Since Ian forgot and Wikipedia knows: Origin of the "bazooka" name Shortly after the first prototype launcher and rockets had been tested by firing into the Potomac River, Skinner and Uhl took the new system to a competitive trial of various types of spigot mortar (at that time seen as the most promising way to deliver a shaped charge), which was held at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in May 1942. The new rocket launcher scored several hits on a moving tank while the five different mortars achieved none; this was a considerable achievement since the launcher's sights had been fabricated that morning from a wire coat hanger. The trial was being watched by various senior officers, among them the Chief of Research and Engineering in the Ordnance Department, Major General Gladeon M. Barnes. Barnes was delighted by the performance of the system and fired it himself, but commented: "It sure looks like Bob Burns' bazooka". Bob Burns was a popular radio comedian, who used a novelty musical instrument which he had devised himself and called a "bazooka".
Now I have a mental image of a "transformer" musical instrument that converts from a contrabassoon into an anti-tank weapon. Just the thing for symphony concerts in a war zone.
I fired one of these in Infantry Training at Camp Pendleton CA in 1965. Although the Marine Corps had already adopted the M72 LAW, the South Vietnamese were still using the M20, so we were trained on them as well. I managed to hit my target, an old Sherman tank, but one Marine managed to just clip the top of the turret, and the rocket deflected up, and went over the hill in back of the tank. Luckily, as the rocket tumbled down the reverse slope of the hill, it hit something with enough force to set off the warhead. That was a relief to us, because if it hadn't detonated, we would have been required to go looking for it. With the dense covering of brush on the hill side, that would have been a bit "harry", because if you hit the rocket nose after it left the tube, it could ruin your whole day.
In theory, it could be legally returned to firing status. It would just need to be registered as a destructive device, have the bar cut out, and that hole welded shut with a fitted patch, then reinforced with another piece of metal welded around the tube. Although, I imagine that are a number of these in firing condition already registered, so it may not be worth the effort. I find it ironic that machine guns are harder to legally acquire than rocket launchers. The hardest part of course is finding rockets for it, as each one also needs to be registered as a destructive device.
Come on, I mean, how difficult is it to add a couple of electric terminals and a switch to a piece of pipe? Anyone could make one of these in about half an hour.
@@jesuschrist711 The Maus meaning in German mice was as the name suggest thought as the small version, they had planes for something called Rat whit multiple 8,8 cm AA guns. This is what Meth does to your military procurement.
In addition to the 40 MM M-79 that I trained on in 1968 and used in Hue-Phu Bai RVN, I was also trained on the M-20! I can personally attest to the effectiveness of both weapons. The M-79 was so accurate that I could drop a grenade within a foot or two of my target and if I missed with the first Grenade, the second always hit! The M-20 was so loud that my ears rang like a bell for two days and I have permanent hearing loss from it. But they taught us where to aim in class and if you guessed the range right, the first rocket hit the ammo inside and blew the tank to smithereens! Turrets flying off into the air sort of thing! I was grateful that my team had access to both toys during the Tet Offensive.
Guys your both wrong it's a gad damn rocket launcher designed to punch a hole through tanks. I think it's a little more complicated than a aluminum tube your would find in a construction site
This would be far easier to reproduce than just about any other weapon on this channel, it really is just a tube with a simple electrical system, optics and a couple of fitted pins and brackets. Seems rather pointless to deactivate weapons like this when they're so simple to make, it's not like you can go to your local gun store to buy ammo for it even if you had one that still works.
In an Army training film instructing how to use the regular bazooka in WWII, they touch on that characteristic of a glancing impact not detonating the shell. They instructed to aim a little low versus high if the actual range to the target was unknown. They actually showed a shot skip off the ground just short of the target and then impact the tank and detonate.
Very interesting video! Little anecdote: a soldier died in training this or last year in Germany because he was standing behind a handheld launcher. These things are not jokes!
Anecdotes are that instructors would hammerfist/kick soldier's (helmeted) head in training if they failed to check their back sector. It kind of makes sense, though.
An instructor monitoring an m-72 law almost died when my father was in the service, only reason he didn't was because my father called him out and informed him how deadly backblast is. It's terrifying to think that people willingly stand behind recoilless rifles
Strangely enough, Bazooka was pretty much my favorite bubble gum growing up. It had the little folded comics inside featuring Bazooka Joe and his gang. I didn't know there was a bigger and better version of the WW2 original. Sounds very effective. Something tells me the LAW was less powerful. Then there was the Davy Crockett in about 1957, but that's another story. Great video as always. Thank you
"I'm here today at the James Julia auction house taking a look at some of...well...some of the Anti Tank Rocket launchers that are going to be for sale" Isn't america great? XD
@@Tomd4850 I still don't see the point of rendering these rocket launchers non-functional. It's not like the average person is going to have the means to actually buy/build rockets for the launcher.
@@notgray88 You can actually get a hold of the real rockets if you have the legal means to do so, plus you would be surprised how easy it would be to improvise these things. Model rocket motor components are 'easy' enough to source make the engine; an impact detonation system is not complicated; and something approximating a shape charge could be done with some basic knowledge. Plus, a defined "destructive device" is very expensive to own and transport and has heavy restrictions depending on where you live. A deactivated one is just for show, and completely legal and cheap everywhere in the US.
I'm kind of sad you weren't able to take it outside and fire this one. It'd be interesting to see the trajectory of the rocket and the back blast in slo-mo.
Slo-Mo ,trajectory.is the same as a football ,about 33 ft / sec , you can see it frying .if you are fast enough you probably could cut it like you would a foot-ball , not I wouldn’t advise it.
Here I am watching this 3 years later and didn't realize that I had previously watched it, much less previously made this comment... Getting old sucks... :(
I fired it a few times in early 70's in CAF. The rocket was so slow, watching it arc to the target, almost like it was lobbed, there was a strap on the neck of the rocket that had to be removed, to allow a safety pin to fall out after leaving the tube. The firer could feel the launcher move as the rocket weight left the tube upon firing, so weird...
