Full Version: 106 mm M40 vs new Soviet tanks
Does the 106 mm M40 could engaged the Soviet's new tanks T-64, T-72? I haven't find any info about shooting to T-64/T-72 (combat or Soviet trials).
QUOTE(eppanzer @ Sun 27 Jul 2008 1142) 
Does the 106 mm M40 could engaged the Soviet's new tanks T-64, T-72? I haven't find any info about shooting to T-64/T-72 (combat or Soviet trials).
Neither T-64 nor T-72 are new.
T-80 and T-90 are somewhat "new" - they are at least not older than the old tanks used by Western countries.
A 106mm HESH or HEAT round could endanger all those tanks at certain spots, preferably side (not turret side) or rear.
Bottom and roof armour are certainly too thin to resist, but should rarely be possible hit areas.
QUOTE(lastdingo @ Sun 27 Jul 2008 1236)
Neither T-64 nor T-72 are new.
T-80 and T-90 are somewhat "new" - they are at least not older than the old tanks used by Western countries.
A 106mm HESH or HEAT round could endanger all those tanks at certain spots, preferably side (not turret side) or rear.
Bottom and roof armour are certainly too thin to resist, but should rarely be possible hit areas.
T-80 and T-90 are somewhat "new" - they are at least not older than the old tanks used by Western countries.
A 106mm HESH or HEAT round could endanger all those tanks at certain spots, preferably side (not turret side) or rear.
Bottom and roof armour are certainly too thin to resist, but should rarely be possible hit areas.
HESH would not work on ERA, but i think that ERA or not would not stop HEAT from penetrating sides.
QUOTE(Sami Jumppanen @ Sun 27 Jul 2008 1303)
HESH would not work on ERA, but i think that ERA or not would not stop HEAT from penetrating sides.
I didn't write about ERA?
There are some ballistic windows that allow penetration. A lucky hit into gunner's sight, for example. The side armour is certainly vulnerable at some spots as well (at least without skirts).
Turret side armour as seen on late Russian tanks would certainly immunize at least against first 106mm single HEAT hit on the covered turret sides.
A 106mm tandem HEAT round might penetrate T-72 frontal armour and certainly T-64 frontal armour, as shown by published 105mm RPG-29 test results (if those were not disinformation). But there's no tandem HEAT round for M40A2 afaik.
Sorry, I work on 1968-74 years right now and my post was not clear enough. I had a look to old Soviet book "The Armies of the capitalistic countries", published in 1971, and have found a lot of the 106 mm M40 at the TOE's of the Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy and USA Armies as well. Theoretically T-64 could be found in Soviet armored troops at the same period and T-72 entered service in 1973. So I went into the question. The ERA could be found at Soviet tanks from 1985 only.
QUOTE(Sami Jumppanen @ Sun 27 Jul 2008 2103)
HESH would not work on ERA, but i think that ERA or not would not stop HEAT from penetrating sides.
Wouldn't HESH strip the ERA off, exposing the native armour underneath to a second shot?
QUOTE(eppanzer @ Sun 27 Jul 2008 1318)
Sorry, I work on 1968-74 years right now and my post was not clear enough. I had a look to old Soviet book "The Armies of the capitalistic countries", published in 1971, and have found a lot of the 106 mm M40 at the TOE's of the Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy and USA Armies as well. Theoretically T-64 could be found in Soviet armored troops at the same period and T-72 entered service in 1973. So I went into the question. The ERA could be found at Soviet tanks from 1985 only.
Most WP tanks of that time were T-55s, with fewer T-62's, T-34/85's.
It was an effective weapon at that time, but per gun probably less effective than a typical 75mm PaK in WW2. The firing signature, lack of shield against coax, RoF and somewhat unpredictable shaped charge effect on target made it a difficult weapon to use imho.
QUOTE(lastdingo @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 0728)
Most WP tanks of that time were T-55s, with fewer T-62's, T-34/85's.
It was an effective weapon at that time, but per gun probably less effective than a typical 75mm PaK in WW2. The firing signature, lack of shield against coax, RoF and somewhat unpredictable shaped charge effect on target made it a difficult weapon to use imho.
It was an effective weapon at that time, but per gun probably less effective than a typical 75mm PaK in WW2. The firing signature, lack of shield against coax, RoF and somewhat unpredictable shaped charge effect on target made it a difficult weapon to use imho.
