HUGH story!

Yo!!! Wake up out there? Anybody home in the 6% of the media who voted for a conservative candidate at least once in their life? Hello??? Anybody???

[Terrorista Nada]

No way is that camera angle or a wide angle lenses. It's either a doctored pic or a different object. I lean toward #1.

[fone]

Yes I vote doctored pic. Note the shadow would indicate that the close-up was taken almost the same time of day, just a little closer to noon. *Calling Tourist Guy!*
*where are you?*

[operation clinton cleanup]

The only type of bomb it could be is a Mk84 2000lb without the fin unit, but it would not bend as the nose appears to be in the picture and the tail would have an indented groove around the circumfrence. Some Navy bombs are painted gray, but this is obviously a drop tank.

[jlogajan]

"Hey Omar, let's go stand around the unexploded munitions."

[Terrorista Nada]

Some on this thread (including me) believe the above two pics are the exact same ordnance object. If this is so, how did the little 5" man, or the nine 50' giants, get into the two pics of the same object?

[Snardius]

It's something small that fell out of Richard Gere's a$$.

Now you've done it...you going to have seven years of bad karma for letting the public know the truth about (rear)Gere.

[RetiredArmy]

Elephant's tusk from 200,000 BC.

[Snardius]

but this is obviously a drop tank.

It looks to me like a centerline drop tank. They're much larger than the ones attached to the wing position.