We had these in Vietnam for bunker-busting. We called it the three-and-a-half inch rocket launcher. Carried the rounds unboxed in boot socks tied to our ruck frames. I got to qualify for record with it at Benning in ‘67. Three rounds at 50m and two at 150m. Backblast was a beast.
Thanks Ian! I fired two rounds from one of these in ITR in 1970. ITR was basically infantry familiarization training for Marines after Recruit Training but before being sent to your school. The real 0311's went on to BITS. We did some maneuvers, fired a few rounds from various weapons and slept cold in 10 man tens. The weapons familiarization was hit and miss, mostly dependent on the mood of the instructor. When I fired the 3.5" Rocket Launcher the guy had processed hundreds of guys through his weapon and just wanted to move us along so he could kick back or go to chow. So he told me to how to hold it and fire it, loaded it but then didn't even let me use the sights, he just grabbed the tube and pointed it at the impact zone and told me to fire. I pulled the trigger and it didn't fire. Me: "Sir. Misfire, Sir." Him: "What?" Me: "Sir. Misfire, Sir." Him: "Uh ... OK ... wait a minute ... OK try it again. FWOOOOOSH!!!! I fired two rounds - and that was my familiarization with the 3.5" Rocket Launcher. Of course - not getting to actually aim at something or see how he loaded it - took something away from the familiarization (I had fired it but not aimed or loaded it) ... although ... we did have a class on it before firing them - and they may have shown us how to load them there ... . In any case I didn't really have anything to shoot at anyway. Like a lot of those ranges that were processing thousands of guys through them, while there had originally been ... something ... in the impact zone to shoot at ... by the time I got there - it was in thousands upon thousands of tiny little pieces. I could see them. Little bits of rusted metal scattered randomly about the impact zone ... getting their positions redistributed about the area with each round fired into it ... I'm vague on my training on the M-72. We had a class on how to use it in High School, Jr. ROTC and then ... I believe ... I also had a class on it in the Marines ... somewhere ... but I just can't remember if I ever fired one or not ... I might have ... but I'm not sure ... I remember putting one on my shoulder, looking through the little fold up plastic sight and pressing down on the rubber trigger thing ... but ... I don't remember if that was a live round or just an empty tube in a class room ... *shrug* ... 50 years ago now ... and I just don't know. .
I truly appreciate these videos and also a big thank you for showing the optics/sights in these videos. Most people don't do this, and It might seem like nothing special, but I think it's very important part when showing a gun, to show when people using it seen.
I was a range safety officer for Marine Corps 0351 training in 1974. This was one of our weapons. It used a slow moving 3.5” rocket. Minimal back blast. It was carried broken in 2 sections. Can still go thru the firing procedures
Your knowledge of weapons and weapon demonstration videos is really apparent when demonstrating the range on the optical sight, I was struggling to really figure out what was happening until you moved the bazooka and then it was really clear :)
I was in the SeaBees in the mid-70's and we trained with these, we called it the 3.5" rocket launcher. We also trained with the 105MM recoilless rifle.
@@seanhiatt6736 Yes, as with the U.S. 76mm (notice the missing .2). That shell was not a 3" round but a 75mm with a slightly inaccurate name because we already had 75mm shells. (Thanks to videos like these, I now know...) The M10 used a 3" gun (Navy, used as AA during WWI); the M18 and M4A3E8 used the '76mm' gun. But... in 1974 the Army told us the 106mm R.R. was 4.2" and we already had one of those (mortar). To make matters worse, the Russians had a 107mm R.R., (I wonder if that is like their 82mm mortar which could fire German 81mm shells...)
thanks for taking the time to get footage of the sight! optics, especially old ones and ones for less conventional projectiles are always one of the most interesting parts of guns to me, so it's always a treat. keep up the good work.
Nice video on a rather obscure US weapon. By the way, the M1/M1A1 rocket launchers had been superceded by the M9A1 during late WW2 and for Korea. Same rocket, so there was no tactical differences. M9A1 introduced the magneto firing (versus batteries) and also introduced the two-piece tube design. The Germans used captured US bazookas to design their "Panzershreck" 88mm launcher. When the US went to upgrade their bazooka design, where did we go - 3.5" which is about the same 88-90mm caliber as the Germans chose. AS you stated the weapons were developed late in WW2 but were not produced for several years due to the drastic defense cuts after WW2 ("we have A-bombs, we don't need an Army"). The North Koreans' use of T34/85 medium tanks caught the ROK and early deployed US forces with inadequate AT firepower so M20s were rushed to Korea. The ChiComs captured M20s and made an almost exact copy that stayed in service with them for many years (the ChiComs went into Korea with no effective infantry antiarmor weapons, so they learned a hard lesson). The M20 rocket launcher served alongside the recoilless rifles until both were replaced by guided missles. Mark Bowden;s recent book on the battle of Hue in 1968 emntions that the USMC were caught unprepared for urban combat but they found M20A1s sitting in storage and found them useful to blow holes in walls for house-to-house fighting.
We had these in Vietnam and I never heard of it being used, an interesting fact, to shoot one you had to have a long hold on target because it took a long time for the rocket to clear the tube compared to a rifle round leaving the chamber, so you remain very still until you see the rocket headed down range, we all get to shoot a couple of rounds in ITR after boot camp, , evidently they had a lot of rounds, since the Marine Corps is notoriously tight with everything, and I can tell you if we had ever been attacked by tanks, they were going to have to be close before anybody could hit them, the damned things were notoriously hard ty hit with !
I read a Vietnam vet's story about the war and in it he described the back blast on the bazooka in great detail and with reverence. He made the comment that had he been over run, he would have grabbed a zooka and fired it away from the advancing troops, confident that the back blast would stop their assault.