Yes but when fired in pairings of 4, as per the Super-Anti-Tank Gavin, the Soviets were toast
QUOTE(Bearded-Dragon @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 1014)
Wouldn't HESH strip the ERA off, exposing the native armour underneath to a second shot?
I guess it would require some testing to figure out the exact effect... I could imagine it would strip quite a bit of the turret ERA as seen on T-80BV/64BV configurations, but not necessarily that much more than a few plates off the glacis. But that's just my guessing...
But still with a weapon of that range, firing signature and effective range, I wouldn't want to have to try shooting twice to have a chance of a kill, particularly when the multi-layer armour would make the effect of HESH questionable in any case, even without the ERA...
QUOTE(Sami Jumppanen @ Sun 27 Jul 2008 1303)
HESH would not work on ERA, but i think that ERA or not would not stop HEAT from penetrating sides.
Depends on the type of HEAT round and where exactly on the side it hits, same with glacis and turret front I guess.
Anyone know of penetration figures for 106mm HEAT?
If I had to guess early rounds might be around 350..450mm RHA, which could leave the front of early T-64/72 models without ERA vulnerable to penetration only if the impact angle has little or no side-angle (if even then), or the round hits the upper 30% of the turret front profile (assuming the round would fuze properly at the impact angles involved in such a hit). Plus a HEAT hit that only barely manages to penetrate could have rather poor behind-armour effects even in a T-xx tank unless ammunition or a crew member is directly in the path of the remains of the jet...
Pardon my intrusion, but...
Having worked in the past on the optics and electronics of Bradleys (former 27E MOS),
I'm well aware that said optics didn't like being rough-handled too much (bumped around excessively during re-installation).
Wouldn't a HESH round, or even just a generic HE, of a 106mm weapon generate sufficient shockwave, regardless where it hits the turret,
to mess up the optronics of the targeted tank?
(It doesn't take a lot of pressure to shatter, or at least crack/fracture, even impact-resistant glass types, so a shockwave like a 106mm shell could generate would probably at least compromise your optics, if it couldn't buckle the turret armor outright).
I don't doubt that even the early stereoscopic rangefinders and such sighting systems didn't have some measure of small arms proof armor protection,
but most of the critical parts of the optical sight systems were/are still made of glass (and as a rule, glass shatters under excessive stress),
and I'd wager that even a 106mm shell exploding at the opposite end of the turret from the optics could still cause multiple failures in several components.
What good is a blind tank?
(not to mention the effects of a large shell's detonation outside the turret on the crew inside the turret...)
Having worked in the past on the optics and electronics of Bradleys (former 27E MOS),
I'm well aware that said optics didn't like being rough-handled too much (bumped around excessively during re-installation).
Wouldn't a HESH round, or even just a generic HE, of a 106mm weapon generate sufficient shockwave, regardless where it hits the turret,
to mess up the optronics of the targeted tank?
(It doesn't take a lot of pressure to shatter, or at least crack/fracture, even impact-resistant glass types, so a shockwave like a 106mm shell could generate would probably at least compromise your optics, if it couldn't buckle the turret armor outright).
I don't doubt that even the early stereoscopic rangefinders and such sighting systems didn't have some measure of small arms proof armor protection,
but most of the critical parts of the optical sight systems were/are still made of glass (and as a rule, glass shatters under excessive stress),
and I'd wager that even a 106mm shell exploding at the opposite end of the turret from the optics could still cause multiple failures in several components.
What good is a blind tank?
(not to mention the effects of a large shell's detonation outside the turret on the crew inside the turret...)
QUOTE(T19 @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 1215)
Yes but when fired in pairings of 4, as per the Super-Anti-Tank Gavin, the Soviets were toast
Or Ken E.'s favorite the ONTOS.
Manning an 106MM in an anti-tank role never really was a situation that I found as a good situation to be in, as compared to an MBT .
All tactics were shoot and scoot.
QUOTE(Old Tanker @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 0953)
Or Ken E.'s favorite the ONTOS.
Manning an 106MM in an anti-tank role never really was a situation that I found as a good situation to be in, as compared to an MBT .
All tactics were shoot and scoot.
