Com-Central.net

JeffStringer · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 637

He he! For a minute I thought someone was having a bad day! Laughing

I'd like to see this pic!

Maple_Leaf_Eh · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 517

As for a mortar carrier M113 shopping cart, there do not seem to be any images on the 'net.

For what it's worth: www.SuckonThis.com is an available URL if anyone wants to register it.

bsmart · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:10 am Post subject: Re: 'Suck on This'

- Maple_Leaf_Eh

As for a mortar carrier M113 shopping cart, there do not seem to be any images on the 'net.

For what it's worth: www.SuckonThis.com is an available URL if anyone wants to register it.

I don't even want to think what most people going to 'suckonthis.com' would be looking for Rolling Eyes

SFC_Jeff_Button · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:19 am Post subject: Re: 'Suck on This'

This is definitely something I want to see. I haven't seen an 81mm in an M113 chassis since 1982 when I went through basic training. I believe that was called an M125?

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: Re: 'Suck on This'

Hi Jeff! Hi Folks!

- SFC_Jeff_Button

This is definitely something I want to see. I haven't seen an 81mm in an M113 chassis since 1982 when I went through basic training. I believe that was called an M125?

You are correct. The 81 carrier was the M-125. I haven't seen one of those sense I left the 1/30 Infantry battalion back in 1978. During that time the infantry company heavy weapons platoons had three of them for a total of nine in the battalion.

I would be very interesting in seeing a photo of this reported setup. Four 81mm tubes with the elevation controlled by the driver?

I wonder what the recoil forces are during to the hull?
Sgt, Scouts Out!

Coldsteel · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 61

- Roy_A_Lingle

I would be very interesting in seeing a photo of this reported setup.

Until some gets us a photo have a look at a world war 2 version:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Matilda_Hedgehog%28AWM_133687%29.jpg[/img]
Nearly 100kg of explosive out of 7 barrels. Cool

- Roy_A_Lingle

Four 81mm tubes with the elevation controlled by the driver?

Jim said two sets of four, so it's eight controlled by the driver Laughing

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: 'Suck on This'

Hi Coldsteel! Hi Folks!

Question about the Matilda. That's was an Australian test vehicle, right?

- Coldsteel

Jim said two sets of four, so it's eight controlled by the driver

Say what? O-yes! That was an alertness test to see if anyone was paying attention to my flub up. Well done Coldsteel, you passed the test.

Eight 81mm mortar tubes? I am thinking standard tubes, but I would be very surpised if a standard M-113 APC could stand up under that much recoil unless they fired in pairs or one after the other. But all at once? Shocked

I wonder if those mortars could be a 81mm verison of a 'Steel Rain' system that has almost no recoil and spits out rounds at Gatling gun+ speeds?

I think I need to see more than a picture, I need to see a film of that in action.

Eight 81mm mortars, I am very puzzled now. Confused

Sgt, Scouts Out!

Dontos · Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: 'Suck on This'

- SFC_Jeff_Button

This is definitely something I want to see. I haven't seen an 81mm in an M113 chassis since 1982 when I went through basic training. I believe that was called an M125?

Jeff
Check out this video...

120mm Mortar firing from Stryker

Don

Coldsteel · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 61

- Roy_A_Lingle

Hi Coldsteel! Hi Folks!

Question about the Matilda. That's was an Australian test vehicle, right?

Sorry Roy, I didn't see your reply until now.

It was a real vehicle and not a test setup, one of 6 produced in Australia (sort of like the British "Circus Equipment" or "Hobart's Funnies"), but they were too late to really be used operationally. The original test vehicle has only 6 launchers and no armour to protect them. The production ones have the armoured box as seen here. I suppose none of the crew wanted nearly 100kg of torpex going off on the rear deck just because someone go lucky with a rifle Shocked

Dennis_Smith · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Mar 17, 2006 Posts: 192

Hi Guys,

During my little stint as a grunt I got to watch 81 and 4.2 mortars recoiling against solid (and sometimes not-so-solid) ground. Mighty impressive (no pun intended). This thread made me wonder about the M113 mortar carriers. Did they have a specially built floor to absorb the recoil?

In the video that Dontos provided, it looked like the mortar had a built in recoil system. The mortars used in the M113 vehicles didn't have that, did they? Was it a case of "weld another plate over the hole in the floor"?

Thanks for any info.

Roy_A_Lingle · Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:55 am Post subject: Re: 'Suck on This'

Hi Dennis! Hi Folks!

- Dennis_Smith

During my little stint as a grunt I got to watch 81 and 4.2 mortars recoiling against solid (and sometimes not-so-solid) ground. Mighty impressive (no pun intended). This thread made me wonder about the M113 mortar carriers. Did they have a specially built floor to absorb the recoil?

In the video that Dontos provided, it looked like the mortar had a built in recoil system. The mortars used in the M113 vehicles didn't have that, did they? Was it a case of "weld another plate over the hole in the floor"?

