Hosted by Darren Baker
M40 Recoilless Rifle
long_tom
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 21, 2013 - 11:04 AM UTC
I wondered how good these things were anyway, since they didn't seem to serve for too long in US service.
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 21, 2013 - 11:49 AM UTC
They were used from the mid 1950s until after Vietnam with the U.S. for sure...not too short of an amount of time.
In the Canadian Army they served from the 1950s until the 1980s in some Reserve units.
The advent of the TOW and other guided missiles made them obsolete.
They are still in use around the world.
In the Canadian Army they served from the 1950s until the 1980s in some Reserve units.
The advent of the TOW and other guided missiles made them obsolete.
They are still in use around the world.
gmat5037
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 103 posts
Armorama: 102 posts
Posted: Saturday, September 21, 2013 - 12:23 PM UTC
Interesting thread on recoilless rifles.
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/35307-recoil-less-guns.html
The M40 was cheaper to use than the TOW and might have afforded some tactical flexibility. You can fire more 106mm rounds than if you used the more expensive TOW missiles.
I seem to remember that the M40 might have been used by US forces in Afghanistan. The thread mentions this, too. The M67 90mm Rcl has been used in Afghanistan.
Grant
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/35307-recoil-less-guns.html
The M40 was cheaper to use than the TOW and might have afforded some tactical flexibility. You can fire more 106mm rounds than if you used the more expensive TOW missiles.
I seem to remember that the M40 might have been used by US forces in Afghanistan. The thread mentions this, too. The M67 90mm Rcl has been used in Afghanistan.
Grant
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, October 07, 2013 - 06:47 AM UTC
the 106mm recoiless rifle was fairly common in RVN. Some were mounted on personnel carriers, and some were even mounted on Jeeps (never saw one in country). I've seen them shoot off a solid mount on a tripod, and also on wheels (what we had).
They had a canister round for them, and HE and WP. I never saw one shoot WP, but saw plenty of HE shot in them. They used them a lot to recon by fire, and the can round gained a lot of respect for the receiving end. Supposedly they hand an armor piercing round that would bust thru anything out there at the time. Never saw it in use, but have seen Russian and ChiCom anti tank rounds shot in a 90mm recoiless (maybe 75mm).
Recoiless rifles had one major draw back, and that was the back blast. Plus bigger guns were kind of immobile. The 106 had a 100 foot back blast that was extremely lethal. So if you used one for a perimeter defense, you had to allow for the back blast. The 57mm wasn't nearly as bad, and we used one to recon by fire. They were also very loud as I remember!
gary
They had a canister round for them, and HE and WP. I never saw one shoot WP, but saw plenty of HE shot in them. They used them a lot to recon by fire, and the can round gained a lot of respect for the receiving end. Supposedly they hand an armor piercing round that would bust thru anything out there at the time. Never saw it in use, but have seen Russian and ChiCom anti tank rounds shot in a 90mm recoiless (maybe 75mm).
Recoiless rifles had one major draw back, and that was the back blast. Plus bigger guns were kind of immobile. The 106 had a 100 foot back blast that was extremely lethal. So if you used one for a perimeter defense, you had to allow for the back blast. The 57mm wasn't nearly as bad, and we used one to recon by fire. They were also very loud as I remember!
gary
BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Monday, October 07, 2013 - 07:07 AM UTC
From a modelling perspective they are quite common in that both AFV Club and Academy field vehicles with these, or in the case of AFV Club, produce the M40 separately too. AFV Club produce a M38 with one mounted (possibly the old Skybow kit).
I have just finished browsing a couple of Tankograd books (excellent reference material!) and note that the M38 Jeep with these guns was to be seen throughout the 50s, 60s and possibly 70s, though the latter decade would have seen the base vehicle replaced by a MUTT I suspect (until the emergence of the TOW system).
