Canadian M20 Rocket Launcher

lefty said:
The manual said 300yards against stationary targets, 200 yards against moving targets.
Stationary 300yds is realistically possible but 200 yards against movers is overly optimistic.
Old tank hulls spaced out at 75yds, 150yds, a mover on a railroad track at 150yds, and tank hulls at 200, and 300 yds were normal on rocket ranges.
The NCO supervising a team of 2 young soldiers would start them off at closer targets and then give them a challenging longer range tank hull if the team was shooting well. Its done the same way today with the M72.
The danger template for the 3.5 RL on old Canadian Army maps was 1000yds long. The maximum distance the rocket could possibly ever fly.
The m72 66mm rockets that replaced it have very similar flight properties.
Click to expand...

Beats the German Panzerfaust 30 M all to hell, the designation referring to the range. ;)


Grizz
 
lefty said:
The manual said 300yards against stationary targets, 200 yards against moving targets.
Stationary 300yds is realistically possible but 200 yards against movers is overly optimistic.
Old tank hulls spaced out at 75yds, 150yds, a mover on a railroad track at 150yds, and tank hulls at 200, and 300 yds were normal on rocket ranges.
The NCO supervising a team of 2 young soldiers would start them off at closer targets and then give them a challenging longer range tank hull if the team was shooting well. Its done the same way today with the M72.
The danger template for the 3.5 RL on old Canadian Army maps was 1000yds long. The maximum distance the rocket could possibly ever fly.
The m72 66mm rockets that replaced it have very similar flight properties.
Click to expand...

Awesome, thanks for that info.


Mark
 
Were called simply 3 point 5 Rocket Launchers .. and were a heck of lot lighter to carry than a Carl Gustaf ... and a heck of lot less effective. Although they didnt give you a bleeding nose/ears from concussion, they launched with the classic back blast concern and described a lovely graceful arc on their way to the target. Firers were issued a small facemask to protect against the a slow burning motor that could discharge unburnt particles into upturned smiling faces! For many they gave much opportunity to practice with c4 or dm12 .. either the motors wouldn't fire or the HE warheads - which only occasionally were available to fire - wouldn't! In both cases they went into a very deep hole or resulted in a so/so satisfying smoky bang.
 
.

IIRC Canada did develop their own weapon of this type, but found it easier and cheaper to adopt the bazooka.[/QUOTE]

The Cdn weapon was the Heller which was trialled in Canada and the UK. A user told me it had a habit of blowing electrical wires out the side and into the operator.
 
A user told me it had a habit of blowing electrical wires out the side and into the operator.
Click to expand...
the 3.5 could do the same thing ... but towards the back and often down. The wire could penetrate a boot.
 
and were a heck of lot lighter to carry than a Carl Gustaf
Click to expand...

I used to love firing the Carl G! It was always satisfying hearing that second metallic clang as the warhead struck its mark.
 
I'm guessing yours was Indian made at Ishapore (India used the 3.5). In CF service we referred to the weapon simply as the "3.5" and they were still in use in the early-mid 70s until replaced by the Carl G. I got to fire the 3.5 twice with TP rounds. Never saw any HE used.
 
Fired that sucker when in Militia late 1970s, i believe we called it the "3.5 inch Rocket launcher"
and tha book on it said same.
It was fun rocket was so slow you could watch its flight .
But number 2 loader had to make sure get up close to the Number One
and keep hands and body parts out of the back blast.
 
Firing the 3.5 and the CG both would give you a face full of sht if you were'nt carefull. Fun to see when it hit the target though. I did prefer the CG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom