# 106mm Recoilles Rifle



## Spooks (14 Nov 2006)

I know there are a lot of ordinance buffs out there, so I have come toask of your services.

What I am looking for is ammunition for a 106mm Recoilles Rifle like we used to have. I know some countries still use them, so what do they have for ammo? I ask for different ammo because differnt countries have different specs on their ammo (ie. you know the difference if you have used a Cdn frag and an American M67). I am looking for stats like http://www.pof.gov.pk/products/106mmheatme44a3.htm. And am specifically looking for effective range and penetration. I also am looking for anything other than HEAT, like some new-fandangagled acronym and purpose. Thanks.


----------



## Haggis (14 Nov 2006)

Spooks said:
			
		

> What I am looking for is ammunition for a 106mm Recoilles Rifle like we used to have.



I can't help but ask.... Why do you want 106mm ammunition?  Do you have one?


----------



## ArmyRick (14 Nov 2006)

A 106mm recoiless rifle, 2 cases of beer, an empty gravel pit and live ammunition. Thats got red neck fun all over it. Count me in  >


----------



## AmmoTech90 (14 Nov 2006)

Well we also had a HESH round...some countries might have a straight HE or Flechette/Cannister.

Check on Janes if you have DIN access in either Infantry Weapons Anti-tank section or the Ammo Handbook.

D


----------



## Haggis (14 Nov 2006)

Spooks said:
			
		

> What I am looking for is ammunition for a 106mm Recoilless Rifle like we used to have.





			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Check on Janes if you have DIN access in either Infantry Weapons Anti-tank section or the Ammo Handbook.



Can you order on-line through Janes?


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Nov 2006)

Just a guess here, but I'm betting he's a grognard, looking for stats for some wargame


----------



## Haggis (14 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Just a guess here, but I'm betting he's a grognard, looking for stats for some wargame



He's a WHAT???

Well, to me it seems like he is seeking to acquire 106mm ammuntion.  If he does, I want to fire it!!

(signed)
*Haggis*
Old school 106 gunner.
Has Med Cat to prove it.


----------



## Danjanou (14 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Just a guess here, but I'm betting he's a grognard, looking for stats for some wargame



Damn and here I was Googling various abandoned gravel pits near beer stores ;D


----------



## geo (14 Nov 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> He's a WHAT???
> Well, to me it seems like he is seeking to acquire 106mm ammuntion.  If he does, I want to fire it!!
> (signed)
> *Haggis*
> ...



Heh.... had the pleasure to help DREV dispose of a part of their stockpile while still a 106 gunner - years ago...


----------



## Haggis (14 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Heh.... had the pleasure to help DREV dispose of a part of their stockpile while still a 106 gunner - years ago...



*YEAH!  GOOD TIMES FIRING THE 106, EH?  EH?  SPEAK UP!! YA THINK I'M DEAF OR SOMETHING?*


----------



## noneck (14 Nov 2006)

Get a hold of a Westie. I was on Yakima Range in the Fall of 90 when they fired their 106's for the last time. 

Maybe Westie47 can help you out.

Noneck


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

Haggis...
firing the 106 was a great way of knocking the "snot" right out of ya and clearing your sinuses real good.

Funny thing, between the Infantry thing and the Engineer thing, you'd think that my hearing would be totallyshot - but my kid tells me that it's waaaay too sensitive - even to his whispers.  The Doc tells me that only a couple of frequencies have degraded a little bit....... couldn`t tell ya how I did it though.


----------



## Haggis (15 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Haggis...
> firing the 106 was a great way of knocking the "snot" right out of ya and clearing your sinuses real good.
> 
> Funny thing, between the Infantry thing and the Engineer thing, you'd think that my hearing would be totallyshot - but my kid tells me that it's waaaay too sensitive - even to his whispers.  The Doc tells me that only a couple of frequencies have degraded a little bit....... couldn`t tell ya how I did it though.



It sobered ya up right quick too!  Best hangover killer out there.  If you were unlucky enough to be loader, you usually puked by about round three or four.

My hearing isn't too bad, actually.   For me it wasn't the 106 or any of the other loud toys the army let me play with.  It was too much bagpipes!!!   But I really miss the 106.  Damn but that was a good weapons system!


