Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 72

Thread: 101st Airborne Division adds M67 90mm recoilless rifle to their Weapons Arsenal

  1. #1
    Senior Member jetsetter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,466

    Default 101st Airborne Division adds M67 90mm recoilless rifle to their Weapons Arsenal

    [SIZE="5"]Currahees add to their Weapons Arsenal[/SIZE]
    February 12, 2011
    Written by By U.S. Army Spc. Kimberly K. Menzies
    Task Force Currahee Public Affairs

    Paktika Province, Afghanistan – Currahee Soldiers from 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, began incorporating the M67 90mm recoilless rifle into their squads February 10th.

    “We chose to utilize the 90mm because we wanted a high-volume fire power weapon that would provide low collateral damage,” said U.S. Army Lt. Col. Robert B. Fouche of Columbus, GA, executive officer for 4th BCT, 101st Abn. Div.

    The M67 is a lightweight, portable, crew-served weapon designed primarily to be fired from the ground using the bipod or monopod, but it may be fired from the shoulder. It is an air-cooled, breech-loaded, single-shot rifle that fires fixed ammunition and it is equipped with a manually-operated breech and a percussion-type firing mechanism. As a reloadable weapon, it can be used with optics and lasers to fire at night.

    The weapon is intended to be used primarily as a self-defense weapon, said Fouche.

    “The M67 will be used by mainly infantrymen in a static position,” said U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Nathan J. Hyman of Clovis, CA, master gunner for 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th BCT, 101st Abn. Div. “This means the weapon will be stationary, it won’t move unless necessary.”

    “Soldiers at the outlying stations will be able to use this weapons system as a force multiplier, meaning that more can be accomplished with fewer individuals,” Hyman said. “Although we plan to use the 90mm in mainly a defensive posture, it also can be extremely effective being used offensively for ambushes.”

    Not only did the M67 meet the unit’s tactical needs, but because it is not a newly developed weapon, Fouche said its use is also a cost-effective alternative.

    Continued @ http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/201...apons-arsenal/

    [SIZE="1"]U.S. Army Soldiers from 1st Battalion and 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, familiarize themselves with the M67 90mm recoilless rifle by firing the weapon at a Forward Operating Base Orgun-E range Jan. 27th. The Soldiers fired roughly 150 rounds of 90mm ammunition. (Photo by U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Nathan J. Hyman, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101 Airborne Division)[/SIZE]

    [SIZE="1"]U.S. Army Soldiers from 1st Battalion and 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, wait for the signal to safely begin firing the M67 90mm recoilless rifle during a practice firing of the weapon at a Forward Operating Base Orgun-E range Jan. 27th. The Soldiers fired roughly 150 rounds of 90mm ammunition. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Nathan J. Hyman, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division)[/SIZE]
    ........................

  2. #2
    Senior Member Leaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,702

    Default

    The XX is a lightweight, portable, crew-served weapon designed primarily to
    I've heard that before...

    Good choice!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Alpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Observe Overreact Destroy Apologize
    Posts
    4,955

    Default

    Sounds like a great idea. A cheaper and hopefully effective way to extend the reach of troops in FOBs without having to call in air or artillery.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A place of anguish
    Posts
    450

    Default

    Pocket artillery huh?

    A viable choice and a wise decision.

  5. #5
    Warmonger Nacho-Libre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Age
    26
    Posts
    1,863

    Default

    Aside from being awesome, they are effectively recycling older, proven weapon systems. Its a great idea and I hope it serves the purpose well.

  6. #6
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,332

    Arrow

    If they were buying a weapon like this, the Carl Gustav 84mm is much lighter and has better range and accuracy. But if they already have the M67 and its ammo in stock, why not? It does the job.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Alpheus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Observe Overreact Destroy Apologize
    Posts
    4,955

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    If they were buying a weapon like this, the Carl Gustav 84mm is much lighter and has better range and accuracy.
    I think this the the key point. Judging from the article, I think they will be using the M67 from static positions. Why use a fancy lighter weight weapon when it isn't need to be moved?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Leaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,702

    Default

    I dont know if it's true, but I imagine that there's more different kind of ammo to the CG like airburst (would be good in Afghan)

  9. #9
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,332

    Arrow

    A:
    " think this the the key point. Judging from the article, I think they will be using the M67 from static positions. Why use a fancy lighter weight weapon when it isn't need to be moved?"
    Aside from the point Leaper just made, I guess you also missed the part in the article about how they would also be using the M67 for ambushes. That means humping a long, heavy steel tube through that near-vertical mountain terrain. I truly pity the guy that has to do that.

  10. #10
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    33,018

    Default

    M67? we had that in 1982 got rid of it for the Dragon cept in the Berlin brigade.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M67_recoilless_rifle

  11. #11
    Senior Member Leaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,702

    Default

    In Astan:

    I think the Canadians, Norwegians and Danes use it over there there too. Just saying

  12. #12
    Senior Member Cipher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Age
    25
    Posts
    1,424

    Default

    The Army should have went with the more modern and effective SMAW, like the Marines.

  13. #13
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,332

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by Cipher View Post
    The Army should have went with the more modern and effective SMAW, like the Marines.
    That would require putting that system through the Army Ordnance Board procurement process, which could take years. There would also have to be a congressional line item authorizing the purchase in a military budget bill. The Carl Gustav, on the other hand, has already been issued to the U.S. Army Rangers before, so I think they might be able to divert existing funds to get a few. But neither of these options is as quick and cheap as just pulling some M67s out a warehouse and putting them on a plane to Afghanistan.

    BTW, so far as the SMAW being 'modern', it was first fielded by the Israelis as the B-300 40 years ago. The follow-on to the SMAW is currently in development by Nammo. The launcher reportedly weighs only 6 pounds.
    Last edited by Ought Six; 02-22-2011 at 10:24 PM.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Leaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,702

    Default

    ^Maybe that's the reason why they went for the M67. It's already in stock.

  15. #15
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,332

    Arrow

    I also found it interesting that they said one of the reasons they chose the M67 was "low collateral damage". From a 90mm shell ?!?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •