# Heller Anti-Tank Weapon



## Petrus (20 Apr 2005)

I am currently seeking any information about a Canadian-built weapon that is referred to as the Heller anti-tank rocket. The only piece of info that I have made it to gather is available at http://www.drev.dnd.ca/e/history_e....e=5&lang=e.

Hopefully a member of this forum knows anything about it. Frankly speaking what I am actually interested in is EVERYTHING about the weapon from basic data to drawings and photos. May anybody help?

Best regards,
Piotr


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Apr 2005)

All that I was able to google is from:

http://www.drev.dnd.ca/e/history_e.asp?page=5&lang=e

Heller : An Anti-Tank Rocket
In August 1950, at the height of the Korean War, the Army sought to accelerate the Heller project in order to equip its troops with an anti-tank rocket. The work of CARDE scientists led to the emergence of the first complete weapon, ammunition and fire control system to have been designed, developed and manufactured in Canada. In 1951, the Minister of National Defence, Brooke Claxton, announced a major rearmament program for the Canadian Armed Forces. For him, there was a real threat of general war, and it was imperative that the nation be rearmed as quickly as possible. This meant that most of the effort of CARDE's scientific wings was focussed on the Velvet Glove and Heller projects. In February 1952, Heller reached the engineering test final design stage. In April 1955, in a formal press release, the Department described it as "an anti-tank missile with a unique recoilless propulsion system utilizing a Canadian breakthrough in propulsion engineering and design." 

I don't believe that the Heller ever made it past the R&D phase or whether it was an unguided rocket, similar to the M72 LAW, or a guided missile such as the TOW, Dragon or Sagger systems of the 1960s.


----------



## TCBF (20 Apr 2005)

I think we sold the project to the Swedes, who sold it back to us - and the world - as the 84mm Carl Gustav L14A1 etc.

Tom


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Apr 2005)

Wouldn't suprise me if that were the case.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (20 Apr 2005)

The Heller never came into service.  It was trialed and fired a lot so there was a lot of exposure to it, and it seemed to be a fair weapon.  However it gave no real advantages over the 3.5" Super Bazooka that was also in service and used by our allies.  That I believe is the main reason it was never adopted.  The 3.5" was eventually replaced by the Carl G which has no relationship to the Heller.  I may be able to dig up a picture of one I had the privilage of blowing up.


----------



## Drummy (21 Apr 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The Heller never came into service.   It was trialed and fired a lot so there was a lot of exposure to it, and it seemed to be a fair weapon.   However it gave no real advantages over the 3.5" Super Bazooka that was also in service and used by our allies.   That I believe is the main reason it was never adopted.   The 3.5" was eventually replaced by the Carl G which has no relationship to the Heller.   I may be able to dig up a picture of one I had the privilage of blowing up.



Ammotech,

We used them in Germany 57-59.(and before & after)  IIRC it fired a 3.2" rocket with a shaped charge head, which when it hit the side of a tank for example, bored about a 1/2"-1" hole through the armour, and then spewed out molten metal through the hole and spread it inside. Wouldn't do the crew much good.

The sight was the size of a small "boom-box" which made it a little awkward to carry around, and the back blast was probably more dangerous than the rocket itself. We got to fire them at old shermans and centurians, and if you could hit them, it really did a number.

All the best   Drummy


----------



## AmmoTech90 (21 Apr 2005)

Drummy,

Yep, thats right 3.2".  Had a funny looking rocket motor too if I remember, slots of some sort on it.  What I meant by never came into service was that it wasn't "type classified".  Under the new system it would still have a "E" designation.

What sort of sight did it have?  Telescopic or peep sights?

Thanks,

AT90


----------



## Drummy (21 Apr 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Drummy,
> 
> Yep, thats right 3.2".   Had a funny looking rocket motor too if I remember, slots of some sort on it.   What I meant by never came into service was that it wasn't "type classified".   Under the new system it would still have a "E" designation.
> 
> ...