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

hehe... yeah


----------



## Spooks (15 Nov 2006)

The reason I ask is I need info for a fanciful idea of mine that prolly won'y get fired up the chain, but a fanciful idea nonetheless. Maybe I'll post it here as to get it shot down by other professional (or un-professional in the case of PC) soldiers.

Since we are deploying tanks to the Gan, I was wondering what is the point of it? I've heard things from 'it's an attempt to fight an unconventional war conventially' to 'Hillier is a tanker, so he would naturally support it'. Whatever the reason may be, I will state that it is giving our tank operators experience in their tanks which they might not get otherwise (insert any gravy joke here).

From what I've heard with guys coming back is the CG isn't penetrating the mud huts very well and with their recoil, they are rather inaccurate. The M72 is getting the favor because it's small, man portable, and can easily be passed off to a comrade. We have TOW or LAV-TUAs but what T-72 or higher even exists in the country where such an armor piercing (but expensive round) can effect.

We see that the penetration of the CG isn't the greatest on mud, so we introduce heavy weapons such as the 105mm on the Leopard. However, now we have a heavy weapon at the cost of a lot of maitenance and personel needed to keep it running. I get worried that we will exhaust our financial backing to the mission with them (especially if the govt changes come next election).

So that got a coworker thinking that we need the firepower and that led him to the 106mm recoiless that we used to have. After some easy investigation (checking the DND website) it states we have something like 122 106's with spare parts available in storage and that they are being sold. What a cost effective way to bring firepower to the field if we took them all to the Gan and used them there. That's where I come in.

I was asked to see what ammo there is there because countries still use them. I found the site as I mentioned in my first post, and it states that the HEAT round labelled there doesn't have the penetration power we were looking for, so I asked if anyone knows of any other rounds or any countries that produce a better round than the one depicted.

Since we are beginning to love armor in Afghanistan, a light infantry role is out of the question. (   ) So that has me thinking of what you can put it on that isn't as conpicuous as the sound of a rolling tank. Well, in my opinion - anything. The TLAV sould easily take it as it has (in essence before). Not the LAVIII but maybe take the C6 off the Nyala (not RG36). Aside that most of you think the LUVW is a death trap, I do not, and I think it could even go there (though some will say the GWagon may tip over because of its bad wheel base).

That is why I was asking, so now I ask: What is your opinion on the matter?


----------



## Haggis (15 Nov 2006)

Interesting concept.  Here's some food for thought.

The M40A1/A2 system weighs in at 483 lbs and is 11 ft 2 in long, making it a four man lift.  We generally mounted it on two platfoms, the M113 APC and the modified M38A1 jeep.

One of the biggest problems with the jeep mount was a significant change in the centre of gravity (C of G) for the vehicle/weapon load.  They became very tippy, particularly on uneven terrain.  A second drawback was storage for personal and crew kit and ammunition.  You needed a trailer as you could only reasonably stack six 106 rounds in the jeep.  There was no real easy place to store magazines for the M8C .50 Spotter rifle, so they usually got jammed under a seat.   Not much of a basic load.

The M113 mounting configuration was better with regard to C of G and storage space but, as Geo and I alluded to, the backblast could unsettle even the hardiest of engines and electronics.  On the down side, the crew was completely exposed, some six feet above ground, making it imperative that a hull down firing position be adopted whenever possible.  Because the crew had to exit the APC and get up top, crash actions were much slower than with a jeep mounted system.

WRT ammuntion, there is little difference between the terminal function of a 106 mm HEAT round and an CG HEAT round, except for the massive difference in warhead size (2.5 lbs versus 17 lbs).  However a good gunner could ensure a 1st round hit using the .50 spotting rifle at ranges well in excess of the stated "best fighting range" of 500-700 metres (I've scored at 1400 against a stationary head-on and hull down target).  It's important to note that the .50 ST rifle ammo is NOT interchangeable with the .50 BMG ammo.

There's start for you.


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

Iltis and GWagons were never designed to take the M79 mounts... you'd have a hell of a time fitting it to either vehicle. 

It would not be good to roof mount onto a RG31 or LAVIII.  While we did have 'em on top of the M113s, the crew was extremely exposed and there wasn't an equivalent to TUA for the 106.  Could it be welded onto the back of a pickup truck - yeah, sure but I am not sure of the benefits to such a move...........


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Nov 2006)

As Haggis indicated, you don't really want a HEAT round to break down walls.  The reason HEAT is used against armour is that it creates a very hot environment with a bunch of small metal fragments flying around a very small space that is filled with flammable or fragile parts.  Assuming a good portion of the penetrator gets through and it's still travelling at a good rates of knots, stuff is going to get broken.

What you want for making holes in the wall, and life uncomfortable for people in larger spaces on the other side is HESH (Gunners would probably say 155mm HE fuzed on delay through the roof).  I dont have the figures for the 106 HESH with me, but the 105mm Tank HESH that POF (on the site you referenced) has around 2.2kg.  Depending on the thickness of your wall it would probably blow anything from a hole 3/4 the size of a door, to something that you could post a grenade through or stick your head through.

All that being said, there is some new ammo out for the 106.  According to Janes Bofors has a HEAT round that they claim can penetrate over 700mm of RHA+ERA.  Israel has one that advertises 480mm of penetration.  The US also had a flechette round with 9500 munitions, but only the US used it.  Spain makes a HE Anti-pers with a pre-fragmented payload.  HESH seems to have fallen out of favour, maybe some of those that used can tell us why?

I remember 106mm just coming out of service (as far the ammo world goes) when I joined.  A few years later, early 90s, 93 I think, we were told that it was coming back in a limited role with the Airborne.  The spotting rifle would be ditched and a laser range finder and electronic sight fitted.  Due to unfortunate events, that plan never panned out and we pushed the 106 rounds back to rear of the mag.  It came out again in 95 or 96 when Parks Canada decided to try their hand at AVCON and bought some guns and ammo and we stored the ammo for them.  This didn't work out and they went back to using 105mm with military crews.


----------



## Spooks (15 Nov 2006)

Fair enough. I will dump the idea and continue with a more sane thought like a full sweep with the whole army from north to south afghanistan (just kidding for those who may have taken it seriously). Thanks for the opinion again.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Nov 2006)

I wouldn't say dump it.

105 type HESH is a good tool, if we didn't have Leopards over there I would say 106 might be a decent alternative.  You cant really get the range AND performance with a shoulder fired weapon.  One or the other, but not really both unless you start looking at novel explosives (thermobaric, etc) which is a big project.
Getting a good protective and stable mount for the 106 is mainly a technical hurdle to overcome.  The main problem is the back-blast area, no real way of reducing that with a major re-engineering of the whole system.  Signature similiar to Leopard firing but a lot more dangerous to those around you.

D


----------



## Haggis (15 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Iltis and GWagons were never designed to take the M79 mounts... you'd have a hell of a time fitting it to either vehicle.
> 
> It would not be good to roof mount onto a RG31 or LAVIII.  While we did have 'em on top of the M113s, the crew was extremely exposed and there wasn't an equivalent to TUA for the 106.



Quite right, Geo.  The biggest hurdle to re-introducing the 106 is mobility.  The damn thing is awkward and HEAVY!

The vehicle has to be open topped to allow engagements throughout 270 degrees and should have some protection from SA fire for the crew (i.e. gun shields).  Because of the weight of the system with ammo (about 1000 lbs battle loaded) and the backblast, I doubt an ILITS would've lasted for more than a few rounds before parts flew off, the timing belt skipped and it chugged to a deathly halt.



			
				geo said:
			
		

> Could it be welded onto the back of a pickup truck - yeah, sure but I am not sure of the benefits to such a move...........



Our southern brethren have apparently mounted it on a HMMVW.  In any case, reliable mobility is a MUST as once an engagement begins, the crew has no concealment and no capability for self protection.    Once you'd seen this thing in action, you'd understand.  



			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I remember 106mm just coming out of service (as far the ammo world goes) when I joined.  A few years later, early 90s, 93 I think, we were told that it was coming back in a limited role with the Airborne.



That's true.  The 106 could survive a para-drop much better than the TOW as it had no electronics to screw up/bounce around/submerge in a swamp.  106mm ammo had a theoretical effective range of 2200 metres, but the "best fighting range" was determined by the capablity of the sighting system/weapon/ammo combination of the day.  As I said, 1400 metre kills were quite possible for a skilled, well drilled crew. 



			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The spotting rifle would be ditched and a laser range finder and electronic sight fitted.



If they'd asked me (and nobody did) I would've kept the M8C and added a better optical sight.  Neither needed batteries to operate.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Nov 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> If they'd asked me (and nobody did) I would've kept the M8C and added a better optical sight.  Neither needed batteries to operate.



I think someone was still trying to find a market for that electronic sight they tried to lash onto the Carl G...had some witty name.  Can't remember right now what it was.

D


----------



## xFusilier (15 Nov 2006)

CLASS - cant remember what the acronym stood for.


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

WRT the 106s planned use with the airborne.
The 106 could survive a drop better than the TOW  AND the L5 pack howitzer that the Airborne Arty bty had for a while
They did play around with laser sighting and rangefinder, (spotting rifle was cheaper IMHO)
They designed a two wheeled artillery style gun mount that had a low profile and could be towed on the back of a jeep or iltis.  The gun crew could hump it across rough terrain a lot better than that lousy "%$" wheelbarrow mount...

Unfortunately - people were talking about an either / or situation.
Do you want TOW or do you want the 106.......

(still; a fun piece of kit)


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Nov 2006)

Don't quote me on this but i beleive an infantry journal in 94 or 95 featured the potential return of tthe 106mm with a new round and the CLASS. I think (emphasis on think) it stood for computerized laser assisted sight system. Any old CTC guys out there who were part of the trials might be able to confirm this.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Nov 2006)

Although I wasn't on the trial, friends of mine were.   Yes, that was the sight.  They seemed to have fun with it.  But, then again, CLASS or not on it, firing it must have been a hoot.
I remember when I first saw it. It was 1985, I was a private in The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment at MILCON 85 in Pet.  We were doing "whatever" on the Matawa when some jeeps pulled up with 106's on them.  The crew had "Desert Rat" written all over them!  Figuratively, of course


----------



## time expired (15 Nov 2006)

How about ONTOS a small tracked veh. with six 106 R.R. mounted around the hull.I remember 
watching,on TV , doing some good work shooting across the Perfume river into Hue during the
Tet offensive.I think it was a US Marine wpns. system and I always wondered where they carried
the ammo. and how they would reload under fire.
                    Regards


----------



## Spooks (15 Nov 2006)

The reason for the orginal idea was to see if we could employ anything -already- in our system without needing to put a big expense on it. The ONTOS may look cool, but the Afghanistan mission would be over by the time we get them in service.

As for the loading, from what I've been told, it's all done externally, and with siz lauchers, you shouldn't need to reload if you have groundpounders there with any sort of skill. I'm not a SME, so don't take my thoughts seriously.


----------



## Haggis (15 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> I remember when I first saw it. It was 1985, I was a private in The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment at MILCON 85 in Pet.  We were doing "whatever" on the Matawa when some jeeps pulled up with 106's on them.  The crew had "Desert Rat" written all over them!  Figuratively, of course



"Desert Rats", indeed!  I was a AA Pl Section Comd in '85.  My det had "The Demon" CFR 08*666*


----------



## Red 6 (15 Nov 2006)

The Marine Corps used the Ontos in Vietnam but they went out of service a long long time ago. The US Army went out of the recoilless rifle business a long time ago too. We had 90mm recoilless rifles in my unit in Germany back in the 80s, but we never fired them.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Nov 2006)

Spooks said:
			
		

> I know there are a lot of ordinance buffs out there, so I have come toask of your services.



You must mean ordnance, which has really nothing to do with the word ammo, which is normally referred to as Cartridge, even for the ole 106mm R/R.

This weapon was designed for the 1950's cold war battlefields of Europe. 1950's sights, etc. I had seen it used many times, the last on the A/Tk ranges off of Strathcona Road in Dundurn in the early 1980's. It did pack quite a punch on those old Centurions.

I worked on the 106, first becomming qualified on it in 1977. Australia also had them, and before their destruction in the late 1990's, we had them in war stores, where they still had to be inspected annually. A specially designed Land Rover with an 88 inch wheel base was used.This included the .50 spotter, which had a special cartridge with the same trajectory as the main gun. Not a basic .50 x 99mm cartridge, either. A specially cartridge used in the spotter only, which had a 10rd detachable mag.

Six 'launchers'? Although such a muli barreled weapon was used to some degree by the US in the 1960's, Canada never used such a device.

Our's was a single barrelled device, which was fitted to a M38A1 'Jeep', with split windscreen, and a group fo men could lift it off, and it could be fired static from the ground, but it was designed for 'shoot and scoot' as the signature created was very noticeable.

I do remember a Winnipeg based (RWpgR) 106 Jeep fitted with the gun rolled and killed both members near the Saskatchewan/Manitoba border when the driver fell asleep, back in about 1981. They were part of a convoy after summer concentrations, returning back to their Unit. So, yes as previously posted here, the centre of ballance was an issue. Some members on here might remember that acident, as the BOC when on for  a while, and 12 months later it was still ni the papers. 

There was a time that Militia Units such as the RRR and NSaskR had them and used them back in the late 70's and early 1980s.
In my opinion, the weapon is outdated, most have been cut up for scrap years ago, and any of these multi barreled versions will only be found in a US museum. 

Again, in my opinion, they'll never return to service in AFG or anywhere else by the west.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2006)

You mean this little guy....the Onthos?


----------



## Red 6 (15 Nov 2006)

Roger that Wes. The Marines Corps Museum just finished refurbishing an Ontos for the new display.


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

Ontos, not Onthos

From what I was told by an Ontos crew commander, the beast was great when performing a rear guard along a road.  You'd cache some rounds at strategic spots along the road and as you leap frogged back, you'd have your reloads waiting for ya BUT, again, the problem was that the crew were most often exposed to enemy fire... and that's not a good thing.

WRT the 106 and that road accident, yup, remember thereafter having to do admin road moves, to & from armouries  with the gun barrels & tripod in carryalls....... would you believe it, I could fit 4 barrels & tripod into one carryall............. didn't do the leaf springs much good but, it could be done.


----------



## Spooks (16 Nov 2006)

Okay, I am gonna relight my supposed closing of interest on this thread.

http://forums.army.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=25878 shows the 106mm getting pulled by an Iltis (?) so they can still be ported around like that, though I was suggested that we use the old M113 converts that look like a truck (flatbed). Is that feasible.
I don't know the characteristics of the 106mm, so I don't understand the backblast and that, so forgive me. I know a lot of you are old 106mm gunners yourself so you have a firsthand knowledge of them.

Today in morning parade I was asked 'Why not just find another round for the CG?' so that got me (again) thinking. Are CG HESH rounds easy to acquire? From my (limitted) lesson on the HESH round theory, it sounds like they would be the answer to my problem and far more easy to get employed than the 106mm idea. I saw on fas.org the AT-4 had a Bunker Deafeat Munition that looked like the HESH round. Anyone still use them?

I was also told the Swede's made a Panzerfaust-like round for the CG and Canada bought a bunch to put them in war stores. Is that true? Would they be good?


----------



## Bomber (16 Nov 2006)

I'll aska round here on Tuesday and see if I cna find someone that knows a bit more about where they are and what they are doing.  Everything old is new again, so why not some of this.  Just cause it is dated doesn't mean it is crap.  From Air mattress to to tanks, some times stuff just lasts.


----------



## Spooks (16 Nov 2006)

Bomber said:
			
		

> I'll aska round here on Tuesday and see if I cna find someone that knows a bit more about where they are and what they are doing.  Everything old is new again, so why not some of this.  Just cause it is dated doesn't mean it is crap.  From Air mattress to to tanks, some times stuff just lasts.



<sarcasm> Like Ham Streak in Mustard sauce - it's old but they always bring it back like it's new.</sarcasm>

Thanks though. I'm still considered a FNG with my 3yrs, so I don't know all there is with how old things were like or what their new capabilities are. Thanks.


