Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: cat691 on March 21, 2008, 05:29:58 AM
-
How about slapping a recoiless rifle on either the jeep or m3 to give it some assault capability as well as delivering troops?
-
How about slapping a recoiless rifle on either the jeep or m3 to give it some assault capability as well as delivering troops?
I dont think a vietnam era weapon belongs here
-
They had them in late WWII, most were shoulder mounted due to lack of recoil and some were on tripods, in my opinion they go on the jeep only though.
-
.
-
Please see the following thread. No one has been able to produce any evidence that recoiless rifles mounted on jeeps were used in WWII. But believe me . . . I would love to be proved wrong!
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,221185.0.html
-
Even if no recoilless.. You could still have a soldier siting in a seat holding a 2.36In bazooka.
Not ubber, but its more of a bite for those sneaky jeeps.
-
this is aces high, not call of duty 3.....
-
How about slapping a recoiless rifle on either the jeep or m3 to give it some assault capability as well as delivering troops?
This isn't the film Black Hawk Down.
Go dream up another "Modern Adaptation".
-
Well masher, it's still a newer one.
-
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/121374339_e49a6993b8.jpg?v=0)
-
Here's one in a parade in Alaska right after WWII. It's an amphibious jeep with a 75mm:
(http://vilda.alaska.edu/cdmg11/image/942.jpg)
in WWII, the US mounted 57mm AT guns on some M3 halftracks
and some 37mm AT guns on 3/4 ton cargo trucks
-
I think we need evidence of them seeing action, at this point. I think any Jeep variant is going to be used, and a great deal of fun without being unbalancing, since a burst of even light MGs will pop it.
-
Key words for both submitted pictures: "AFTER WWII"
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle)
The first recoilless gun was developed by Commander Cleland Davis of the US Navy, just prior to the First World War.
here ya go
-
And, when was the first jeep mounted recoilless rifle? Just because they had one just prior to WW2, the question was about mounting them on a jeep.
-
Recoilless Rifle Models in the U.S. Military
The recoilless rifle combined a rocket propelled munition with a rifled barrel (unlike the smooth bore bazooka) firing a spin-stabilized round with anti-tank capability. The RR ammunition looks like an artillery round but with "swiss cheese" vent holes in the case allowing escape of the gasses that propel the round. The light recoil made it possible to fire them from the shoulder, a tripod, or smaller vehicles such as a jeep.
There were five major models in the family of Recoilless Rifles fielded by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps:
57mm M18 (WW II & Korea)
75mm M20 (WW II & Korea)
90mm M67 (Vietnam)
105mm M27 (Korea)
106mm M40 (Vietnam)
The M18 and M18A1 recoilless rifle were developed late in World War II for use like a bazooka as an anti-tank or anti-personnel weapon. It was light enough to be fired from the shoulder, although heavier than a bazooka. The M18 takes a 57 mm round effective against 1 inch armor up to a range of 4500 yards (meters) much more range and penetration than the bazooka. The M18 was used by Marines in Okinawa as well as in Korea until replaced by the more effective 3.5 inch M20 bazooka with its HEAT round.
The 75 mm M20 recoilless rifle weighed over 114 pounds and was almost 7 feet long. It was fired from the same tripod used with the M1917A1 .30 machine gun. Its HEAT projectiles were effective against four inches of armor at up to 7000 yards (meters) range, a considerable improvement over the M18 57 mm RR. The M20 was fielded in both the ETO and Pacific Theater during World War II in 1945.
Stands to reason that given that both the M18 and M20 were used in WWII and both were designed to be fired from a machine gun mount, that more than likely they were used on jeeps during the war. Just because no has found a picture you can't rule out that it didn't happen. they were DESIGNED to be fire from jeeps with the appropriate mount and they did see service in both the ETO and PTO.
If a jeep is capable of mounting a .50BMG, that same mount will take a recoiless rifle.
I've also put in a request with the historians at the US Marines Historical Dept for more info regarding these weapons. Who knows what they'll be able to provide.
-
I dont suppose it would have been to much effort for a ARMY engineer to put a bolt thru each bipod leg, and bolt it to the jeeps bed.
Then again, that would be a field modification. And perhaps in that order it was good enough for the army to recognise its need in the war's afterwards.
I still say we just go for a jeep with a bazooka option, it would not be ubber, or fast firing by any means.
But still more likely to have happend in war time than not. "think of a few jeeps transporting some troops to patrol somewhere"
Well, lets just say a few of those troops had a bazooka, and devised a plan to try to flank the tanks, so the driver gunner "bazooka" and reloader "dude in back" desided to launch a small raid on the tanks pining the squad down. "mehheh"
Yeah what'ev'.
:EDIT: wtg hornet, lets hope they can come up with some info, your logic about the mounts, gives me hope.