Ammotech,

You don't know what you're asking ! I can't even remember what I had for breakfast this morning, and you want me to tell you something that was happening about 46 years ago.    ;D   All I can remember is that it was a rectangular box about 10-12" wide, 6" front to back, and about 4-6" high. It attached to the top of the launcher in about the middle position. The launcher itself was a 2 piece unit. Business end was flared a little bit.

The sight had an eyepiece enclosed in rubber, and when you sighted through it, you could see the target quite well. Not sure, but I beleive it would be termed an Optical Sight. 

I was actually a Bren gunner at that time, but we all trained on the Heller, and got 2 shots at the old rusty tanks. 

HTH      Drummy


----------



## John L (22 Apr 2005)

Hi Guys

   There's a picture of it in a book called "Men Against Tanks".  I don't recall the authors name just now.  I'll see what I can dig up.


----------



## baboon6 (23 Apr 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I think we sold the project to the Swedes, who sold it back to us - and the world - as the 84mm Carl Gustav L14A1 etc.
> 
> Tom



The Carl Gustav is strictly speaking a recoilless rifle not a rocket launcher (though I think it is rocket assisted), so I don't think they're related.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Apr 2005)

baboon6 said:
			
		

> The Carl Gustav is strictly speaking a recoilless rifle not a rocket launcher (though I think it is rocket assisted), so I don't think they're related.



So technically, what is the round that is fired?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (23 Apr 2005)

All of the current, in CF service, rounds are launched as a normal recoiless round, like a conventional gun only open at both ends.  As well, all of the current rounds incorporate a rocket motor that is ignited after launch and provides the improved accuracy and range.

So "technically" speaking the round consists of a cartridge case, primer and a rocket assisted projectile.  The old FFV65 round was not rocket assisted so it would just be a projectile.

How about this for a summation:  The Carl Gustav is a recoiless, anti-tank gun that fires (in CF service) rocket assisted projectiles or 7.62mm sub-calibre tracer rounds.


----------



## TCBF (23 Apr 2005)

What happened to the old 6.5mm Swedish sub cal adapters?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (23 Apr 2005)

They don't match the trajectory of the RAP rounds, the 7.62mm do.  You can't fire the old rounds out of a CF gun anymore either.  The sights were all changed when the RAP round was adopted.  The last of the sights were changed around 92-93 at least out west.  I remember during RV92 1 CSR drew some 84mm RAP, fired two and realized the problem after they went over the horizon.  A few reserve units showed up and seeing as we didnt have any non-RAP rounds left had to cancel their ranges as they still had old sights.


----------



## Petrus (26 Apr 2005)

I have made it to find the John Weeks' book titled Men Against Tanks, which contains a photo of the Heller launcher. This is what John Weeks says about the weapon (see page 124):


> One way to overcome the bugbear of estimating the range of distant targets is to use some sort of rangefinder on the sight. It was the Canadians who tried this with a rocket-launcher called the Heller. The first model appeared in 1956 and there were minor improvements until 1961 and *the design stayed in service until about 1967*. The Heller was a conventional rocket weapon of strainght-forward design and good performance. The muzzle-velocity was 715 ft per second which is among the highest ever achieved. The best fighting range was 300 yd and the weapon was very accurate out to 450 yd and the developers were content not to be optimistic and to try to claim more. The sight was the heart of the weapon. It contained a coincidence rangefinder working on a 9in base. Nine inches is not enough for great accuracy, but it was more than good enough for a first round hit at 300 yd and an 80 per cent chance at 450 yd.
> The British Army very nearly adopted the Heller, but in the end the Carl Gustav was chosen instead, to the great disappointment of the Canadians. The reasons for the choice are not now clear for the two have an almost equal performance, but perhaps dollar currency restrictions had some influence on it.



Very interesting, isn't it? Is Weeks correct claiming that the Heller was adopted by the Canadian military? Perhaps a member of this forum knows how it really was.

