105mm Vs Land Rover

BigblueC

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
1,647
Reaction score
2,148
Location
NC
I get a kick out of this destructive non sense and I figured some of you will too. M60 tank and a recoil-less rifle hit a Land Rover.
 
And here is one of the few bad *** Prius';
 
I get a kick out of this destructive non sense and I figured some of you will too. M60 tank and a recoil-less rifle hit a Land Rover.


As noted in the video, the 105 was withdrawn from service because of safety and reliability issues. It was reborn as the M40 designated as 106 recoilless which still fired the 105mm round in a redesigned and much heavier barrel, usually mounted on a jeep. (So as to not confuse it with the other withdrawn M27 series). The miscellaneous holes in the rear of the land rover are from FOD, foreign object damage, rocks or other hard debris thrown about by the back blast of propellant exiting the rear of the of the system.
A lighter version of this weapon system in 90mm was designed to be carried by troops the M67 was highly effective against armor and bunker emplacements but was hated by troops in the field because of its high weight both of the rifle and the rounds fired thru it. It was also all but impossible to employ in base camps without substantial protective bunkers because of the back blast hazard.
My first infantry posting as a PFC at Ft Polk, I was the FNG so I got to carry the 90. Fortunately got sent to the NCO academy and no longer had to deal with this heavy weapon.

Dave
 
The miscellaneous holes in the rear of the land rover are from FOD, foreign object damage, rocks or other hard debris thrown about by the back blast of propellant exiting the rear of the of the system.

I figured that was what was happening. I've never been around anything like that firing so the back pressure generated is astonishing to me.
 
Back
Top