Manning an 106MM in an anti-tank role never really was a situation that I found as a good situation to be in, as compared to an MBT .
All tactics were shoot and scoot.
Considering the time frame 1968-74, the 106mm M40 was a pretty good weapon. What was available for the 106mm at the time, HEAT, HESH, HE...etc? Also what night vision was available for it, Starlight, IR?
QUOTE(EvanDP @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 1923)
Considering the time frame 1968-74, the 106mm M40 was a pretty good weapon. What was available for the 106mm at the time, HEAT, HESH, HE...etc? Also what night vision was available for it, Starlight, IR?
Let me say it this way.
I was a tanker in that timeframe of the M40.
To take on a T-55 the following was available in my inf. div.
M-48 A1/90mm gun, M-40 106RR on a jeep, 90MM on a M-56 SPAT , M-67 90MM RR and the LAW was just starting to show up.
My choice would be........... ?
I don't know if any IR or Starlights were issued to M-40 crews at what time. Tanks depending on time frame may or maynot be equipped. Flares from mortars or arty were still in use. When an RR fires at night the ball of flame out the back can be seen in Paris no matter where the gun was located.
But even using the ranging .50cal at night with a tracer would expose a gun flash.
QUOTE(Old Tanker @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 1248)
Let me say it this way.
I was a tanker in that timeframe of the M40.
To take on a T-55 the following was available in my inf. div.
M-48 A1/90mm gun, M-40 106RR on a jeep, 90MM on a M-56 SPAT , M-67 90MM RR and the LAW was just starting to show up.
My choice would be........... ?
I don't know if any IR or Starlights were issued to M-40 crews at what time. Tanks depending on time frame may or maynot be equipped. Flares from mortars or arty were still in use. When an RR fires at night the ball of flame out the back can be seen in Paris no matter where the gun was located. But even using the ranging .50cal at night with a tracer would expose a gun flash.
I was a tanker in that timeframe of the M40.
To take on a T-55 the following was available in my inf. div.
M-48 A1/90mm gun, M-40 106RR on a jeep, 90MM on a M-56 SPAT , M-67 90MM RR and the LAW was just starting to show up.
My choice would be........... ?
I don't know if any IR or Starlights were issued to M-40 crews at what time. Tanks depending on time frame may or maynot be equipped. Flares from mortars or arty were still in use. When an RR fires at night the ball of flame out the back can be seen in Paris no matter where the gun was located.
But even using the ranging .50cal at night with a tracer would expose a gun flash.Could have been worse, weren't a lot of National Guard units at the time still issued with M1 Garands, BARs and Bazookas.
If the 106 was still in service, I wonder how much whoop-ass could have been fitted into a modernized warhead.
QUOTE(DanielStarseer @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 1328)
Pardon my intrusion, but...
Having worked in the past on the optics and electronics of Bradleys (former 27E MOS),
I'm well aware that said optics didn't like being rough-handled too much (bumped around excessively during re-installation).
Wouldn't a HESH round, or even just a generic HE, of a 106mm weapon generate sufficient shockwave, regardless where it hits the turret,
to mess up the optronics of the targeted tank?
(It doesn't take a lot of pressure to shatter, or at least crack/fracture, even impact-resistant glass types, so a shockwave like a 106mm shell could generate would probably at least compromise your optics, if it couldn't buckle the turret armor outright).
I don't doubt that even the early stereoscopic rangefinders and such sighting systems didn't have some measure of small arms proof armor protection,
but most of the critical parts of the optical sight systems were/are still made of glass (and as a rule, glass shatters under excessive stress),
and I'd wager that even a 106mm shell exploding at the opposite end of the turret from the optics could still cause multiple failures in several components.
What good is a blind tank?
(not to mention the effects of a large shell's detonation outside the turret on the crew inside the turret...)
Having worked in the past on the optics and electronics of Bradleys (former 27E MOS),
I'm well aware that said optics didn't like being rough-handled too much (bumped around excessively during re-installation).
Wouldn't a HESH round, or even just a generic HE, of a 106mm weapon generate sufficient shockwave, regardless where it hits the turret,
to mess up the optronics of the targeted tank?
(It doesn't take a lot of pressure to shatter, or at least crack/fracture, even impact-resistant glass types, so a shockwave like a 106mm shell could generate would probably at least compromise your optics, if it couldn't buckle the turret armor outright).
