In searching for the 120mm kill shot, found this interesting fragmenting hand gun round. Looks mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrGjIHAq-J4
Nice article from War Is Boring - seems apropos to here: War is Boring - The U.S. Army’s Doomed Quest for a Rocket-Propelled Bowling Ball
I've spent entirely too much time in my life reviewing weak points of soecific tanks, the Munroe effect, overpressure within closed structures, etc. What is it with man-portable antitank weapons that I find so interesting? I think the lone David vs armored Goliath speaks to our inner, primal hunter of large dangerous beast. The lone David vs the armored Goliath will always be appealing. As a side note, I have some of that RIP ammo in 9mm, but have not yet fired it yet. Can't bear the growling, gungasm voice of the narrator in that promo video though.
In the David vs Goliath whoops line I remember reading of a couple of British Commandos who decided to go Tiger hunting. So they borrowed a Piat and an ammo box and off they went. They managed to find a Tiger (or at least a German tank) when they realized the ammo box they borrowed didn't have any ammo in it for the Piat. The did confirm that they could run faster at some distance from the tank than it's turret could traverse at least until they could get under cover. Showing remarkable ability to learn from their experience they decided not to get a full box and try again.
I have always been impressed with the Swedish Carl Gustaf, an improvement of the bazooka, introduced in 1046 and still in use in Syria as well as the mid-80's AT4. The Swedes make good weapons. The British were so inventive in electronics and inserting the 17 pounder in the M4 I wonder why they stuck with the truly weird Piat, a modern shaped charge on a spring powered platform ??? I remember seeing T-54-55's knocked out in the Bosnian war with a 25-30mm hole in the turret and no other signs of damage. I guess a tungsten billet at high velocity. But the RPG remains the iconic and ubiquitous anti-tank weapon of the Cold War until present. Cheap, simple and effective against many tanks. Modern MBT's tanks with their laminated armor-modular armor stand up pretty well against them. I always thought the US had the resources to produce a larger bazooka but at age 3 they did not consult me. Gaines
Maybe i missed it, what kind of warhead was involved. Would have thought it was a shaped charge, but the roundness wouldn't be conducive? Like how they had a dimpled one, like a golf ball which would have made it fly straighter. ..were fins deployed after release and what was the range...so many questions. Good read though. Thanks for that.
They did, adopted in late 1944, it was the M20 3.5" (90mm) rocket launcher (the original had a 2.36"-@60mm round) used in Korea and Vietnam. It wasn't fielded to my knowledge in WWII, and Secretary of Defense Johnson cancelled production post war. Much of the WWII effort was into continually improving and making the round more lethal and effective. The US also developed and fielded recoilless rifles, the first the M18 57mm was placed in production in late 1944, and first fielded in Europe in March 1945. Its successor the the M20 75mm shipped in March 1945 and saw limited use in the pacific. It had a range out to about 6500 meters or 7000 yards. The Carl Gustav is actually a recoilless rifle (84mm), has a rifled tube, and was originally designed as such, later a rocket propelled round was fielded, the HEAT RAP FFV 551. (RAP=Rocket Assist Projectile) When firing the latter round the Carl Gustav is technically a rocket launcher. The US still uses a version of it the M3 MAAWS. It is longer ranged than most of the other man portable, light missile launchers fielded by US forces. The AT4 (84mm) M136 is a very accurate weapon, destructive weapon but max range is about 500 meters.
If recalling- there were recoilless stuff being used in ww1 planes. They had grease and shot that would exit behind in order to offshoot the forward bullet.
Thanks, Sgt Price, I was aware of the dual aspect of the Carl Gustaf but failed to mention it. I still like the design of it and it's impressive length of service. I had forgotten, a product of soon to be 76 years, the 3.5 bazooka, perhaps because of its withdrawal. I realize Tigers ! &2 plus Panthers were not available in huge numbers but if you were infantry it seems like a slightly better thing to have. If you were in the Pentagon or logistics you might not.. I am assumi9ng it was a better weapon but have no idea if that is true. Gaines
I like it too, it's a fine weapon. Yes sir, it was better. During the early days of the Korean War the 2.36" bazooka had a hard time dealing with the North Korean T-34/85. Once the 3.5" was fielded the infantry could make pretty quick work of them.
