Talk:M40 recoilless rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Actually, even if they are not experts, these editors of this page have gotten their facts right on. Not many people know about the Swedish 106mm round that gives astonishing performance and the fact that while it is designated 106-mm its caliber is 105-mm. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A Volunteer[edit]

In 1975-76 I was the Antitank Platoon Leader of 3rd Battalion, 60th Infantry, during which time, the platoon transitioned from the M40 recoilless rifle to the M220 TOW missile system. I don't know if that qualifies me as an "expert" (in my opinion, the experts were my NCO's - MOS 11H Heavy Weapons Infantryman -who had spent their careers with it), but in the absence of someone else, I'm willing to give it a shot.

To begin with, I have to agree with the previous poster, when I read the article, the facts seemed correct, so I was rather surprised that it was flagged. When I checked the list of articles flagged, it was listed under every category, so I'm not sure what to address. As my old copy of the Soldiers' Guide states, "A soldier must know his mission", so I'd like the moderators to please state what they are questioning and what needs to be done so I can address theese concerns.

"One Oh Six, ON THE WAY!!"

Beausabre (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doens't have moderators, and (wisely or unwisely) tends to respect citations to sources more than it respects subject matter experts. However, not having moderators means that everyone is an expert, so I've removed the "needs attention" template based on your assessment on the accuracy of the article. If someone thinks the template needs to be there, then they can help us out by explaining here, what the problems are.
But do go ahead on improving the article! One thing to watch out for is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a recounting of what you know from personal experience, but instead we're supposed to summarise what has already been published in other sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible Changes or Additions[edit]

I went through the article again with a critical eye and the following points occurred to me. I am going to post them ane wait several months for comment before I change the article - so I would appreciate feedback from readers.

1. Have a link to the Recoilless Rifle page -

2. The question of why the weaapon was designated as "106" mm is a vexing one. My understanding has always been that the ammunition was incompatible with the 105mm M27 and to avoid confusion in ammunition supply and possible safety problems, the "change" in caliber was decided upon. Frankly, I don't trust secondary sources here - they may all be echoing each other as the parrot the story "everybody knows". Short of visiting the National Archives and crawling through the Ordnance Committee minutes of the period - and even then, they may not include the reasoning but just that the Committee approved the new designation - I don't think a citation is possible. I think "weasel words" like "It is commonly thought that the reason for the change was etc."

3. Include the fact that the tripod mount was the M79

4. Combat use - Seeing that both the Israelis and Jordanians had them, they were probably used in the 1967 and 1973 Mideast Wars. Additional candidates are the Iran-Iraq war(Iran)and Lebannese Civil Wars. I quesstion its use in the Falkland Conflict as the Argentines are not listed as users and the British did not use the M40 series - their equivalent was the 120 mm BAT/WOMBAT/CONBAT (

5. Repleacement by the BGM-71 TOW system is, to split hairs, incorrect. BGM-71 is the designation of the missile, the system (launcher, sight/tracker, guidance unit, tripod and missile)is the M220/M220A1 (FM 3-23-24)

6. The spotting rifle was the M8C. Since their might have been earlier units (to include an M8), I am tending toward "M8 series spotting rifle"

7. The Spotter-Tracer round was the M48/M48A1 and it was not related except for its cailber to the round fired by the M2/M3 series machine guns.

8. US vehicles included the M38A1C ( with a split windshield to accomodate the barrel, M151A1C with attachment points for the mount and seats for two crewmmen on the rear fender and the M825 which was the equivalent based on the M151A2. ( Except for the Ontos and M274 Mule, no other platforms were standardized (in spite of field expedient mounts on M113's, naval patrol craft, etc in Vietnam). As fas as the rest of the world goes, the weapon could be mounted on virtually any light tactical wheeled or tracked vehicles, so the possibilities are endless.

9. Give the designation of the Ontos (M50/M50A1) and its link -

10. Give the link to the Japanese Type 60 -

11. Ammunition. I question whether "High Explosive Antipersonnel" or "Cannister" rounds existed. If they did, who manufactured and who fielded them? Second, point out that HEP rounds were anti-material or "bunker buster" rounds with a secondary and limited anti-armor capability.

12. Add that a subcaliber device - the Rifle 30 caliber M9 - existed for training on restricted ranges or for low cost practice to keep the troosp sharp between Annual Service Practice.

13. I remember the "book" maximum effective range as 1100 meters, so I'm going to have to dig around the Net and would appreciate any pointers to references they may be aware of.

Thanks for your help. Beausabre (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

105mm shell designation vs 106mm shell designation[edit]

I am aware there is quite some confusion and disagreement regarding the ammunition type. I believe I have appropriately sourced the claim that it was renamed to 106mm to prevent confusion. If this is so, should not the references to "106mm" shells be renamed to 105?

Scout1Treia (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)