----------



## Spooks (16 Nov 2006)

Wesley 'Over There' (formerly Down Under) said:
			
		

> You must mean ordnance, which has really nothing to do with the word ammo, which is normally referred to as Cartridge, even for the ole 106mm R/R.
> 
> This weapon was designed for the 1950's cold war battlefields of Europe. 1950's sights, etc. I had seen it used many times, the last on the A/Tk ranges off of Strathcona Road in Dundurn in the early 1980's. It did pack quite a punch on those old Centurions.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much for the post here, and especially my english skills. In reference to your last sentence about it not making it back in to service, I will note on that.

'Anywhere else by the West' refers to which? It is a term that even I widely use, but what does it truely mean? Is is CAN, GBR, USA, and AUS? Because by Jane's (though I don't know when it quotes) Venezuala bought them for their light vehicle. Don't quote me on any of it as I only saw the heading and did not read further as it did not pertain to what I was looking for.


----------



## geo (16 Nov 2006)

Spook,
That pic of yours shows the 106 RR that was being trialed with the laser signt & rangefinder & the towed arty style chasis I was talking about earlier.  

As far as I know, they only cobbled together a couple of weapon mounts like the one on the pic.

They did the trials, which were apparently successful -  but again, it became a discussion about 106 VS TOW instead of as a complement to the TOW.  In the end, the 106s were pulled and Armd defense was stuck using the 84mm Carl Gustav.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2006)

A few thoughts:

CLASS was designed to increase the first round hit probability, and worked well on a lot of different weapons. If I remember right you slid a preprogrammed chip into it which had the ballistic information of the weapons system you were using. Since it had a laser rangefinder and a day/night sight, it gave the gunners a huge advantage over the Mk 1 eyeball and spotting rifle of old. 

The recoiless in recoiless rifle is due to accelerating a jet of 4/5 of the propelling charge out the venturi, to match the mass of the shell moving out the other way. You can still see this effect with the 84mm Carl Gustave, which works the same way.

The Germans invented an alternative system in late 1944 called the "High Low Pressure gun" and produced the PAW 600 in very limited numbers before the end of the war. This system does not produce backblast, rather the propelling charge is fired inside the casing, then "bleeds out" through a series of holes in a faceplate, allowing pressure to build up gradually behind the shell (gradually in relative terms) until there is enough pressure to break a shear pin and force the round out the barrel. The M-79 and M-203 use a variation of this system, which is why your arm isn't torn off when you fire a 40mm grenade.

Gun systems have a huge advantage over missiles in that the shell is much smaller and cheaper, allowing you to take more to battle, and the rate of fiire can be much greater than a missile system. These advantages are blurring somewhat with "smart shells" and "Fire and Forget" missiles, but for the present, a weapon like the 106mm Recoiless rifle or a hypothetical reincarnation of the PAW 600 would provide the ability to rapidly engage and supress many types of target. The crew could also select from HE, HEAT-MP or HESH to destroy buildings and bunkers, Flechette rounds to hit enemy in the open, and even smoke to mask our movements,making a gun a very versatile system.

The biggest recoiless rifle to see service use was the 120mm WOMBAT fielded by the UK. It was also mounted on the FV 432 Ranger (similar to the M-113). We "could" mount a recoiless rifle on a Bison, although it would have many of the same + and - points as mounting it on the M-113.

Maybe one day..............


----------



## geo (16 Nov 2006)

mounting on a M113 .... minus, many minus signs
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


----------



## Haggis (16 Nov 2006)

Spook:

There is still a place for the 106 in modern warfare.  It is incredibly rugged and durable, simple to operate and train on.  With improved ammunition it's versatile and terribly effective.  If the Taliban were to ever attempt up-armouring anything in their Auto-Trader style vehicle inventory, the 106 could scrapyard it from two clicks out.

The problem, as I said earlier, is mobility.  Despite Geo's comments on the apparent success of the towed 106 trials, I have little faith in an Iltis's ability to endure the blast of more than a few rounds.  (Clearly. the gun was detached from the Iltis before firing.)


----------



## Red 6 (17 Nov 2006)

I doubt we'll ever see the 106 come back into service. It's time came and went. There are other weapons in the inventory that can fulfill the role it once did.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Nov 2006)

Spooks, 

I don't consider Venezula a western power or major western influence, as the term 'west' denotes this. Tin-pot 3rd world countries as such, mainly live off the dregs and crap we throw away, plus a mixture of Com-bloc garbage also. Noting Venezula as having and using the the old 106 is irrevelent useless information in this respect.

Wes


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> I doubt we'll ever see the 106 come back into service. It's time came and went. There are other weapons in the inventory that can fulfill the role it once did.



I will have to disagree somewhat. A gun system provides high rate of fire, backed with the ability to carry lots of relatively cheap munitions (and several different natures as well, so you can deal with lots of different situations). No missile carrying system can do the same, and attempts to do so result in unholy messes like the proposed MMEV.

The recoiless cannon gives the advantages of a gun in a much lighter package which you can carry around in a light vehicle, rather than a tank, so there are many applications, particularly with light, airborne and perhaps SF forces where a recoiless rifle or some alternative recoiless gun system will be a potent force multiplier.


----------



## Red 6 (19 Nov 2006)

I should have clarified a bit. I agree there's still a place for recoilless systems like the Carl Gustav and the SMAW. But as far as weapons like the Wombat and the 106, they went out of service for a reason. AT missiles provide a lot more versatility.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2006)

Red 6 said:
			
		

> AT missiles provide a lot more versatility.



AT missiles are special purpose munitions, and are brilliant for taking out a hard target like a tank or a bunker. A cannon provides the ability to switch rounds (i.e. smash a bunker with a HEAT round then follow with an HE or smoke round against the exposed enemy), and a much higher rate of fire. Even a Starstreak takes about 5 seconds to reach it's maximum distance of 6 KM, and it is under operator control the entire way. A TOW takes about 23 seconds to reach out to @ 4 KM, which would give a tank or other gun crew time to fire 2 or 3 rounds.

Guns are complimentary to missiles, the example of the WOMBAT was incomplete; the WOMBAT operated as part of an integrated fire plan with the MILAN anti tank missiles, using its high rate of fire to suppress both enemy APCs or IFVs (if the Russian MRR was equipped with BTR's or BMP's), as well as being able to fire at dismounted troops (the huge 120mm HESH round would be quite effective in creating a huge shock wave and throwing debris like shrapnel when hitting the ground), something you can't do very well with a missile.

There were lots of reasons the weapon went out of service, I suspect a larger reason than any technical arguments over effectiveness was the declining manpower base of western armies over the years, a missile crew is generally smaller than a gun crew, and as manpower ceilings were slashed it was judged more effective to concentrate on the missiles rather than try to maintain both guns and missiles.

Recoiless rifles using the countermass principle do have some pretty big limitations; inefficient use of propellant (4/5 flows out the venturi to balance the recoil of the shell, limiting range and muzzle velocity), and a huge signature when firing. I sometimes think it would be worthwhile to develop a new High/Low pressure gun which reduces many of the problems associated with countermass weapons. This would provide a lightweight cannon which does not need a tank to carry and provide the benefits of a cannon on the battlefield.


----------



## Spooks (20 Nov 2006)

Okay, it's correct now to post.

Well said a_majoor.


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Nov 2006)

On the issue of a large signature for a recoiless gun, when properly camouflaged and moved around it is a very hard weapon to pinpoint, no smoke trail like the lasting on of an AT missile. Now if the crew is silly and sits on one postion and fire constantly then yes it's going to die a hard death. However likes I stated before moved and concealed well it's a bugger to get rid of.


----------



## Haggis (20 Nov 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> On the issue of a large signature for a recoiless gun, when properly camouflaged and moved around it is a very hard weapon to pinpoint, no smoke trail like the lasting on of an AT missile. Now if the crew is silly and sits on one postion and fire constantly then yes it's going to die a hard death. However likes I stated before moved and concealed well it's a bugger to get rid of.



That's why our SOP was to shoot 'n scoot.  Ons stop, one round.  It was also helpful to have a car thief as a detachment driver.  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2006)

Several armies mounted the 106 onto M113's as a cheap and easy MGS. You could make a remote weapon station to handle it and a .50cal ranging MG. Have it able to tilt up so the gun can be loaded from the hatch  with minimal exposure of the crew. Would be a quick fix as I believe guns and ammo are still obtainable, but with the arrival of the Leo's not really required. Might be good idea for the ANA though.