Academy do produce a version of the MUTT with the M40. For the budding conversion modeller, the French Army mounted them on their Hotchkiss jeeps and the British Airborne and Royal Marines on the Short Wheel Base Landrover - until replaced by the MOBAT, CONBAT and WOMBAT systems.
Incidentally, the producer in UK known as Firing Line make an excellent WOMBAT in 1:35 - just the job for mounting on the recently re-released Landrover kit.
Not often seen on the modelling display tables, there is loads of scope here for something different.
Brian
I have just finished browsing a couple of Tankograd books (excellent reference material!) and note that the M38 Jeep with these guns was to be seen throughout the 50s, 60s and possibly 70s, though the latter decade would have seen the base vehicle replaced by a MUTT I suspect (until the emergence of the TOW system).
Academy do produce a version of the MUTT with the M40. For the budding conversion modeller, the French Army mounted them on their Hotchkiss jeeps and the British Airborne and Royal Marines on the Short Wheel Base Landrover - until replaced by the MOBAT, CONBAT and WOMBAT systems.
Incidentally, the producer in UK known as Firing Line make an excellent WOMBAT in 1:35 - just the job for mounting on the recently re-released Landrover kit.
Not often seen on the modelling display tables, there is loads of scope here for something different.
Brian
afvaficionado
Joined: February 16, 2010
KitMaker: 160 posts
Armorama: 159 posts
Posted: Monday, October 07, 2013 - 08:42 AM UTC
Hi.
106 RCL's were in use with NZ Army too, 3 to a Infantry Battalion. Normally mounted on a Landrover - don't recall if it was short or longwheel base version. I recall an open day at Trentham, with 3 RCL's co located with our M577 ACP's in the late seventies - early eighties,one of the 'guides' stating that the problem with having 3 RCL's was that tank troops consisted of 4 tanks.
The HESH (US HEP)round was supposed to be pretty effective.
Mal
106 RCL's were in use with NZ Army too, 3 to a Infantry Battalion. Normally mounted on a Landrover - don't recall if it was short or longwheel base version. I recall an open day at Trentham, with 3 RCL's co located with our M577 ACP's in the late seventies - early eighties,one of the 'guides' stating that the problem with having 3 RCL's was that tank troops consisted of 4 tanks.
The HESH (US HEP)round was supposed to be pretty effective.
Mal
gmat5037
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 103 posts
Armorama: 102 posts
Posted: Monday, October 07, 2013 - 09:52 AM UTC
Here is a thread from tank-net about usage of the older M27 105mm RCL for avalanche control.
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=29295&page=2
One M60A3 with two spares are also used with M3 105mm (the short barrel version) kept as backups.
Page 1 of the above thread gives more information of the British Army use of the M40 during the 1956 Suez Operation, as their 120mm BAT was not ready yet.
The Chinese Type 75 105mm RCL is a copy of the M40, I believe.
Later examples of the M40 lacked the raised rim at the muzzle and some were left unpainted. The Japanese Panzer or Task Magazine had a set of photos of a 101st (?) mixed M40 and TOW M151 platoon and the M40s had NM barrels. You should also drill out the muzzle bore to leave a very thin wall as the recoilless round produced less stress.
Best wishes,
Grant
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=29295&page=2
One M60A3 with two spares are also used with M3 105mm (the short barrel version) kept as backups.
Page 1 of the above thread gives more information of the British Army use of the M40 during the 1956 Suez Operation, as their 120mm BAT was not ready yet.
The Chinese Type 75 105mm RCL is a copy of the M40, I believe.
Later examples of the M40 lacked the raised rim at the muzzle and some were left unpainted. The Japanese Panzer or Task Magazine had a set of photos of a 101st (?) mixed M40 and TOW M151 platoon and the M40s had NM barrels. You should also drill out the muzzle bore to leave a very thin wall as the recoilless round produced less stress.
Best wishes,
Grant
afvaficionado
Joined: February 16, 2010
KitMaker: 160 posts
Armorama: 159 posts
Posted: Monday, October 07, 2013 - 10:42 AM UTC
Hi
Interesting stuff re the avalanche control M60A3's. Found some pics of the NZ Landrovers - LWB - http://www.remlr.com/2A109rcl.html - & Aussie gunbuggys - http://www.remlr.com/2_2Agunbuggy.html -
Mal
Interesting stuff re the avalanche control M60A3's. Found some pics of the NZ Landrovers - LWB - http://www.remlr.com/2A109rcl.html - & Aussie gunbuggys - http://www.remlr.com/2_2Agunbuggy.html -
Mal
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 - 07:16 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I wondered how good these things were anyway, since they didn't seem to serve for too long in US service.
With regards to your question, they were quite good for what they were designed for, but the old battle of armour versus anti-armour evolved quickly in the 40s through 60s.
For armour systems fielded in the 40's and 50s, the HEAT or HESH rounds available for the M40 were adequate to kill tanks at infantry engagement ranges. With the advent of the composite armour starting in the 60s and really hitting mainstream in the 70s, the ability of the M40 to punch through decreased substantially.
Once the MBTs were promarily fitted with layered armour, and as manpack ATGMs got much, much better, the M40 faded away.
As was mentioned, they are making a comeback in low intensity wars now because they are sufficiently accurate to keep collateral damage down while being significantly cheaper to operate than the ATGMs. In addition, there are more warhead types available for the RRs than the ATGMS so they can actually do some jobs better. I mean, who ever heard of a beehive or willy pete round for a TOW? And there are definitely times when they can be useful. Very useful indeed.
In many armies, the smaller Carl Gustov never went away and, as an infantry bumker buster, is also making a comeback in even the US Army. No sense wasting a $200,000 TOW when a $20,000 RR round will do.
Paul
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 - 02:08 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI wondered how good these things were anyway, since they didn't seem to serve for too long in US service.
With regards to your question, they were quite good for what they were designed for, but the old battle of armour versus anti-armour evolved quickly in the 40s through 60s.
For armour systems fielded in the 40's and 50s, the HEAT or HESH rounds available for the M40 were adequate to kill tanks at infantry engagement ranges. With the advent of the composite armour starting in the 60s and really hitting mainstream in the 70s, the ability of the M40 to punch through decreased substantially.
Once the MBTs were promarily fitted with layered armour, and as manpack ATGMs got much, much better, the M40 faded away.
As was mentioned, they are making a comeback in low intensity wars now because they are sufficiently accurate to keep collateral damage down while being significantly cheaper to operate than the ATGMs. In addition, there are more warhead types available for the RRs than the ATGMS so they can actually do some jobs better. I mean, who ever heard of a beehive or willy pete round for a TOW? And there are definitely times when they can be useful. Very useful indeed.
In many armies, the smaller Carl Gustov never went away and, as an infantry bumker buster, is also making a comeback in even the US Army. No sense wasting a $200,000 TOW when a $20,000 RR round will do.
Paul
let me put it this way:
On a road march with a full strength platoon of infantry backed up by a CAV troop (I was basically hitch a ride) the road march came to a halt, and everybody off loaded that could! I walked up to the lead recon tracks, and they were all out looking around with binoculars and armed to the teeth. What caused this? Three 90mm perforated tubes laying on the ground! The tell tale sign that somebody had a recoiless rifle in the area. I thought they'd found a mine, and 155mm and 8" command detonated ones were common in this area. Everybody was digging out flak jackets, and I borrowed one! Four klicks later I was on a chopper pad waiting for a ride, and sighing a relief. By the way I walked that four klicks and kept my distance from all the tracks.
gary
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 - 06:08 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Four klicks later I was on a chopper pad waiting for a ride, and sighing a relief. By the way I walked that four klicks and kept my distance from all the tracks.
gary
Oh, yeah. A 90mm RR would make a hash out of a Bradley or anything lighter, like a 113 ot Stryker.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.