-
this seems kinda off topic but at the ski resort i go to they use a variety of WWII cannons and explosives for blasting snowy cliffs and one of the weapons is a WWII era recoiless rifle mounted on a tripod
but what does that have to do with AH, sorry :O :O :O :salute :salute
-
I would say there were more Jeep mounted recoiless rifles then there were Osty's and Wirbelwinds, eh? Probably combined!
-
(http://www.robertsarmory.com/rrifle.jpg)
As a result of rapid advances in armor technology during WWII, infantry units and other lightly armed units were extremely vulnerable to armor attack. This spawned a demand for a weapon light enough to be carried by infantry units but powerful enough to be effective against armor at medium ranges. In 1943 the Ordnance Department Small Arms Division began development of the recoilless rifle. In 1944, the first pilot models of the 75MM recoilless rifle were being tested. In March of 1945, full production began and guns were delivered to the European as well as the Pacific theatre. The advantage of recoilless guns lies in their light weight and relatively high performance. Their light weight characteristic descends from the absence of a recoil when the weapon is fired. By design, the breach expels propellant gasses rearward thereby balancing the forces caused by the projectile accelerating out of the gun tube. This eliminates the need for heavy gun mounts which are a significant part of the weight of a typical artillery piece. A jeep or weapons carrier can easily carry the M20 recoilless rife using the standard M1917A1 .30 caliber machine gun tripod mount. See U.S. Infantry Weapons of WWII by Bruce Canfield for more detailed information on recoilless guns.
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL DATA 75 MM RECOILLESS RIFLE, M20
Length..................6 ft. 10 in.
Weight..................114.5 lbs.
Rifling.................Unifo rm, right hand, 1 turn in 25
Breech..................Inter rupted screw
Range...................7000 yards (HEAT round)
Muzzle Velocity.........1000 ft./sec. (HEAT round)
Projectile Weight.......3.19 lbs. (HEAT, shaped charge)
Armor penetration.......4 inches
-
They had them in late WWII, most were shoulder mounted due to lack of recoil and some were on tripods, in my opinion they go on the jeep only though.
the 75mm one was used by hand but the larger ones were ether used on jeeps or tripods
-
Oh and if not a recoiless rifle how about putting the 37mm anti tank gun from the PT boats on the Jeep?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/1942Jeep.jpg)
Soldiers of the U.S. 3rd Infantry (the "Old Guard") are shown on maneuvers in the summer of 1942 as part of the defense of St Johns, Newfoundland. The Jeep is mounted with a small-caliber cannon and a Browning M1917A1 machine gun.
-
Oh and if not a recoiless rifle how about putting the 37mm anti tank gun from the PT boats on the Jeep?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/1942Jeep.jpg)
Soldiers of the U.S. 3rd Infantry (the "Old Guard") are shown on maneuvers in the summer of 1942 as part of the defense of St Johns, Newfoundland. The Jeep is mounted with a small-caliber cannon and a Browning M1917A1 machine gun.
Now THAT would be better.
Recoiless Rifle mounted Jeeps were NOT Common in WWII.
-
Now THAT would be better.
Recoiless Rifle mounted Jeeps were NOT Common in WWII.
Eh Iunno, I'd say that as field modifications, they would be. Think of it this way, you have a 75mm recoiless rifle on a tripod, but you can't get in range of the tanks without getting blasted, and you're pinned down, what do you do?
Shouldn't take long to go, get me an engineer, have him bolt this SOB to the jeep, get a couple of volunteers to get it in range. Would they be standard issue? Probably not. Field modification, most deffinitly.
-
Problem is, while the weapons may be capable of being mounted, if it was not made and shiped that way "and used by units" we will never see it in aces high.
You would be better off asking for some form of desert rat jeep, or some other form, i do not think we will see a recoiless anti tank jeep any time soon, but only HTC and time will tell.
-
Eh Iunno, I'd say that as field modifications, they would be. Think of it this way, you have a 75mm recoiless rifle on a tripod, but you can't get in range of the tanks without getting blasted, and you're pinned down, what do you do?
Shouldn't take long to go, get me an engineer, have him bolt this SOB to the jeep, get a couple of volunteers to get it in range. Would they be standard issue? Probably not. Field modification, most deffinitly.
Actually it wasn't a field mod. The M20 75mm recoiless rifle was designed from the start to use the same mount as the .30 cal machine gun, and the .30 cal was the most common machine gun mounted on jeeps. Now if you think about it if you were a soilder and had a 114lb weapon at you disposal and you had the option of A. carry the thing or B, toss it on a mount in a jeep, what would you do? Also the jeep NEVER came standard from the factory with a weapons mount of any sort. The mounts were ordered and installed by the receiving units for whatever purposes the units needed of them. The mounts were standard issue, the rifle was standard issue, the jeeps were standard issue. NO modifications needed to mount the thing on a jeep only the guy humping the thing to pull a couple of pins and toss it up there. If someones going to tell me that an American soilder was to stupid to figure that one out and not do it, well you've never been a soilder.
-
Problem is, while the weapons may be capable of being mounted, if it was not made and shiped that way "and used by units" we will never see it in aces high.
You would be better off asking for some form of desert rat jeep, or some other form, i do not think we will see a recoiless anti tank jeep any time soon, but only HTC and time will tell.
Actually the weapon was made and shipped that way. It was designed to use the .30 machine gun mount. Granted there was never a unit that was solely equiped with recoiless rifles mounted on their jeeps, but there were never units that were solely equiped with .50BMG's on their jeeps either. The jeep was designed as a multi purpose vehichle and was capable of mounting many different types of weapons. Your suggesting a desert rat type of jeep is no more out of the ball park than asking for a recoiless rifle. Well actually it is more crazy seeing as how those jeeps used by the Desert Rats were highly modified in the field to take twin .30's front and back. Those mounts had to be custom made for those jeeps and only a small handfull were ever set up that way.
The recoiless rifle was a standard weapons system, using a standard mount, on a standard jeep. Every single part needed to mount the thing was standard issue and designed to work together from the factory, same as the .50BMG mount was a standard OPTION for a jeep and we have that. No modifications needed. All you need is a supply Sgt to order from stock, one jeep, one M1917A1 machine gun mount with jeep mounting kit, one M20 recoiless rifle with ammo and about ten minutes to bolt the mount into the jeep and away you go, and the mount will also take the .30 cal machine gun and only take a couple of seconds to swap out the weapons because it only uses 2 pins to hold both of them in place.
This idea has merrit, and that's why I'm backing it up. No one can say it was a field mod. It was designed from the start to do this using mounts that were already in use. EVERY single thing I've read about the M20 talks about it being mounted on a jeep or other light vehicle using a standard .30 mount. Just because there are no pictures of it doesn't mean it wasn't done.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMCA_Troupes_Aer%C3%B3l_Port%C3%A9es_Mle._56 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMCA_Troupes_Aer%C3%B3l_Port%C3%A9es_Mle._56)
I want this :rofl :rofl We can ride around smoking cigarettes and drinking wine! In french accent "Ahhhh HaaHaa....I kill your tiger wit my scooter rifle"
-
Awesome hornet. :aok
I hope we get this some day.
-
This idea has merrit, and that's why I'm backing it up. No one can say it was a field mod. It was designed from the start to do this using mounts that were already in use. EVERY single thing I've read about the M20 talks about it being mounted on a jeep or other light vehicle using a standard .30 mount. Just because there are no pictures of it doesn't mean it wasn't done.
"A jeep or weapons carrier can easily carry the M20 recoilless rife using the standard M1917A1 .30 caliber machine gun tripod mount." (emphasis mine).
I see it saying it was meant to be used on a standard .30cal MG tripod mount, not vehicle mount. Small difference, but an important one. It was easily carried by a jeep or weapons carrier, not mounted on one. Again, small but very important difference. Everything points to it being a weapon designed to be portaged into the field and set up on the ground as any other standard infantry support weapon.
The 75mm versions were shipped to both ETO and PTO according to what was posted earlier (I had always read only PTO service), but the more significant action was on Okinawa in the Pacific after the European War was already over. Since there were not significant Japanese armor formations, the proposed scenario of mounting one hastily on a jeep to meet the oncoming enemy armor column is far fetched to put it mildly.
So, we are back to burden of proof. All the photo evidence presented and the snippets I read in my previous look into this topic all suggest mounting the M18 on a jeep occurred after the war was over. We can suppose it happened all we want . . . without proof, it is still just supposition.
Still looking for the smoking gun - er - RCL. ;)
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMCA_Troupes_Aer%C3%B3l_Port%C3%A9es_Mle._56 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMCA_Troupes_Aer%C3%B3l_Port%C3%A9es_Mle._56)
I want this :rofl :rofl We can ride around smoking cigarettes and drinking wine! In french accent "Ahhhh HaaHaa....I kill your tiger wit my scooter rifle"
:rofl :rofl
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,201419.29.html) 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.
-
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.
(http://www.ww2gyrene.org/assets/weapons_m1917_1.jpg)
Here is a M1917A1 on the mount on a tripod.
(http://www.ww2gyrene.org/assets/weapons_m1917a1_6.jpg)
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.
-
I dont think a vietnam era weapon belongs here
WWII and Korea saw them sir.
:salute
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
(http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2932/m20onjeeplm2.jpg)
Here is one in Germany a few years after the war.
(http://history.dragoons.org/albums/album03/RR_Troop_jeep_1949.sized.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.