Fun little fact for you, Ian,.... Up here in the Canadian Army we have something called "The field cool factor". ie: a sig 226, 9mm has a certain 'air' about it. But, a FN, MINIMI, with a 500 round belt hanging off the side, slung at ones hip has a 'more influential presence' a "field cool factor". The M20A1B1 has what we up here would call "a substantial field cool factor"!!! :-P Love your stuff, God Bless.
I remember hearing an account of a Korean War US soldier using an M1 Bazooka against a T34-85 used by the North Koreans and he said they probably fired 20 (probably exaggerated) shots and they all bounced off the sloped frontal armour of the tank.
Ian actually understated the problem of the M1 Bazooka and it quite frankly didn't work as AT weapon during WW2. The issue was not that the round didn't explode, it was that the fuse was too slow, so that the round bounced off before it exploded. That ment it had no effect against slope armor and limited when it hit straight on due the distance the round bounced away.
the rounded front ends of the projectiles seem pretty stupid. it seems to me like the armor slope issue could have been significantly improved if the missile had some hardened steel spikes on the tip to bite into armor at oblique angles.
I was range safety officer for 3.5 rocket launcher at Infantry training school, Camp Pendleton for 0351 training 1973. These were lots of fun. Lots of misfires The ammunition was all Korean War era. Very slow moving but very effective against all kinds of hard targets. Loading took a second man. The rockets had a cooper ring you engaged with the launcher then pull the trigger and whoosh I could step up and go thru the firing procedure today. Funny how all these detail come back after close to 50 yrs Semper Fi
I have an M20, with a bipod, in 1/6th scale, for GI Joe. It's not made by Hasbro, though. It's made by Formative Intl. for its Soldiers of the World line. It was sold on a card, no figure, labeled "Korean War" and was actually busted into 2 sets. One was the bazooka and gear/uniform for a 1st Marine Div. trooper and then the loader set had another uniform, more rockets, cans that the rockets fit in, and a vest for the loader to carry the cans.
I think i saw a guy playing one of these in australia once side note , i find shaped explosives super interesting its basically like creating the same effect a plasma gun uses to cut through plate steel but someone figured out how to get that effect from some metal and explosives.
Fun fact: Acetylene cutters don't use the acetylene to actually cut, they use oxygen. After you get a starting puddle you can actually shut off the acetylene and the cutting is maintained by the oxidization of the steel. But you're right, shaped charges don't even melt the copper liner and it doesn't melt through the armour. At the pressures and momentum involved the metals behave more like liquids. A.k.a. superplasticity.
+Dio Cane If it makes you feel better, modern militaries keep sabot-based munitions around to defeat ERA. www.chinatopix.com/articles/112850/20170328/new-army-m1-abrams-tank-rounds-easily-destroy-t-14.htm
Dio Cane most armour nowadays is designed with the threat of shaped charge ammo in mind, with composite armour and reactive armour etc. which doesn’t do anything really for kinetic based rounds, it’s because especially during the Cold War everyone and their mothers started fielding ATGM’s and shaped charge launchers, both vehicle launched and man portable. The RPG line being one example
base impact fuze was iffy at best. Later rounds especially Israeli production with Pezo electric crystal in the fuze linked to the base unit were devastating. Point initiating base detonation fuzing became the gold standard for all Shape charge warhead systems.
UK also used the A1 up to the 60s, and I was actually trained on them as a cadet! The rocket motor had to burn in the length of the tube and there were strict temperature limits for use as in very cold weather the rocket motor would still be burning as it left the tube. The velocity was not great and the weight change was significant as the rocket fired. You had to brace your hand on the front of the guard to stop the tube dipping as the rocket went over your shoulder. As I recall, the fuze worked by inertia not not by a crush switch, hence there was a slight delay on impact and a tendency to bounce if the impact was much off normal.. I seem to recall there was a WP smoke rocket in addition to the HEAT one!
Having used a modern equivalent there are a few things I really quite like about this. The firing mechanism is simpler while also being reliable. There is an overall robust look to it. The lack of a spotting rifle would however have made first round hits some what difficult. Same overall designed role though. Never ever stand behind one of these types of weapons when it is being fired. The shock wave is the least of your worries once past 25 meters. It will kill you and injure the gunner and a-gunner if you are directly behind it inside of 3-4 meters. Past that it will still probably kill you from the blast alone out to about 10 meters. 10- meters and over shrapnel becomes the primary concern. These throw debris like crazy. Pebbles, sticks, small rocks etc are propelled at very high speed by the blast. The back blast cone is quite dangerous. Not to be trifled with.
There is a TV show from the 1950's called "The Big Picture" where Captain Carl Zimmerman interviews a soldier who was on the ground in Korea using these. The soldier said at the beginning they were issued WWII style bazookas and they were really happy when the super bazookas started to show up. They used them to great effect.
Ian, could you please do a talk on the M67A1 90mm Recoilless Rifle. If you had already, I've stupidly missed that presentation over the years. I got to 'train' on the M67 as the platoon medic in the company weapons platoon, our PltSgt wanted every member to be familiar with every weapon in the platoon. This was in the 193rd Inf Brg in 1975-1977.
as a former 0351 anti-tank assaultmen in the marine corps i tell you it's completely true that an entire battle line will shift to avoid a rockets back blast.
In the UK to deactivate they would either cut a slot along most of the barrel or tube weld all the moving parts up or simply pour concrete down the barrel. It makes it easier to simply make your own firearm then trying to re-activate one. I don't think anyone has actually successfully re-activate a firearm in the UK after they made it harder.
The way you said.. ..." so if you happened to have a bunch of 3.5" anti-tank rockets in your basement..." sounded like you totally know a guy with a bunch of 3.5" anti-tank rockets in the basement.
Enjoyed the reminder of this weapon, we fired them in the 1960s during USMC infantry training, the HEAT round packs a punch. The ballistic vets we worm was more for show than protection. Always wear googles :)
No need to even weld. A sturdy pipe collar will do the trick - the pressure exerted on the walls isn't big, it is almost completely relieved via the back.
