Recoiless Rifle

[EskimoJoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMCA_Troupes_Aer%C3%B3l_Port%C3%A9es_Mle._56


I want this      We can ride around smoking cigarettes and drinking wine!  In french accent "Ahhhh HaaHaa....I kill your tiger wit my scooter rifle"

[E25280]

Hornet et. al.,

This type of back-and-forth about a jeep-mounted M18 reminded me of a thread about the Sherman Firefly.  When it was introduced, the original "sneak preview" showed HTC had modeled the Firefly with a .50cal AAMG.  This thread is what resulted.

I linked it to the second page.  Scroll all the way down to the third from last post.  Blooz says:

Very nice.

One minor thing though.

Sherman VC "Firefly" didn't have a .50 cal mounted on the turret.

Get it off of there.

Two posts down, Pyro responds:

Do you have some info on that?  It's something I've been fretting about.  Every source I've seen states that it was retained yet I've never seen a photo to corroborate that.

. . . and later (I bolded the quote for emphasis). . .

A photo of a restoration doesn't count.  It's not a question of whether a .50 could be equipped, it's a question of whether they did in service.  Of all the photos I've seen of them in action, I have yet to see one with a .50 mounted.  Without some additional corroboration, I'm inclined to pull it.

. . . and even later . . .

WRT the .50, as I said it is listed in most specs.  That's not in dispute.  Whether the spec accurately reflects the tank that went forth into the field is the question.

I'll let you read the rest.  Bottom line was that no one was able to produce a pic of a WWII British Firefly with a .50cal mounted.  The one that at first appeared to be "the winner" was actually a post-WWII Firefly that had been sold to Argentina.

There were, however, a few pics that showed a .30 cal AAMG.  This is what we now have in the game.

So, please don't take my posts to be argumentative.  I would love to see a jeep with anti-tank ability -- I think it would be a fun challenge.  However, the precident has been set, and the bar is high.  Absent diffinitive evidence it was used, it will not be modeled.

[Hornet33]

I understand what your getting at about the tripod mount but I think you put the emphasis on the wrong part. The M1917A1 mount was a single piece mount designed to put put on a tripod or vehicle. It was a larger mount than the F36 flex mount and could be locked into position where the F36 flex mount couldn't. The M20 was designed to use the M1917A1 mount because of it's weight and size. You wouldn't want 114lb of weapon swinging all over the place and the mount prevented that from happening.



Here is a M1917A1 on the mount on a tripod.



Here is the same machine gun on the same mount on a vehicle pedestal.

The mount in question was able to be used on various platforms and this is the exact same mount that the M20 was designed to use.

[Odee]

I dont think a vietnam era weapon belongs here

WWII and Korea saw them sir.
 

[humble]

The M-18 was deployed in the spring of 1945, primarily as a shoulder fired weapon with ground deployed airborne units with little or no inherent anti tank capacity. It appears to have been exceptionally effective. It was used in the PAC as well with great success vs hardened targets. While this would appear to provide ammunition against the jeep mounter version it actually argues in favor.

1) clear proof the weapon was used in combat and scored numerous kills
2) proof the weapon was completely capable of being shoulder fired effectively
3) proof that the two weapons systems existed in the same theater in the same units at the same time

So if we have a soldier, a M-18 RR and a jeep we're good to go. The RR could be fired from the jeep (mounted or otherwise) by a 2 man crew. Which we had to have to fire a mounted MG anyway. While its logical to assume the RR could/would be "hard mounted" its not really relevent. The jeeps job is to transport the RR to the scene of the fight. It could be deployed and fired from the jeep regardless of the "mount" (or from an M-3 for that matter). The weapon was simply a shoulder mounted anti tank weapon and haing it as a perkie option (once we have the ord perk system in place) would be a great idea. A nice little 1 perk pop for a RR (maybe even the m20)...talk about a nice tiger hunter. BTW from what I read this thing was as accurate as a rifle and had an exceptional hit % in actual use.

[E25280]

I see that I ended up confusing myself in a couple of places referring to an M18 when I meant the M20 (far too late to edit), which was too large to be shoulder fired. So to be perfectly clear, I was meaning to say I still see no evidence the M20, i.e. the 75mm version, was used in WWII while mounted on a jeep.