I don't doubt that even the early stereoscopic rangefinders and such sighting systems didn't have some measure of small arms proof armor protection,
but most of the critical parts of the optical sight systems were/are still made of glass (and as a rule, glass shatters under excessive stress),
and I'd wager that even a 106mm shell exploding at the opposite end of the turret from the optics could still cause multiple failures in several components.
What good is a blind tank?
(not to mention the effects of a large shell's detonation outside the turret on the crew inside the turret...)
Well as a fellow sight technician (CPL Instrument technician British Army). The shock wave probably would knock several componants loose probably doing more damage to the sight linkages, but I don't think it would save the crew of the M40 from being hosed down by the coax or commanders MG. If the all of the main sight, commanders sight and the Aux sight on the tank are taken out there is still walking the rounds onto the target using a periscope as it is do-able and I've seen periscope that have been hit dead on by small arms rounds still being in a usable condition.
QUOTE(lastdingo @ Sun 27 Jul 2008 0613)
I didn't write about ERA?
There are some ballistic windows that allow penetration. A lucky hit into gunner's sight, for example. The side armour is certainly vulnerable at some spots as well (at least without skirts).
Turret side armour as seen on late Russian tanks would certainly immunize at least against first 106mm single HEAT hit on the covered turret sides.
A 106mm tandem HEAT round might penetrate T-72 frontal armour and certainly T-64 frontal armour, as shown by published 105mm RPG-29 test results (if those were not disinformation). But there's no tandem HEAT round for M40A2 afaik.
There are some ballistic windows that allow penetration. A lucky hit into gunner's sight, for example. The side armour is certainly vulnerable at some spots as well (at least without skirts).
Turret side armour as seen on late Russian tanks would certainly immunize at least against first 106mm single HEAT hit on the covered turret sides.
A 106mm tandem HEAT round might penetrate T-72 frontal armour and certainly T-64 frontal armour, as shown by published 105mm RPG-29 test results (if those were not disinformation). But there's no tandem HEAT round for M40A2 afaik.
I thought the Swedes built an improved HEAT that penetrates something like 700-800mm?
QUOTE(gewing @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 2311)
I thought the Swedes built an improved HEAT that penetrates something like 700-800mm?
Wouldn't surprise me... but I think the original question was in the early 1970's time frame, and then the rounds in service would probably be the originals with more like 400mm than 700..800mm penetration ability.
Well, the 105mm HEAT from the M68 gun was rated at 450mm RHA and I believe the original 106mm was more along the lines of 550mm RHA, giving it a decent shot at the MBT's of the time. There have been several improved 106mm rounda\s fielded to defeat ERA, but that outside the scope of the question. S/F....Ken M
Google didn't find me any reliable figures, but I'd find the 550mm hard to believe for a mid-50's level HEAT round, unless a new HEAT was designed in the 70's. 550mm would be about 5.2 cone diametres, similar to I-TOW, and much more than the 3-3.5 cone diameters that the 90mm RCL from the same era could manage....just not possible for a mid-50's HEAT, IMO.
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord...ifier=AD0099934
Well, there's the report you want. On further research, I get 460-480mm #'s for M344, which is in line with M68 105mm HEAT M456, so my earlier post is probably wrong. I'm not sure if these rds used a wave shaper or not. I suspect not@ initial in service dates , maybe later versions. S/F....Ken M
Well, there's the report you want. On further research, I get 460-480mm #'s for M344, which is in line with M68 105mm HEAT M456, so my earlier post is probably wrong. I'm not sure if these rds used a wave shaper or not. I suspect not@ initial in service dates , maybe later versions. S/F....Ken M
QUOTE(EchoFiveMike @ Thu 31 Jul 2008 0945)
...I'm not sure if these rds used a wave shaper or not. I suspect not@ initial in service dates , maybe later versions. S/F....Ken M
90mm M431 HEAT of the same vintage used wave shaper, and had a penetration of 300mm (local Yugo data). It however failed to fuse if impact angle was more then 60-65deg.
HEAT for US 105mm M27A1 RCL (local designation M52 - but it should be US round as no HEAT ammo was manufactured locally before 1962.) penetrated ~350mm. It also failed to fuse at more then 60deg.
100mm BK-5 of the same vintage penetrated 275mm and fuse worked reliably up the 65deg, improved BK-5M with wave shaper and improved fusing penetrated 375mm and worked up the 70deg.
So all in all, I guess the answer to the original question would be that against early-model T-64/72, the turret would probably be relatively invulnerable except for weakened areas around coax ports etc. as elswhere the armour is either thick enough to defeat the jet, or angled enough to defeat the fuze. Glacis would probably be vulnerable to hits from less than 20...30 degrees of straight ahead, but given that it would only barely penetrate, penetrations could well result in only mobility kills (no ammo in drivers compartment, I think?). And lower part of front hull could of course be easily penetrated. T-64B onwards glacis would also become invulnerable.
Its difficult to believe that Soviet designers (knowing full well the potency of 106mmRCL from Indo-Pak wars) would have ignored its performance in designing T-64/72. IIRC, T-64 was intended to be protected against any then-current 105mm round.
Very nice discusion and very clear final conclusion. Thanks to everybody
The modern Bofors 106mm 3A-HEAT-T round is claimed by the manafacturers to penetrate 700mm RHA protected by ERA and to fuse reliably at 60-degrees. The Austrian firm Intertechnik developed the RAT700 projectile which they claimed would penetrate 700mm RHA and having increased muzzle velocity but I don't know if it ever went into production. Terry Gander in his Anti-Armor weapons book claims the Israeli 106 I-HEAT round penetrates 480mm RHA. I can't seen to find any reliable information on American HEAT rounds but 400-450mm seems reasonable.
It is important to remember that HESH would have also been an important anti-armor munition for this weapon.
It is important to remember that HESH would have also been an important anti-armor munition for this weapon.
QUOTE(EvanDP @ Tue 29 Jul 2008 1923)
Considering the time frame 1968-74, the 106mm M40 was a pretty good weapon. What was available for the 106mm at the time, HEAT, HESH, HE...etc? Also what night vision was available for it, Starlight, IR?
HE was last fielded for the earlier M27 105mm RR. It is highly valued today for avalanche control in western Canada & USA. The M40 106mm had HEAT, HEP [HESH] and APERS ['beehive'] available in US forces. I never saw nightsights fitted; it used a .50 RMG, stadia reticle sights and BOT technique of fire.
[edit to add] don't forget when calculating likely HEAT penetrations, the 106mm is really 105mm, but redesignated to prevent mixing with the M27 ammo...does not fit.
QUOTE(Ken Estes @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 1443)
HE was last fielded for the earlier M27 105mm RR.
Do you know a designation of this round?
And what were a designations for the 105mm HEAT nad HEP rounds (local designations were M51 and M51A1 for HE, M52 for HEAT and M50A1 for HEP, but I really doubt those were original US designations as those do not fit US patterns).
QUOTE(bojan @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 1507)
Do you know a designation of this round?
And what were a designations for the 105mm HEAT nad HEP rounds (local designations were M51 and M51A1 for HE, M52 for HEAT and M50A1 for HEP, but I really doubt those were original US designations as those do not fit US patterns).
And what were a designations for the 105mm HEAT nad HEP rounds (local designations were M51 and M51A1 for HE, M52 for HEAT and M50A1 for HEP, but I really doubt those were original US designations as those do not fit US patterns).
I might be able to find out. The Washington State avalanche control guy was keeping old ammo boxes, but was down to his last 1150 rounds back in mid-2001. Will try his last e-mails. Ken
OK, before all you smart guys go away,
Was there a canister round for the 106? Why not? Do RCL Rifles as a class have too-low muzzle velocities for this sort of thing? What could you use on a wave of dismounted attackers?
Was there a canister round for the 106? Why not? Do RCL Rifles as a class have too-low muzzle velocities for this sort of thing? What could you use on a wave of dismounted attackers?
QUOTE(Paul in Saudi @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 1655)
OK, before all you smart guys go away,
Was there a canister round for the 106? Why not? Do RCL Rifles as a class have too-low muzzle velocities for this sort of thing? What could you use on a wave of dismounted attackers?
Was there a canister round for the 106? Why not? Do RCL Rifles as a class have too-low muzzle velocities for this sort of thing? What could you use on a wave of dismounted attackers?