From a report I read on Task Force Smith at one point the problems with the older bazooka may well have been more to do with the ammo than the weapon caliber. I remember reading of one team that got around behind a T-34 and fired or tried to fire several rounds. At least one hit the back (engine grill) of the T-34 stuck there and burned rather than exploding. Apparently the ammo or at least the initial stocks had degraded significantly since WWII.
Wish the copy and paste function was working better. Somme details at: http://www.history.army.mil/books/korea/20-2-1/sn06.htm It mentions over 20 bazooka rounds fired at the rear of T-34 with questionable effect. No mention of why though. This article mentions some problems with the bazooka rounds but doesn't go into much detail: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/korea/articles/stydinunpreparedness.aspx Can't seem to find the document that went into details about the ammo problems. Likely effected the 75mm recoiless as well. In theory though the 2.36" bazooka round should have been able to penetrate the armor on a T-34.
Poppy, your question about what it fired.....Lots of things, this chart is for the RPG 7 but the 7 has been updated many times. Name Type Image Weight Explosive weight[13][14][15] Diameter Penetration Lethal radius PG-7V & VM Single-stageHEAT 2.2 kg (4.9 lb) 85 mm (3.35 in) > 260 mm RHA (10.24 in) PG-7VL Single-stageHEAT 2.6 kg (5.7 lb) 730 g окфол (95% HMX + 5% wax) 93 mm (3.7 in) > 500 mm (20 in) RHA PG-7VR Tandem HEAT 4.5 kg (9.9 lb) ?/1.43 kg окфол (95% HMX + 5% wax) 64 mm (2.5 in)/105 mm (4.1 in) 600 mm RHA (with reactive armor) 750 mm RHA (without reactive armor) OG-7V Fragmentation 2 kg (4 lb) 210 g (7.4 oz) A-IX-1 40 mm (1.6 in) 7 m (23 ft) (vs. body armor) 150 m without body armor TBG-7V Thermobaric 4.5 kg (9.9 lb) 1.9 kg ОМ 100МИ-3Л + 0.25 kg A-IX-1(as thermobaric explosive booster) 105 mm (4.1 in) 10 m (30 ft)
Thanks G. Nice info there. I was wondering about the RAW in V(i)P's post. The projectile was round. They made a dimpled version which i pondered was to make it fly straighter (golf ball). Without the dimples, wondered how the projectile could fly straight. And if the warhead was a shaped charge, it would need to strike at a certain angle?
Poppy, beyond my pay grade ! The dimples may aid in accurate flight but I thought the main determination of flight were the pop out fins on the rear that induced a spiral. I had always thought they had a shaped charge and an High explosive head but now only know what I posted above .. Thanks to World of Tanks: HEAT stands for High Explosive Anti Tank. This name is entirely misleading. It isn't a HE shell variant at all. In fact, it's a very unique shell. It's a small, shaped piece of copper inside a specially shaped charge. When the shell impacts and detonates, the explosive force is thrown forward by the shape of the shell, melting the piece of copper. Which, due to its own shape and the force of the explosion, melts into a superheated form and jets forward into the target's armor, and - hopefully - through it.
It was spin-stabilized. The "bowling ball" was attached to a small turbine that was "spun up" by the exhaust gases of the rifle. The rocket motor was also designed to maintain straight flight, so that the thrust vector matched the downward force of gravity. Also see page 17 here: http://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/archives/1978/Jul-Aug_1978.PDF Symmetrical dimples on a golf ball reduce drag, so it would fly further(likely the case here). However, asymmetrical dimples have been used to "straighten" the flight of a golf ball(but the poor quality drawing does not show this) - such as the Polara Golf balls. However, I am not sure how the aerodynamics would work with the one side having asymmetrical dimples, and the other side having a rocket motor - it might begin a tumbling effect.
Damn, lots of meat there Tbone. Couldn't see the small spin stabilizers in V(i)P's post. Excellent bit there. Thanks kindly. You da man.
"Aerodynamic Analysis of the Rifleman's Assault Weapon" ARMY MISSILE COMMAND REDSTONE ARSENAL AL TECHNOLOGY LAB http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA068039 Mostly data graphs though...