The M125 (M113 with a 81mm mortar) and the M106 (M113 with a 4.2 inch mortar) had turn tables build up from the reqular floors of those vehicles. Best I can remember, the 81 didn't have any recoil system and the turn table took the full force of the recoil. The M30 4.2 inch mortar system had a recoil system build into it something like that 120mm we saw firing from the Stryker. If I remember right, the M125 turn table could turn and fire a fill 360 degrees while the M106 turn table had limits. It could only be fired within a limited arc to the rear or front of the hull. No firing to the sides. The M113 (don't remember the M number for this version) that was upgraded with a 120mm mortar, my guess is the turn table was reinforced so the recoil would not damage the hull.

I never heard of one of those systems breaking the hull. As for welding something onto a M113, Not going to happien G.I. The M113 FOVs is made out of aluminum armor which requires something called a 'Meg' gun to weld. An item of equipment only found at a base heavy support shop. As I understand it, a 'Meg' welder is not something you can take out into the field. Confused

The only hulls I remember ever hearing about that had a cracking problem when the main gun fired was the early M107s with that long barreled 175mm tube. That problem only happiened when the tube was turned out to the max limit off the center line of the hull while firing

Spot Report! Smile

Sgt, Scouts Out!

SFC_Jeff_Button

MORTARS, gotta love them!, (unless you're on the recieveing end).
The old 81mm mortar did have a shock absorber. The shock absorber was a "compression spring-type" unit mounted in the yoke. It didn't provide alot of compression and as I remember they wore out rather quickly, "fading" quickly in fire for effect missions and coordinated illumination missions. I only fired the old 81's (as well as the new ones) from ground mount, so I can't personaly speak about the M125 tracks and their turn tables and floor supports.
The M30, 4.2in mortar had two, fully enclosed shock absorbers. The M106 and M106A1 would both allow the mortar system to turn 1600mils from extreme left to extreme right. That would be 45degrees left or right from its dead center firing position to the rear of the track. But I know for a fact, that while with the 24th and 3rd ID mech units from 1993-1996 when we had the M106A1's, we never had the "bump stops" installed in our turn tables and could easily turn and fire 360 degree's. For safety reasons we never did, but it was possible. Heck, most of the tracks had lost their "stops" and we couldn't get them replaced because the new 120mm, M1064's tacks were on there way to us. We fielded them in the fall of 1996 in 3rd ID at Ft Stewart, GA. What a huge improvement over the old rifle barrel 4.2inch.
If anyone has any specific questions about mortars, I have a ton of old and new manuals that I have aquired over my years. If I can't remember it off the top of my head, I will look it up for you.
By the way, HQ45 had a cracked hull from old age and repeated firings. We couldn't get it "coded" out though and had to have it relagated to flank gun use. The floors of those tracks were normal as far as I remember except for the turn-table that was mounted to the floors surface that held the gun system.

J.McGillivray · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Jan 24, 2006 Posts: 149

Why settle for only one when you can have 16? This is one of the vehicles that were built by the 21st Pz Div. It has sixteen 8.1cm mortars mounted on a French Somua halftrack. They are mounted on a turntable that can be rotated 360 degrees and elevated between 40 and 90 degrees. The two Panzergrenadier Regiments of 21st Panzer each had four of these Leichter Reihenwerfer auf Somua.

tankmodeler · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: 'Suck on This'

- Roy_A_Lingle

As for welding something onto a M113, Not going to happien G.I. The M113 FOVs is made out of aluminum armor which requires something called a 'Meg' gun to weld. An item of equipment only found at a base heavy support shop. As I understand it, a 'Meg' welder is not something you can take out into the field.

While Roy's comment is correct in effect, the actual term is MIG welding (Metal Inert Gas) and while the actual equipment is something that any base or even local repair unit _could_ have in its store (it's not that bulky) the welds must be done indoors in places of fairly still air as any breezes disturb the gas shielding used to achieve good welds. In adition, MIG welding aluminum is tricky stuff because it welds at such low temperatures that most people used to welding steel burn through it frequently until they get trained and accustomed to welding aluminum. Military organisations are not known for their willingness to let grunt welders learn on the job, unless absolutely necessary due to incoming fire. Smile

Paul

Dennis_Smith · ***Power User*** Offline Joined: Mar 17, 2006 Posts: 192

Hi Guys,

While looking at the 16 tube mortar photo that J.McGillivray provided, I wondered about the twisting effect of firing the outboard tubes. I was reminded of a problem encountered by S. Berliner during development of the M-42 Duster. May be slightly OT, but some may find it interesting. Here's an excerpt from his website:

"Ca. 1954, the guns were firing oddly, erratically, sometimes giving a very wide horizontal spread of shells at the target, and I was given the enviable task of finding out why. Well, I couldn't figure out what was going on so I poured Dye-Kem, a machinist's blue dye used for marking steel, down the right barrel and ran a firing test with me down-range in a bunker just in front of the target butt. I had a gunner run off a few rounds in alternating rapid fire, first the left gun, then the right gun. Lo and behold, the holes in the target paper were all blue on the left and clean on the right! Subsequent dynamic analysis showed that the suspension was well tuned for running but swung right when the right gun fired and then overcompensated left when the left gun fired, building up quite an oscillation in lateral torque, so much so that the guns ended up firing across each other. Problem solved! "

He tells lots of interesting stories about his years at Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
home.att.net/~Berliner...nance.html

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big

Com-Central.net

Select Language

Login

±Recent Visitors

±User Info-big

`±`Recent Visitors

`±`User Info-big