While training as a boy soldier (15) or junior leaders as we were called we trained and fired the “Rocket Launcher” The only thing we were aware of while firing was that as the projectile moved from rear to front before exiting the tube was it dipped slightly. As long as you had it supported or aimed slightly higher if not..... it usually hit the target....... and if my memory serves me correctly our launchers were 3 piece? Tubes.
Look online for 'Mattel Sonic Blaster and Kurt Russell'. The Sonic Blaster was an imitation bazooka that was so loud that it damaged kids' hearing and was recalled.
50 years ago I was in the T&AVR. We had these things and had a "Range Day" with one. The rocket weighed about 25lbs and, when loaded into the end of the tube, you really had to pull down to keep the tube on target. The fun started, for me anyway, when fired, as the 25lb + weight of the rocket moved forward and you weren't quick enough to stop pulling down so as to balance the bloody thing. Luckily we were only firing sand filled projectiles, as the round hit the ground just in front of our firing position. Hence the "0 to 450 yards" range.!!! When we finally got to fire live rounds, the resulting "bang" on the old Tanks used as targets was, to say the least, "satisfying".!!
Slope tank Armor works on the fact that the projectile isnt making a stright 90 degree angle into the armor, with sloped armor the metal is pyut on a angle as t oavoid direct 90degree hits, thus increasing the chances of the round bouncing off due to the acute angle of entry , I have never read any where that Sloped Armor works on the basis that the path is longer than non sloped....as mentioned at@4:00
"And a hole the size of the bore diameter" As I look at the screen... "And so the lord placed his hands on the sick man, and his wounds were healed..."
I was in a high school ROTC unit in the late 60's. (Actually, NDCC -- National Defense Cadet Corps -- but the cool kids still called us Rotcees.) and we had one of those in the arms room for training. It wasn't deactivated, but of course we didn't have and couldn't get ammunition for it.
Fired the 3.2 during infantry training at Camp Gieger during ITR 1961. All kinds of crap blown back into your face when fired, will never forget that blast.....Also was taught the first WWII were 2.8 later stepped up to 3.2 and then 3.5 even later on
Whenever i make it to the end of a Forgotten Weapons video and Ian says, "Thanks for watching" I always reply back, "Oh no, no, no Ian. Thank YOU, for presenting and making these videos in the first place!"
There was also an M20 A1 UK that was a British license built version. It used the original latch mechanism and had a different optical sight reticule. Used throughout the 50s until replaced with the Carl Gustav in 1964.
so the only thing that makes it "deactivated" is a bar and a thin plate whats stopping someone just cutting that bar out and welding a much stronger plate to the side
I guess the same thing that stops them from buying functioning destructive devices illegally on the black market: the law. The fun of firing your own rocket launcher just isn't quite worth the potential jail time for most people.
Frankly "deactivating" rocket launchers is a waste of time, and simply a political gesture. The "weapon" is the rocket, not the launcher! You can launch a rocket off anything, including the back of a rather startled donkey as done by the Taliban with Chinese 107 rockets in Afghan!
Honestly the sheet metal doesn't really matter as long as it doesn't impede the rocket. These aren't bottle rockets. All the momentum comes from an explosive charge in the base of the round. No major sustained pressure in the tube. Although there is a sharp spike to deal with though. Diminishing quite rapidly the further up the tube you go.
"0 out to 450 yards" Hopefully that 0 is just a suggestion.
HAL hopefully it isn't even a suggestion.
They will go full TF2
Well, if nothing else, at that range the backblast is the least of your worries.
The zero yards is for anything behind it.
"You are not going anywhere now, son!"
Since Ian forgot and Wikipedia knows:
Origin of the "bazooka" name
Shortly after the first prototype launcher and rockets had been tested by firing into the Potomac River, Skinner and Uhl took the new system to a competitive trial of various types of spigot mortar (at that time seen as the most promising way to deliver a shaped charge), which was held at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in May 1942. The new rocket launcher scored several hits on a moving tank while the five different mortars achieved none; this was a considerable achievement since the launcher's sights had been fabricated that morning from a wire coat hanger. The trial was being watched by various senior officers, among them the Chief of Research and Engineering in the Ordnance Department, Major General Gladeon M. Barnes. Barnes was delighted by the performance of the system and fired it himself, but commented: "It sure looks like Bob Burns' bazooka". Bob Burns was a popular radio comedian, who used a novelty musical instrument which he had devised himself and called a "bazooka".
Now I have a mental image of a "transformer" musical instrument that converts from a contrabassoon into an anti-tank weapon. Just the thing for symphony concerts in a war zone.
The pocket version, designed to penetrate tankettes and model tank miniatures.
A member of the James Bond orchestra of transformer weapons.
n bo lol
n bo I think a bazoom is something else entirely (also they typically come in pairs)
Ah, perfect for home defense.
A robber could use a tank to open your door! Who knows! :3
“Can’t rob my house if I blow up half of it!”
And since it has no recoil it makes a great edc option for those who are recoil sensitive!
Yup.. looks like the perfect tool to hit someone over the head with... :D
now with minimal organ liquefying backblast!
Someone deactivates super bazooka.
Gun jesus "look how they massacred my boy"
I fired one of these in Infantry Training at Camp Pendleton CA in 1965. Although the Marine Corps had already adopted the M72 LAW, the South Vietnamese were still using the M20, so we were trained on them as well. I managed to hit my target, an old Sherman tank, but one Marine managed to just clip the top of the turret, and the rocket deflected up, and went over the hill in back of the tank. Luckily, as the rocket tumbled down the reverse slope of the hill, it hit something with enough force to set off the warhead. That was a relief to us, because if it hadn't detonated, we would have been required to go looking for it. With the dense covering of brush on the hill side, that would have been a bit "harry", because if you hit the rocket nose after it left the tube, it could ruin your whole day.
Maybe i missed it, but was there a bayonet lug?
Farty McGee No ! That wound been interesting!!
Imagine getting stabbed through the chest and then the missile shot at the same time. Sheesh.
This isn't the Astra Militarum, son.
Dr Ed Elcott no bayonet lug? Heresy
Mean all you'd have to do is Turn around and fire the thing and Hope you're not hitting something friendly with either missile or Backblast
Gun Jesus should lay hands on the injured weapon and miraculously heal it's wounds.
In theory, it could be legally returned to firing status. It would just need to be registered as a destructive device, have the bar cut out, and that hole welded shut with a fitted patch, then reinforced with another piece of metal welded around the tube. Although, I imagine that are a number of these in firing condition already registered, so it may not be worth the effort. I find it ironic that machine guns are harder to legally acquire than rocket launchers. The hardest part of course is finding rockets for it, as each one also needs to be registered as a destructive device.
He has done it before after all. He said he accidentally dropped the rifle and fixed it, but we all know the truth.
Jonas amen
Come on, I mean, how difficult is it to add a couple of electric terminals and a switch to a piece of pipe? Anyone could make one of these in about half an hour.
Very simple weapon. Getting the ammo? A bit harder
Little known fact, the “weight to awesomeness” is how the German Wunderwaffe scientists judged their creations
tank
I mean the maus was almost 1:1, hence wny after it was impossible. The weight....outweighed...the awesomeness.
@@jesuschrist711 The Maus meaning in German mice was as the name suggest thought as the small version, they had planes for something called Rat whit multiple 8,8 cm AA guns. This is what Meth does to your military procurement.
@@kingoliever1 i mean the German also made a small RC Tank and name it the Goliath tank
@@eveflash733 it was packed with a hell of a lot of RDX, though....
In addition to the 40 MM M-79 that I trained on in 1968 and used in Hue-Phu Bai RVN, I was also trained on the M-20! I can personally attest to the effectiveness of both weapons. The M-79 was so accurate that I could drop a grenade within a foot or two of my target and if I missed with the first Grenade, the second always hit! The M-20 was so loud that my ears rang like a bell for two days and I have permanent hearing loss from it. But they taught us where to aim in class and if you guessed the range right, the first rocket hit the ammo inside and blew the tank to smithereens! Turrets flying off into the air sort of thing! I was grateful that my team had access to both toys during the Tet Offensive.
it looks like a chimney with a pistol grip.
Its chimney right. Sometimes it spits smokes and fires
Well they were often called stovepipes
It looks like a Bazooka made for the mythical 8' Nazi Übersoldat.
JohnnyShagbot The German’s called them stovepipes for that exact reason.
Lol!
What holster do you recommend for this? (Planning to conceal carry)
A guitar bag
I carry mine canceled in a shoulder holster for nabor hood protection.
Just replaced your hand with this thing there ya go
Elephantiasis of everything. Or an Alien Gear Shapeshifter, I think they have a shell for this.
Bladetech... "Carry confident"
only you could make a 15 minute video about a steel tube interesting..
Liamv4696 aluminum, not steel
Guys your both wrong it's a gad damn rocket launcher designed to punch a hole through tanks. I think it's a little more complicated than a aluminum tube your would find in a construction site
This would be far easier to reproduce than just about any other weapon on this channel, it really is just a tube with a simple electrical system, optics and a couple of fitted pins and brackets. Seems rather pointless to deactivate weapons like this when they're so simple to make, it's not like you can go to your local gun store to buy ammo for it even if you had one that still works.
@@bluesunschurch8412 Yeah, and it breaks in half and the pieces lock together to transport it.
All of his videos are about steel tubes.
Super Bazooka sounds like the kind of weapon a 10 y/o would make up while playing war in the backyard.
In an Army training film instructing how to use the regular bazooka in WWII, they touch on that characteristic of a glancing impact not detonating the shell. They instructed to aim a little low versus high if the actual range to the target was unknown.
They actually showed a shot skip off the ground just short of the target and then impact the tank and detonate.
Jay Massengill to defeat 45 deg sloping armor you The lower part of line in the radical, causing the round to in- pact at steeper angle. (Lobbying)
Jay Massengill you have ou’re a
Basic home defense
LeDibeau yep just after the m134 on the porch
Daily concealed carry
What else are you going to use against the sudden appearance of a wild tank?
The power of friendship
perfect for deer hunting, the deer can be behind you and still get hit! good luck eating it, though... or finding it
Very interesting video!
Little anecdote: a soldier died in training this or last year in Germany because he was standing behind a handheld launcher. These things are not jokes!
Well not really an anecdote www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/wildflecken-soldat-stirbt-bei-uebung-mit-panzerfaust-1.3509304
Well it's called back*blast* for a reason
Anecdotes are that instructors would hammerfist/kick soldier's (helmeted) head in training if they failed to check their back sector. It kind of makes sense, though.
FirstDagger when the story is true is it not an anecdote anymore?
An instructor monitoring an m-72 law almost died when my father was in the service, only reason he didn't was because my father called him out and informed him how deadly backblast is.
It's terrifying to think that people willingly stand behind recoilless rifles
Strangely enough, Bazooka was pretty much my favorite bubble gum growing up. It had the little folded comics inside featuring Bazooka Joe and his gang. I didn't know there was a bigger and better version of the WW2 original. Sounds very effective. Something tells me the LAW was less powerful. Then there was the Davy Crockett in about 1957, but that's another story. Great video as always. Thank you
"I'm here today at the James Julia auction house taking a look at some of...well...some of the Anti Tank Rocket launchers that are going to be for sale"
Isn't america great? XD
"Non-functioning Anti Tank Rocket Launchers"
@@notgray88 But you can buy active, registered destructive devices so... yah, Murcia!
@@Tomd4850 I still don't see the point of rendering these rocket launchers non-functional. It's not like the average person is going to have the means to actually buy/build rockets for the launcher.
