90mm recoilless

I wasn't with C Co. .
I spent my time with the Bn. aid station that usually set up within dashing distance of the Bn. CP.

A pic. of the aid station taken mid-late May '70:



The track in the foreground was often elsewhere.

Our field aid station was essentially a 113 with a GP med. tent.
Our supplies and whatnot were in the track. We'd park, drop the ramp, set up the tent with one end over the back of the track, and be open for business within a very short interval.

Essentials were in "grab-an-go" boxes so it was not necessary to bother with the tent in an emergency.

Interior aid station:

[covan]

While I was an advisor with an ARVN Infantry Division in 1970 I was tasked with doing a staff study on whether the ARVN should have tanks or RR-mounted APC's.

As best I remember, I concluded that given the AO we operated in, PC's were more adaptable than were M-47 tanks, i.e., jungle was dense, terrain was often marshy, contact was usually very close and we were not confronting enemy armor. PC's were more maneuverable in that environment and the RR gave as much firepower.

[39mto39g]

I recall seeing an Ontos in the streets of Domincan Republic Running just behind a tank. I don't know if it was a Marine or a 82nd piece of equipment. 1966
Ron

[covan]

Ron,

Despite wanting the ONTOS early in the 1950's, the Army never accepted them. The ones you saw in the DR were Marine units.

[A.B]

The 90mm Reciolless.... Sounds and look as being similar to this one also ("?"):

Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle
Unless I am missinformed, did the above not also exist in US Armed Forces weapons arsenal, during the 1960s and 1970s? Fires all kind of grenade-types, and even including illumination-grenades. ("!") Does anyone recognize it?

I do however know for certain that, the US Armed Forces Does have this one though:

AT4
T G C!

Sincerely
A.B

[SuperScout]

The 90 mm RR did not fire grenades. There were several different types of rounds available for the weapon, including an anti-tank round (for which the weapon was originally designed), a high-explosive round, and a flechette (anti-personnel) round. An illumination round would have been out of the question: to obtain proper trajectory, the weapon would have to be almost in a vertical position, and with the backblast area directly at the feet of the gunner, the probability of using one gunner per round is very distinct!

[39mto39g]

AB
Never seen either one of the weapons in your sites.
The 90 was used on Firebase's as a defensive weapon although, during Tet some units actually deployed them to the field.
Having a 90 in the field has a couple thing wrong with it, Who is going to carry the ammo? and who is qualified to fire it? 90 rounds are heavy and its no simple task to properly fire a 90.

[A.B]

SuperScout, Sir!

I think I may have made a slight "linguistical blunder" in my previous post. The amunition you described for the 90 mm, is same as for the "Carl Gustaf recoilless...". ( Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle ) It also fires "HEAT", "Flechette" and other types. Though the following is in Swedish only, you can see in 1 of the photographs in the page, regarding the amunition:

http://www.soldf.com/grg.html

The reason we missunderstood eachother by my previous post, is just because "we in Sweden" call this amunition "grenade" aswell. Just also as its designation is "GRG M/48" (Newer version: "GRG M/86") stands for "Granat Gev?r M/48", which by literal translation translates to "Grenade Rifle model 48". The 3 left ones in the amunition-photograph, are various anti-armor amunition. The 4th from left is "illumination", while the 5th from left is "smoke" and the far right one is "anti-personel/fragmentation".

My apologies for the missunderstanding. Sometimes, "linguistics differences" can cause this by accident though.

T G C!

Sincerely
A.B

[A.B]

39mto39g!

OK. Was curious regarding if anyone would recognize the "GRG M/48".

The AT4 however, is much "younger" though, and was introduced in a more wider range, to troops in SwARMY while I was serving as instructor at the 1st Inf Rgt in 1987. I know US Armed Forces uses this weapon since quite many years now, as I have seen it being carried by US troops in photographs I have seen both online aswell as on television. There was however an earlier modell of this "single shot"-version, which was called "modell 68", in contrast to the "AT4" actually being a "modell 86". The digits in the designation, stands for the year of when serial production is decided to be initiated. (Which in itself does not neccessarily have to be that specific year though).

I know about carrying the amunition for the reciolless re-chargable ones.... No fun running in dense vegitation, with a bunch of those in each hand, aswell as having even more of them strapped on the back. Then again, it still beats hawling around with the actual weapon in question... "Ugh!" Fireing it, is also "quite something". After doing that, I had no problem understanding why one always have to talk so loudly, when ever talking to a "redleg".... Chuckle! It was however actually worse though, if standing just a few feet away, compared to being the one actually disscharging the weapon in question.

T G C!

Sincerely
A.B