Best regards,
Piotr


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Apr 2005)

The Heller was used in 4 CIBG in Germany, but not in Canada. It indeed was a relatively high velocity weapon, but on the down side, the tube was long and in one piece, unlike the 3.5-inch which could be broked down into two pieces for transport.

I recall reading a story in The Beaver, the Canadian army's weekly paper in Germany, about 1 PPCLI conducting a range day using Heller practice ammunition against the Centurion tanks of their affiliated armour squadron. A photograph published with the article showed a rocket that had struck and penetrated one of the skirting plates.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Apr 2005)

Ouch!


----------



## Drummy (26 Apr 2005)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The Heller was used in 4 CIBG in Germany, but not in Canada. It indeed was a relatively high velocity weapon, but on the down side, the tube was long and in one piece, unlike the 3.5-inch which could be broked down into two pieces for transport.
> 
> I recall reading a story in The Beaver, the Canadian army's weekly paper in Germany, about 1 PPCLI conducting a range day using Heller practice ammunition against the Centurion tanks of their affiliated armour squadron. A photograph published with the article showed a rocket that had struck and penetrated one of the skirting plates.



Good Morning OS,

I could be wrong, and thats been know to happen,    but I thought that the Heller broke down into two peices, and was stored/transported in a case of some sort. That's a lot of years ago though.  ;D

All the best     Drummy


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Apr 2005)

Drummy,

As I recall, it broke into three pieces, the barrel, the stand and the rangefinder/sight. It did indeed have a storage box.


----------



## Petrus (27 Apr 2005)

I always thought that the Heller had never got beyond a prototype stage. As for its being used by the troops in Germany, perhaps it was field-tested there, and was not officially adopted. Besides, it seems strange to me that there are only two widely knows photos showing the weapon: one in the John Weeks' book that I have quoted here, the other, very small and showing Field Marshall Montgomery rather than the rocket launcher, at http://www.drev.dnd.ca/e/history_e.asp?page=5&lang=e. Any help in that matter would be appreciated.

By the way, do you know specifications of the Heller? I mean the caliber, weights, dimensions and so on.

Best regards,
Piotr


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Apr 2005)

Petrus,

We had the Heller issued to us in 4 CIBG at the time as an operational weapon. It was 3.2-inch calibre but I cannot recall any other details. By the way, its name, Heller, was apparently because "it was a heller a weapon."

I was a liaison officer in HQ 4 CIBG for about eighteen months (the brigades arms units filled these posts on a rotational basis) in the mid-sixties and handled operational equipment. We started replacing the Heller with the Carl Gustav and the M72 circa 1966-1967.


----------



## Petrus (4 Aug 2008)

Take a look at http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2896.0.html where you may see pictures showing the Heller.

Best regards,
Piotr


----------



## time expired (4 Aug 2008)

The Heller was in service in 4 CMBG. I do not know of any problems
with the weapon itself however the 9inch rangefinder sight was far too
delicate for the rough and tumble of infantry work and they spent a
large amount of their lives on the "waiting labour" shelf at the WKSP.
after that they moved to the "waiting parts"shelf as the supply system
had not forseen the high numbers of unserviceabilities.
This may have had something to do with their relative short service
life. 
                         Regards


----------



## Ammo (4 Aug 2008)

I have been meaning to bring some info for quite some times now but been to busy. I have received lots of reports and thousand of pages that talk about the Heller, one of which is titled "Final Report - 100mm Heller Anti-Tank Weapon System". That's right, "100mm!!!". There is currently a range clearance here in Borden and they hav found thousands of rocket motors, matter of fact check out the picture below as we have displays of both the 3.2" and the 100mm.
I have so much information that I don't know where to start, so here is some stuff:
1 - The 3.2" was known as the Heller Stage "A" and the 100mm the Heller Stage "B"
2 - The roscket was similar in principle to the HAMMER, a German weapon reported to be in the early stage of development in 1945
3 - this project was Tripartite, with US UK and Canadian participation.
4 - there are evidence of contract being awarded for 50,000 Rkt 3.2"
5 - The capabilities of the rkt 3.2" didn't meet the Army requirements (20-lb weapon capable of defeating 160mm of armour sloped at 30 degrees with a 80% chance of first-round hit at 300 yeards...) so it was decided to begin development of the Stage "B" 100mm.
More to follow


----------



## Petrus (6 Aug 2008)

It would be great to know the Heller's specifications (weights and dimensions etc.) as well as any details on its development and history.