@@notgray88 You can actually get a hold of the real rockets if you have the legal means to do so, plus you would be surprised how easy it would be to improvise these things. Model rocket motor components are 'easy' enough to source make the engine; an impact detonation system is not complicated; and something approximating a shape charge could be done with some basic knowledge. Plus, a defined "destructive device" is very expensive to own and transport and has heavy restrictions depending on where you live. A deactivated one is just for show, and completely legal and cheap everywhere in the US.
note that ian IS british
With that title, and that opening sentence, no you don’t *need* to say more.
I’m very glad you did though!
I'm kind of sad you weren't able to take it outside and fire this one. It'd be interesting to see the trajectory of the rocket and the back blast in slo-mo.
I think each round ends up needing an (unconstitutional) $200 ATF tax stamp.
Slo-Mo ,trajectory.is the same as a football ,about 33 ft / sec , you can see it frying .if you are fast enough you probably could cut it like you would a foot-ball , not I wouldn’t advise it.
Here I am watching this 3 years later and didn't realize that I had previously watched it, much less previously made this comment... Getting old sucks... :(
@@CurmudgeonExtraordinaire I've done that before, i click on a video, thinking I've never seen it only to see I commented 4 years ago. Kind of spooky.
th-cam.com/video/53ZA10_AndQ/w-d-xo.html
Ian, this video reminded me that I haven't bugged you about the PIAT anti-tank spigot mortar in over a year.
I fired it a few times in early 70's in CAF. The rocket was so slow, watching it arc to the target, almost like it was lobbed, there was a strap on the neck of the rocket that had to be removed, to allow a safety pin to fall out after leaving the tube. The firer could feel the launcher move as the rocket weight left the tube upon firing, so weird...
We had these in Vietnam for bunker-busting. We called it the three-and-a-half inch rocket launcher. Carried the rounds unboxed in boot socks tied to our ruck frames. I got to qualify for record with it at Benning in ‘67. Three rounds at 50m and two at 150m. Backblast was a beast.
Thanks Ian! I fired two rounds from one of these in ITR in 1970. ITR was basically infantry familiarization training for Marines after Recruit Training but before being sent to your school. The real 0311's went on to BITS. We did some maneuvers, fired a few rounds from various weapons and slept cold in 10 man tens.
The weapons familiarization was hit and miss, mostly dependent on the mood of the instructor. When I fired the 3.5" Rocket Launcher the guy had processed hundreds of guys through his weapon and just wanted to move us along so he could kick back or go to chow. So he told me to how to hold it and fire it, loaded it but then didn't even let me use the sights, he just grabbed the tube and pointed it at the impact zone and told me to fire.
I pulled the trigger and it didn't fire.
Me: "Sir. Misfire, Sir."
Him: "What?"
Me: "Sir. Misfire, Sir."
Him: "Uh ... OK ... wait a minute ... OK try it again.
FWOOOOOSH!!!!
I fired two rounds - and that was my familiarization with the 3.5" Rocket Launcher.
Of course - not getting to actually aim at something or see how he loaded it - took something away from the familiarization (I had fired it but not aimed or loaded it) ... although ... we did have a class on it before firing them - and they may have shown us how to load them there ... . In any case I didn't really have anything to shoot at anyway.
Like a lot of those ranges that were processing thousands of guys through them, while there had originally been ... something ... in the impact zone to shoot at ... by the time I got there - it was in thousands upon thousands of tiny little pieces. I could see them. Little bits of rusted metal scattered randomly about the impact zone ... getting their positions redistributed about the area with each round fired into it ...
I'm vague on my training on the M-72. We had a class on how to use it in High School, Jr. ROTC and then ... I believe ... I also had a class on it in the Marines ... somewhere ... but I just can't remember if I ever fired one or not ... I might have ... but I'm not sure ... I remember putting one on my shoulder, looking through the little fold up plastic sight and pressing down on the rubber trigger thing ... but ... I don't remember if that was a live round or just an empty tube in a class room ... *shrug* ... 50 years ago now ... and I just don't know.
.
I heard a super bazooka was here... possibly fastest click I’ve ever done
I hope you can get your hands on a 84mm Carl Gustaf Recoilless Rifle!
We had ours way before the US got theirs, quite the thump firing them.
It really is 84mm of "Sod off!"
Can't penn a tank anymore, but the gustaf will sure as hell drop a concrete structure!
that thing is a fucking beast in Far Cry 2
@@xmm-cf5eg Um, the Carl Gustav is still in service.
Well, it's not an automatic rifle and doesn't have 30 round magazines. People CANNOT complain about civilians having one of these, right?
Gapeagle just walk in the classroom turn around and let the back blast hit em
Dude.. 30 round mag fed bazooka.. you're onto something there.. XD
*kid walks into school with a damn 6 foot long metal tube stuffed into a duffel bag*
@@sebastianstraub8910 Wouldn't it do that thing with the air pressure and kill a lot more people than expected?
@@devincook2736 oh no
I truly appreciate these videos and also a big thank you for showing the optics/sights in these videos. Most people don't do this, and It might seem like nothing special, but I think it's very important part when showing a gun, to show when people using it seen.
I see bazooka, I press like.
I see super bazooka, I hit subscribe.
I was a range safety officer for Marine Corps 0351 training in 1974. This was one of our weapons. It used a slow moving 3.5” rocket. Minimal back blast. It was carried broken in 2 sections. Can still go thru the firing procedures
Your knowledge of weapons and weapon demonstration videos is really apparent when demonstrating the range on the optical sight, I was struggling to really figure out what was happening until you moved the bazooka and then it was really clear :)
I was in the SeaBees in the mid-70's and we trained with these, we called it the 3.5" rocket launcher. We also trained with the 105MM recoilless rifle.
Wrong....it's a 106
@@tedgrego1584 the round fired was in fact a 105 mm but the army labeled it 106.
