Talk:Carl Gustav recoilless rifle
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Who removed "The Motherfucker"?
- 2 'backblast' is probably a better term than 'backwash'
- 3 8.5 or 9.5kg for the M3?
- 4 Use in Falklands war
- 5 Image
- 6 incorrect portrayal
- 7 Flechette rounds & some corrections or confirmations
- 8 British use
- 9 Carl Gustav
- 10 More info please, if anyone has some ?
- 11 Vietnam?
- 12 Gustav - Gustaf
- 13 Gustav - Gustaf
- 14 Wrong Name!
Who removed "The Motherfucker"?
I Frequently refer to the Carl Gustav as "The Motherfucker" and Thus, it is Also known as it.
'backblast' is probably a better term than 'backwash'
Also I'm told the M3 can only be fired a certain number of times before it should be discarded, 50 shots or so. I've handled the M2 quite a bit, the M3 only once. The M3 is a dream... so much easier to carry. It's even got a handle! m410
- 50 shots before being discarded? Where'd you hear that? I have no idea how many rounds were fired through my M3, as it's been several years, but I can say with certainty that it was much more than 50. I could see a manufacturer recommendation that you have an armorer inspect it every 50 rounds, but actually replacing the rifle? No way. EvilCouch 08:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, 50 rounds seems a nice number for inspection, but not disposal. Any military bean counter will see the Cost versus use ratio as unreasonable drastic and would simply place an order for M2's. JH
In the Danish army we were initially told the same story about limited lifetime. And the “old” cannons were to be used for training, reserving the M3’s for combat. Practical tests however showed that the M3’s had no lifetime problems.
The Danish name is “Dysekanon” meaning “venturi cannon”. It was adopted by the Home Guard in 1965 and the army in 1979. --Refraktorius 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
8.5 or 9.5kg for the M3?
Many sources indicate the weight as being 8.5kg, though there are a few that say it's actually 9.5kg. What are the differences between the M3 in U.S. and Canadian service and the m/86 in Swedish service? The latter is most definitely 9.5kg. Edward Sandstig 13:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- The later has an removabe padding-sleeve attached to it to protect the barrel from being damaged. It is made out of some kind of polystyrene and probably weights about 1 kg. The sleeve is peace-time training equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Use in Falklands war
I recall reading somewhere that British troops had used the Carl Gustav against an Argentine ship in the Falklands War. Anybody know anything more about this? Kd5mdk 19:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The image in the article is of an RPG-7 launcher without the rocket. Unless anyone has any objections, I'm removing it in 72 hours.
- No it's a Carl-Gustav, you can clearly see the venturi lock lever. Riddley 19:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- He's right. The RPG 7 has a different profile with a more fluted venturi and, because it's muzzle loaded, the venturi does not move at all. The RPG 7 is also smaller (and much lighter!). The image is, however, quite old. The version pictured has the old spring bipod as opposed to the tripod and is fitted with the old sight. Perhaps a more up to date picture is in order.Jwwil 04:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
In Mercinaries: playground of destuction I don't believe it's in the game at all let alone being portrayed as heat-seeking.
- You're right. I hadn't looked too closely at it before you made that comment, but looking at the game documentation it looks like the AT weapon in the game is actually a SMAW. I've removed the sentence from the trivia section. EvilCouch 04:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ok then Lt. penguin 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Flechette rounds & some corrections or confirmations
I was once told that the british used to have a Flechette round & used them during the Falklands war (but don't anymore). Can anyone confirm the existance of this type of anti-personal round for the Carl/Gustav 84mm???
Training with the 84mm, we all heard a rumor that turning it around at a group of enemy troops (within 100 feet away) can quickly injure or kill them... but then the 84 round would be fired into your own soldiers camp...
Therefore the HE round fired at the ground (where the enemy is standing/running to) will most likely quickly kill them all (and without the friendly fire "noduffs").
The point was to teach them to never try the anti-personal backblast rumor.
NOTE: "backblast is the correct term, backwash is something you do in the shower or in your drink!". The above qoute is what I screamed at any private I trained on the 84 (who said backwash).
The Image is M2 type with a bipod See a (M2) picture with the venturi open here. (yes that person named the picture M3 but they are wrong) http://world.guns.ru/grenade/cg_m3-open.jpg Here's another M2 picture from Canadian Forces... http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dglepm/wes/wes_equipments/84mm_Carl_Gustav.jpg
"old spring bipod", standard production for the M3 is bipod. http://world.guns.ru/grenade/cg_m3-1.jpg OK. It's true that some M2's have a tripod/vehicle mount but these have a smaller number of roles to play then the squad level bipod style. Especially since the shoulder pad and area is often removed for the special tripod/vehicle mount.
Just my recollections (on M2's): But the M2's do visably differ from M3's and most notably: the black venturi re-enforcement ring on the back of the venturi is smaller and ends about 3/4 of an inch from the very back of the verturi on M2's. I believe the M3 black venturi re-enforcement ring is like the M1's, in that they are wide and go all the way back.
The Iron sights flip inward to protect them from damage. The scope can be quickly put in place but wasn't used very often (by comparision). Night scope mount, it's out there, but it's rare. (Special Forces?) A good 84 team could fire the it 6 times a minute, the best teams are faster. Anti-tank role was to fire a round and run (And hopefully reload while changing positions). Training motto: "Fire and Run, Fire and Run, if you don't your done."
Well, I don't know about administering this site, so if you'd like to transfer some of this info to the main article please go ahead, thanks.
Was this used in the 'bunker busting' role by Brit forces during the Falklands War against Argentine field positions? Come to think of it, didn't Argentine forces also have the weapon?
Is it not named after the swedish king Karl Gustaf? If it is, why is it not mentioned
22.214.171.124 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- About that, Is it correct to call it Carl Gustaf M3 or Carl Gustav M3 nowadays?
- Damërung (Talk to me) 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- The name of the weapon is from the name of the manufacturer Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori. 126.96.36.199 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- The Swedish crown prince (the current king) Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden was born in the same year, 1946. The hype the longawaited crown prince created in Sweden at that time, surely had an influence on name choice. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
More info please, if anyone has some ?
Please would someone add information about the propulsion system for the rounds ? I presume this weapon fires rockets, but this is not even stated ! Also it would be good to have cut-away diagrams of the rounds and the weapon, and a description of the triggering system. Darkman101 (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Some sources state that the Carl Gustav was used by Australian forces in Vietnam to good effect, but the powers-that-be in Sweden didn't want any association with "that" war and so either discouraged it's use or ceased exporting the ammunition. Indeed, there is a photo of an American M67 recoilless rifle on the Australian War Memorial website being demonstrated for the use of the Australians "to replace the Carl Gustav" after Swedish ammunition had become "unavailable".184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Gustav - Gustaf
Gustav is obviously wrong. Why hasn't the headline been changed?