Since the M18 was shoulder fired, there is no need to "mount" one of those either, is there?  I suppose if that was a weapon to be modeled as carried by a jeep crew (or a bazooka, or German troops with Panzerfausts in a Keubelwagon), I suppose that would be a good compromise.  I would say the in that case the weapon would be in lieu of troops or vehicle supplies.  In such a case, bounce should be severe if trying to fire on the move (the smooth as glass ground we have is way too unrealistic IMO).

[Hornet33]

So your saying that because there isn't a picture of one it never happened?? I've seen several post war photos of them mounted on jeeps, and by post war I mean 1950, but the jeep, mount, and weapon were the exact same configuation as what was used during the war.

You seem real intent on picking this whole thing apart, after I've provided AMPLE information suggesting that the designers of the weapon intended for it to mount on a jeep. Either that, or you just haven't read anything about it.

FACT: The M20 75mm recoilless rifle did see action in WWII. US 6th Marine Div used it on Okinawa for bunker busting.
         The M20 was designed from the start to use the M1917A1 machine gun mount as the firing platform.
         The M1917A1 mount was designed to be used from a ground tripod, or a vehicle mount.
         The M1917A1 mount was used extensivly during the entire war mounted on jeeps
         There is photo evidence of the M20 being used on this mount and having been mounted on jeeps.

But if you really need to see one mounted on a jeep in WWII, here you go. 6th US Marine's on Okinawa 1945. That is an M20 75mm recoilless rifle, in a M1917A1 mount on a Jeep. I got this photo from my uncle Allen. He got it from my great uncle Martin's photo album after he passed away, who served with the 6th Marines in WWII. Not sure what the story is behind this picture or how he got it but there it is anyway.




Here is one in Germany a few years after the war.

[E25280]

I never said it definitely didn't happen, I said there was no conclusive evidence I had seen that it did happen.  All the references I have seen refer to it being used from a tripod mount, not a vehicle mount.  (If it referred generically to the mount as you suggested, there would be no reason to specify in most of the documentation "M1917A1 tripod mount," it would just say "M1917A1 mount".)  All the verifiably WWII photos I have seen of the weapon (which are not many) show them on tripods.  Most of the photos I have seen with them mounted on jeeps are like your second one . . . clearly marked as being taken after the war was over.

I also refer back to the Firefly thread.  Pyro said all the documentation said the .50cal was retained, but he had never seen photographic evidence to corroborate it.  Without that evidence, he pulled the .50 and replaced it with a .30, for which he did have photographic evidence.  Based on that standard of evidence, the jeep mounted M20 does not pass muster. 

Put another way, even if I conceded the fact that it most likely was used in this manner in WWII, the standard of proof HTC uses to model something in the game has not been met.

It's a shame you don't have more of the history behind that photo.  If indeed it was taken during combat operations on Okinawa, you would have a winner.  Any other photos with that collection that could put it in context?  It certainly is a hopeful sign that verifiable evidence may yet be out there.

[Hornet33]

I have no other info on that photo. All I know is that my great uncle Martin served in a weapons platoon with the 6th Marines and saw action on Okinawa. He took that photo and that's all I know about it. Unfortantly he passed away 14 years ago so I can't ask him about it. My uncle Allen is a history teacher and he's trying to dig up some more info about it for me.

As far as the mount goes, yes it was called a tripod mount because when it was developed in 1917 Armys still used horses and machine guns were only fired from tripods. The M1917A1 tripod mount in WWII was used on tripods, pedestals, and vehicle mounts because the original design was so good at what it did. It was commonly refered to as a tripod mount but it was used on just about everything. Your using semantics to try and prove a point instead of looking at all the photos and documentaion that show that mount on vehicles of all sorts.

As for me, well I can think of NO reason why it wouldn't have been used that way in combat in WWII. It was designed to do it with the technology available at the time. They had the vehicles, they had the mounts, and they had the weapons, all designed to work together. I have a picture that my great uncle took during the war. That's enough for me. It wasn't a field mod or some other slapped together idea. It was designed for the purpose we have been discussing.

So instead of telling me I have to prove they used it that way, seeing that I just did, why don't you prove to me they didn't use it that way in WWII.  Bet you $10 you can't do it.

[E25280]

So instead of telling me I have to prove they used it that way, seeing that I just did, why don't you prove to me they didn't use it that way in WWII.  Bet you $10 you can't do it.

LOL!  Taking this a bit personally, aren't you?

I can't prove it one way or the other.  That is the point.  I also can't prove the 6th Marines did not use smooth bore muskets.  That does not mean they did.

The standard I am pointing out is not mine, but if you want to project it on me, that is fine.