Ken above posted yes . APERS-Beehive-Anti Personel .
I (for some reason) thought all recoilless rifles had low muzzle velocities.
QUOTE(Paul in Saudi @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 1232)
I (for some reason) thought all recoilless rifles had low muzzle velocities.
IIRC the velocities with the 106mm were very similar to the old 105mm Howitzer.
QUOTE(gewing @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 1935)
IIRC the velocities with the 106mm were very similar to the old 105mm Howitzer.
While not so hot as tank rounds, they certainly outperformed the arty, really Paul, you must have known this stuff!
Fortunately, Dick Hunnicutt ranging far & wide as was his wont, included Ontos [how is it my favorite, OT??!!] in his
Sheridan book [please paste columns together as desired]:
QUOTE
106mm RIFLE M40A1C (RECOILLESS)
Carriage and Mount
Length of Rifling
Length of Tube
Overall Length
Diameter of Bore
Weight without Spotting Rifle M8C
Weight with Spotting Rifle M8C
Type of Breechblock
Rifling
Ammunition
Primer
Weight, Complete Round
Weight, Projectile
Muzzle Velocity
Muzzle Energy of Projectile, KE=1/2MV2
Rotational energy is neglected and
values are based on long tons
(2240 pounds)
Maximum Range
106mm Multiple Self-Propelled Rifle M50 and M50A1 - 333
105.9 inches
112.0 inches
134.0 inches
4.134 inches
251 pounds
288 pounds
Interrupted thread
36 grooves, uniform right-hand twist, one turn in 20 calibers
Fixed
Percussion
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT)
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT)
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT)
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT)
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT) @ 118 mils
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
37.23 pounds (16.88 kg)
37.37 pounds (16.95 kg)
41.29 pounds (18.73 kg)
17.55 pounds (7.96 kg)
17.22 pounds (7.81 kg)
21.61 pounds (9.80 kg)
1650 ft/sec (503 m/sec)
1635 ft/sec (498 m/sec)
1440 ft/sec (439 m/sec)
331 ft-tons
319 ft-tons
311 ft-tons
3000 yards (2740 m)
7515 yards (6870 m)
3600 yards (3300 m)
Carriage and Mount
Length of Rifling
Length of Tube
Overall Length
Diameter of Bore
Weight without Spotting Rifle M8C
Weight with Spotting Rifle M8C
Type of Breechblock
Rifling
Ammunition
Primer
Weight, Complete Round
Weight, Projectile
Muzzle Velocity
Muzzle Energy of Projectile, KE=1/2MV2
Rotational energy is neglected and
values are based on long tons
(2240 pounds)
Maximum Range
106mm Multiple Self-Propelled Rifle M50 and M50A1 - 333
105.9 inches
112.0 inches
134.0 inches
4.134 inches
251 pounds
288 pounds
Interrupted thread
36 grooves, uniform right-hand twist, one turn in 20 calibers
Fixed
Percussion
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT)
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT)
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT)
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT)
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
HEAT M344A1 Shell (HEAT) @ 118 mils
HEP-T M346A1 Shell (HESH-T)
APERS-T M581 (9500 fléchettes)
37.23 pounds (16.88 kg)
37.37 pounds (16.95 kg)
41.29 pounds (18.73 kg)
17.55 pounds (7.96 kg)
17.22 pounds (7.81 kg)
21.61 pounds (9.80 kg)
1650 ft/sec (503 m/sec)
1635 ft/sec (498 m/sec)
1440 ft/sec (439 m/sec)
331 ft-tons
319 ft-tons
311 ft-tons
3000 yards (2740 m)
7515 yards (6870 m)
3600 yards (3300 m)
You get old. You forget.
Besides the IDF who's used the M40/M40A1 against T-series tanks and what did they think of them? I would guess the Iranians and the South Vietnamese used them but who else?
QUOTE(EvanDP @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 2256)
...I would guess the Iranians and the South Vietnamese used them but who else?
Pakistan (in 1971)
Bosnia (some were smuggled in 1994)
QUOTE(Ken Estes @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 2007)
While not so hot as tank rounds, they certainly outperformed the arty, really Paul, you must have known this stuff!
included Ontos [how is it my favorite, OT??!!] in his
included Ontos [how is it my favorite, OT??!!] in his
I was just teasing you since it was a Marine toy.
BTW, the 106MM role in AT work wasn't exactly a moving event but it's role in infantry support was most excellent.
It was the equivalent to a pair of direct fire 105MM howitzers at the company level for an infantry company. The ONTOS was the equivalent of a 105 MM howitzer battery.
QUOTE(Old Tanker @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 1737)
I was just teasing you since it was a Marine toy.
BTW, the 106MM role in AT work wasn't exactly a moving event but it's role in infantry support was most excellent.
It was the equivalent to a pair of direct fire 105MM howitzers at the company level for an infantry company. The ONTOS was the equivalent of a 105 MM howitzer battery.
BTW, the 106MM role in AT work wasn't exactly a moving event but it's role in infantry support was most excellent.
It was the equivalent to a pair of direct fire 105MM howitzers at the company level for an infantry company. The ONTOS was the equivalent of a 105 MM howitzer battery.
That is why I find the idea of the revolver style autoloading recoilless 106mm or 120mm so interesting.
Those shells would provide a great big bang for fire support, from a fairly small vehicle. The 5 or 6 round cylinder that could be reloaded under armor would allow a "Ready to use" variety of ammo, and it should not be too hard to combine with a Laser rangefinder and FCS. Modifying it to allow firing "LAHAT" should allow some serious tank hunting, though that would not be the primary role.
As a convoy escort with HE/HESH and Cannister...
Sorry, I got carried away.
AGAIN.
Now if only the nice young men in the Clean white coats will let me go...
QUOTE(Old Tanker @ Sat 2 Aug 2008 0037)
I was just teasing you since it was a Marine toy.
BTW, the 106MM role in AT work wasn't exactly a moving event but it's role in infantry support was most excellent.
It was the equivalent to a pair of direct fire 105MM howitzers at the company level for an infantry company. The ONTOS was the equivalent of a 105 MM howitzer battery.
BTW, the 106MM role in AT work wasn't exactly a moving event but it's role in infantry support was most excellent.
It was the equivalent to a pair of direct fire 105MM howitzers at the company level for an infantry company. The ONTOS was the equivalent of a 105 MM howitzer battery.
I always felt sorry for the infantry, but when their AT plt ldr tried to say to the Inf Bn I was attached to that he had the most powerful weapon.... [vs. the 90mm of the M48A3].
As an aside, the South Korea Army is still using the 106mm RR. See this Korean site for some recent pictures from an exercise. (http://www.dkbnews.com/?mn=news&mode=read&nidx=29725&dom=1). They mount in on locally produced jeeps.
IIRC I saw some 106mm RR rounds last month in the Seoul War Museum in the Korean arms industry section (i.e. the advertising section showing all the weapons Korea makes from grenades to ships). Also, can be seen here (http://blog.empas.com/kwangaetow/read.html?a=3397368)
PBAR
IIRC I saw some 106mm RR rounds last month in the Seoul War Museum in the Korean arms industry section (i.e. the advertising section showing all the weapons Korea makes from grenades to ships). Also, can be seen here (http://blog.empas.com/kwangaetow/read.html?a=3397368)
PBAR
QUOTE(EvanDP @ Fri 1 Aug 2008 1756)
Besides the IDF who's used the M40/M40A1 against T-series tanks and what did they think of them? I would guess the Iranians and the South Vietnamese used them but who else?
The South African Army had them in service in the 70s and 80s and they were deployed in the operational area. Normal mounting was on a CJ6 jeep or on a Unimog. Whether they actually shot out any tanks in Angola I don't know.
Another note - earlier 105mm M27A1 RR was used in 1991. in Croatia, as was the Yugo 105mm M65RR (different weapon but used same ammo as M27A1).
I have a feeling it would be able to take out early export model T-72 tanks at reasonable ranges. I think the Iranianas did use them in the Persian Gulf War in the 1980's successfully but I would have to look into that.
QUOTE(tanknut @ Thu 7 Aug 2008 0046)
I have a feeling it would be able to take out early export model T-72 tanks at reasonable ranges.
Feeling based on what? Or did you miss whole 3 pages of discussion?
QUOTE
I think the Iranianas did use them in the Persian Gulf War in the 1980's successfully but I would have to look into that.
Used successfully by what criteria?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.