Piotr


----------



## Petrus (6 Aug 2008)

Ammo said:
			
		

> 2 - The roscket was similar in principle to the HAMMER, a German weapon reported to be in the early stage of development in 1945



Here what I have on the Hammer rocket-launcher:

The Rheinmetall company started development of this new weapon in October 1943. The Hammer had a smooth-bore open-ended barrel of 81.4 mm calibre (nominally, of course, it was 8-cm), length of which was 2,200 mm. It fired hollow-charge finned-stabilized projectiles designated as the WGr.5071, whose weight was 4 kg and length was 540 mm. Muzzle velocity was 400 mps and maximum range was 600 m (when the target's height was 2.5 m). 

In the beginnig of 1944 work on the Hammer was suspended to be restarted only in December 1944.  Now its calibre was 105 mm (10,5-cm); the barrel was shortened up to 1,365 mm and mounted on a tripod that now had two small wheels. The weapon, weighting 45 kg, could be easily dismantled into three parts each of which could by carried by one man. The crew fired the weapon lying in the prone position as height of the line of fire was only 350 mm over ground. The 105 mm projectile weighted 4.2 kg, its length was 725 mm. Muzzle velocity was increased to 540 mps; at a 500 m range the Hammer could penetrate 160 mm armour and was much more accurate a weapon than the 8-cm variant. At the range of 500 m 50% of projectiles hit a 1x1 m target.

Below you may see a photo of the 8-cm Hammer that comes from Terry Gander's book "Anti-Tank Weapons" (p. 101) and sketches from a Russian book (found somewhere on the Internet) showing the 8-cm projectile and the 10.5-cm variant.

Best regards,
Piotr


----------



## ammocat (6 Aug 2008)

These photos and stats are from the Canadian Army Manual of Training Infantry Platoon Weapons Launcher Rocket A Tk 3.2inch CDN. 1956

Launcher - 54 inches long (137.2cm)
Launcher with tripod - 28.5lbs (12.9kg)
Rangefinder Sight - 5lbs (2.3kg)
HE A tk rocket - penetrate 11 inches of homogeneous armour at 90 degrees and approximately 5 inches at 64 degrees
Maximum Range - 2860 yards (2615m)
Operating Range - 300 yards (274m)
Maximum Effective Range - 450 yards (411m)
Maximum Rate of Fire - 5 rounds/minute


----------



## VRC (30 Aug 2011)

I'm coming to this discussion REALLY late but...here goes anyway.
The Heller was a 3.2 inch unguided rocket launcher that was a Canadian upgrade to the original 2.36 inch Bazooka.  It was not a recoilless rifle.

It required that you insert the rocket in the rear of the tube, uncoil two wires from the rocket's tail section and connect them to terminals so electricity would activate the motor when the trigger was pulled.

The U.S. 3.5 inch Rocket Launcher replaced it; a better piece of kit that broke down into two sections and merely required the flipping of a lever to engage the power source and projectile.

I have no idea if the Heller ever got beyond field trials but it did work.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2011)

We had Hellers in 4 CIBG when I rotated to Germany in 1964. Within a couple of years they were replaced by Carl Gustavs.


----------



## bellybuster (29 Sep 2011)

interesting thread.
   I am presently part of an explosive decontamination team working in Borden and yes there were hundreds of hellers found. All of them were practice and the nose cone missing.
   It is interesting to note that the Heller is not a traditional rocket motor that has a nozzle for thrust. There is no nozzle. It acts more like a recoiless rifle with the propellant exiting through slots in the side of the rocket motor.
  I shall see if I can remember to get some close up pics tomorrow. We dug up 3 just today.


----------