@@seanhiatt6736 Yes, as with the U.S. 76mm (notice the missing .2). That shell was not a 3" round but a 75mm with a slightly inaccurate name because we already had 75mm shells. (Thanks to videos like these, I now know...) The M10 used a 3" gun (Navy, used as AA during WWI); the M18 and M4A3E8 used the '76mm' gun. But... in 1974 the Army told us the 106mm R.R. was 4.2" and we already had one of those (mortar). To make matters worse, the Russians had a 107mm R.R., (I wonder if that is like their 82mm mortar which could fire German 81mm shells...)
thanks for taking the time to get footage of the sight! optics, especially old ones and ones for less conventional projectiles are always one of the most interesting parts of guns to me, so it's always a treat. keep up the good work.
Davy Crockett next! Lol
Only with footage from shooting range.
@@GarthKlaus Heresy!
hello i'm Ian McCullom here at Rock Island Action house and today we are looking at a fuccing nuclear mortar
I am pretty sure ian would happily do that when someone offers him the opportunity.
Nice video on a rather obscure US weapon. By the way, the M1/M1A1 rocket launchers had been superceded by the M9A1 during late WW2 and for Korea. Same rocket, so there was no tactical differences. M9A1 introduced the magneto firing (versus batteries) and also introduced the two-piece tube design. The Germans used captured US bazookas to design their "Panzershreck" 88mm launcher. When the US went to upgrade their bazooka design, where did we go - 3.5" which is about the same 88-90mm caliber as the Germans chose. AS you stated the weapons were developed late in WW2 but were not produced for several years due to the drastic defense cuts after WW2 ("we have A-bombs, we don't need an Army"). The North Koreans' use of T34/85 medium tanks caught the ROK and early deployed US forces with inadequate AT firepower so M20s were rushed to Korea. The ChiComs captured M20s and made an almost exact copy that stayed in service with them for many years (the ChiComs went into Korea with no effective infantry antiarmor weapons, so they learned a hard lesson). The M20 rocket launcher served alongside the recoilless rifles until both were replaced by guided missles. Mark Bowden;s recent book on the battle of Hue in 1968 emntions that the USMC were caught unprepared for urban combat but they found M20A1s sitting in storage and found them useful to blow holes in walls for house-to-house fighting.
We had these in Vietnam and I never heard of it being used, an interesting fact, to shoot one you had to have a long hold on target because it took a long time for the rocket to clear the tube compared to a rifle round leaving the chamber, so you remain very still until you see the rocket headed down range, we all get to shoot a couple of rounds in ITR after boot camp, , evidently they had a lot of rounds, since the Marine Corps is notoriously tight with everything, and I can tell you if we had ever been attacked by tanks, they were going to have to be close before anybody could hit them, the damned things were notoriously hard ty hit with !
Ah yes that timeless metric of "weight to awesomeness"
"taking a look at some of the anti-tank rocket launcher up for sale" -can only be said in America
and northern africa
factually false.
The original AT rocket for the M1 was based on the US AT rifle grenade; hence the odd 2.36 bore diameter.
@@justforever96 My guess would be 60mm mortar... borrowed from France in WWI ?
Probably because they were already producing 60mm mortar tubes actually
I read a Vietnam vet's story about the war and in it he described the back blast on the bazooka in great detail and with reverence. He made the comment that had he been over run, he would have grabbed a zooka and fired it away from the advancing troops, confident that the back blast would stop their assault.
So it's a Bazooka, but Super. Woah.
soopa
Fun little fact for you, Ian,.... Up here in the Canadian Army we have something called "The field cool factor". ie: a sig 226, 9mm has a certain 'air' about it. But, a FN, MINIMI, with a 500 round belt hanging off the side, slung at ones hip has a 'more influential presence' a "field cool factor". The M20A1B1 has what we up here would call "a substantial field cool factor"!!! :-P Love your stuff, God Bless.
I remember hearing an account of a Korean War US soldier using an M1 Bazooka against a T34-85 used by the North Koreans and he said they probably fired 20 (probably exaggerated) shots and they all bounced off the sloped frontal armour of the tank.
Ian actually understated the problem of the M1 Bazooka and it quite frankly didn't work as AT weapon during WW2. The issue was not that the round didn't explode, it was that the fuse was too slow, so that the round bounced off before it exploded. That ment it had no effect against slope armor and limited when it hit straight on due the distance the round bounced away.
the rounded front ends of the projectiles seem pretty stupid. it seems to me like the armor slope issue could have been significantly improved if the missile had some hardened steel spikes on the tip to bite into armor at oblique angles.
I was range safety officer for 3.5 rocket launcher at Infantry training school, Camp Pendleton for 0351 training 1973. These were lots of fun. Lots of misfires The ammunition was all Korean War era. Very slow moving but very effective against all kinds of hard targets. Loading took a second man. The rockets had a cooper ring you engaged with the launcher then pull the trigger and whoosh I could step up and go thru the firing procedure today. Funny how all these detail come back after close to 50 yrs Semper Fi
I'm a simple man, I see "Super Bazooka" on the thumbnail of forgotten weapons I click.
I have an M20, with a bipod, in 1/6th scale, for GI Joe. It's not made by Hasbro, though. It's made by Formative Intl. for its Soldiers of the World line. It was sold on a card, no figure, labeled "Korean War" and was actually busted into 2 sets. One was the bazooka and gear/uniform for a 1st Marine Div. trooper and then the loader set had another uniform, more rockets, cans that the rockets fit in, and a vest for the loader to carry the cans.
I think i saw a guy playing one of these in australia once
side note , i find shaped explosives super interesting its basically like creating the same effect a plasma gun uses to cut through plate steel but someone figured out how to get that effect from some metal and explosives.
Afaik plasma or acetylene cutters use heat to cut the metal, while shaped explosives use extreme pressure to displace it.