----------



## Red 6 (21 Nov 2006)

AT missiles can knock out bunkers, punch holes in buildings, bunkers and so forth. So can 105mm/120mm HEAT rounds. The 25mm HEAT round is awful effective against troops in the open. These weapons are already in the inventory. The US Army has been fielding the Javelin, which is an awesome system with a lot of potential. (It's the replacement for the Dragon.) I just don't see a need to add another old weapon back. And deciding to bring a weapon into the inventory isn't as easy as just snapping your fingers. You have to think about how it will fit into the TOE, whether it's an add-on, or a replacement for something else. Do you make new platoons to field it, or mount it on something else? The 106 was heavy, cumbersome and not as versatile as other, more modern weapons that replaced it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Nov 2006)

However a round is a hell of a lot cheaper than a missile and quite a few of those fancy missiles missed their targets in Iraq, mainly because it's to dam expensive to let your troops fire enough of them to get competent with them. The TOW does offer a possibility of a unguided rocket for direct fire that reduces the cost significantly, although I am not sure if they are fielding it. I see also that the Taliban and the ANA are already using the Soviet 57mm RR which I see pictures of guys carrying it on their shoulders.

Like I said, the need for the 106 is redundant now the Leo's are there, but they would have been useful if we couldn't bring the tanks.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (21 Nov 2006)

HESH, ATGW, both good why don't we combine them!

Enter the Malkara missile mounted on the Humber Hornet.  An ATGW with a 27kg HESH warhead!  The best of both worlds! ;D

D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Nov 2006)

British Pathe website has some free footage of the Malarka Missile you can download.


----------



## geo (21 Nov 2006)

Hey, if we're gonna go back, why don't we ring back the Ferret scout car with the SS11B ATGM.  Then again, once again, we're dealing with wire guided ordonance so.... no shoot & scoot!


----------



## baboon6 (9 Dec 2006)

Or this badboy- Ferret with 106mm recoilless as used by South Africa's 44 Para Brigade in the 1980s. AFAIK never actually used in action.


----------



## baboon6 (9 Dec 2006)

Has the Carl G seen much use in AFG?


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2006)

Ayup, 84mm & M72, though there are questions on the effectiveness of the M72.  Believe they are looking for different ammo to use on the M203 to do away with the M72

Baboon - I look at that Ferret with the 106 and truly must scratch my head on it's usability in sustained fighting.  The crew compartment of the Ferret was pert darned small to begin with.  Throw in ammo for the GPMG (30 cal browning) not sure where you could store the 106 rounds.... then there is the issue of the gun's sight. the 106s in your picture have conventional sights and spotting rifle which means the gunner would have to ride up high - unsuported.... 

Don't think it would've worked IMHO


----------



## baboon6 (10 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Ayup, 84mm & M72, though there are questions on the effectiveness of the M72.  Believe they are looking for different ammo to use on the M203 to do away with the M72
> 
> Baboon - I look at that Ferret with the 106 and truly must scratch my head on it's usability in sustained fighting.  The crew compartment of the Ferret was pert darned small to begin with.  Throw in ammo for the GPMG (30 cal browning) not sure where you could store the 106 rounds.... then there is the issue of the gun's sight. the 106s in your picture have conventional sights and spotting rifle which means the gunner would have to ride up high - unsuported....
> 
> Don't think it would've worked IMHO



Like I said, to my knowledge it was never actually used in action. I think the 106 was meant to be fired from outside the Ferret. These days South Africa's paratroops still have 106s, but towed behind an 8x8 all-terrain vehicle (of Canadian design but built in SA). 

http://www.lmt.co.za/product_gecko.htm


----------



## geo (10 Dec 2006)

Hmmm.... almost looks like the Wombat.  which, when I saw one, was towed


----------



## Red 6 (11 Dec 2006)

If I remember correctly, the Wombat could also be mounted on the FV 432.


----------



## geo (11 Dec 2006)

yup, IIRC it could be mounted something like the 106 on top of the M113............
Not pretty but, it worked.


----------