Fun fact: Acetylene cutters don't use the acetylene to actually cut, they use oxygen. After you get a starting puddle you can actually shut off the acetylene and the cutting is maintained by the oxidization of the steel.
But you're right, shaped charges don't even melt the copper liner and it doesn't melt through the armour. At the pressures and momentum involved the metals behave more like liquids. A.k.a. superplasticity.
sometimes i wish shaped explosives were never invented, tank firefights with kinetic penetrators are awesome
+Dio Cane
If it makes you feel better, modern militaries keep sabot-based munitions around to defeat ERA.
www.chinatopix.com/articles/112850/20170328/new-army-m1-abrams-tank-rounds-easily-destroy-t-14.htm
Dio Cane most armour nowadays is designed with the threat of shaped charge ammo in mind, with composite armour and reactive armour etc. which doesn’t do anything really for kinetic based rounds, it’s because especially during the Cold War everyone and their mothers started fielding ATGM’s and shaped charge launchers, both vehicle launched and man portable. The RPG line being one example
My MOS 0351. USMC 1969 RVN. As a Section Leader it was my job to clear the tube when they miss fired. Great weapon.
base impact fuze was iffy at best. Later rounds especially Israeli production with Pezo electric crystal in the fuze linked to the base unit were devastating. Point initiating base detonation fuzing became the gold standard for all Shape charge warhead systems.
Oh my God, I'm 5 years too late... that would have been the center piece of my Thanksgiving feasts
You tried getting spent AT-4 launchers?
Fantastic historical presentation! Love your content. Thank you!
Can I put a bump-fire stock on it?
Totally
Moon Meme its gonna make it an assault bazooka
Make a bullpup version
Isn't it already? It loads from the back, they trigger is towards the front.
In the eyes of the government, that would reactivate it somehow and you get arrested for unregistered destructive device
No full auto? Lame.
BIIGtony it does take glock mags though.
I can live with a single-shot, but no suppressor? Screw that.
It is full auto it just has one bullet in the mag...
UK also used the A1 up to the 60s, and I was actually trained on them as a cadet! The rocket motor had to burn in the length of the tube and there were strict temperature limits for use as in very cold weather the rocket motor would still be burning as it left the tube. The velocity was not great and the weight change was significant as the rocket fired. You had to brace your hand on the front of the guard to stop the tube dipping as the rocket went over your shoulder. As I recall, the fuze worked by inertia not not by a crush switch, hence there was a slight delay on impact and a tendency to bounce if the impact was much off normal.. I seem to recall there was a WP smoke rocket in addition to the HEAT one!
Having used a modern equivalent there are a few things I really quite like about this. The firing mechanism is simpler while also being reliable. There is an overall robust look to it. The lack of a spotting rifle would however have made first round hits some what difficult. Same overall designed role though. Never ever stand behind one of these types of weapons when it is being fired. The shock wave is the least of your worries once past 25 meters. It will kill you and injure the gunner and a-gunner if you are directly behind it inside of 3-4 meters. Past that it will still probably kill you from the blast alone out to about 10 meters. 10- meters and over shrapnel becomes the primary concern. These throw debris like crazy. Pebbles, sticks, small rocks etc are propelled at very high speed by the blast. The back blast cone is quite dangerous. Not to be trifled with.
There is a TV show from the 1950's called "The Big Picture" where Captain Carl Zimmerman interviews a soldier who was on the ground in Korea using these. The soldier said at the beginning they were issued WWII style bazookas and they were really happy when the super bazookas started to show up. They used them to great effect.
I can just imagine the situation on the battlefield... "Oh shit, here's Jim with his Bazooka again... run!"
"Remarkably Pissed Off".
My new favourite way of being pissed off.
"[...] if you happen to have a basement full of 3.5 inch bazooka rockets [...]", that made my laugh:)
Ian, could you please do a talk on the M67A1 90mm Recoilless Rifle. If you had already, I've stupidly missed that presentation over the years. I got to 'train' on the M67 as the platoon medic in the company weapons platoon, our PltSgt wanted every member to be familiar with every weapon in the platoon. This was in the 193rd Inf Brg in 1975-1977.
"Clear Backblast!" is a great thing to shout Before you fire this
I learned how to fix them and also taught troops how they work. Fun weapon and deadly on tanks.
Look out squirrels!
:- ]
Strohmann That would turn those little critters into liquid...
Yeah it would my 8mm does a good job of that to
Watch out trees
The hole cut in the side was patched and looks so good! This weapon is so iconic and so cool!
as a former 0351 anti-tank assaultmen in the marine corps i tell you it's completely true that an entire battle line will shift to avoid a rockets back blast.
I mean, why wouldn't they? nobody wants their organs pulverized for sure!
In the UK to deactivate they would either cut a slot along most of the barrel or tube weld all the moving parts up or simply pour concrete down the barrel. It makes it easier to simply make your own firearm then trying to re-activate one. I don't think anyone has actually successfully re-activate a firearm in the UK after they made it harder.
What a great intro!
I just had to like that cause u have an ancient baby painting as ur profile pic XD
Check your back blast area and yell... "BACK BLAST AREA CLEAR!"
The way you said..
..." so if you happened to have a bunch of 3.5" anti-tank rockets in your basement..." sounded like you totally know a guy with a bunch of 3.5" anti-tank rockets in the basement.
Enjoyed the reminder of this weapon, we fired them in the 1960s during USMC infantry training, the HEAT round packs a punch. The ballistic vets we worm was more for show than protection. Always wear googles :)
a competent welder could reactivate that tube in a heartbeat.
You don't say?
No need to even weld. A sturdy pipe collar will do the trick - the pressure exerted on the walls isn't big, it is almost completely relieved via the back.
While training as a boy soldier (15) or junior leaders as we were called we trained and fired the “Rocket Launcher”
The only thing we were aware of while firing was that as the projectile moved from rear to front before exiting the tube was it dipped slightly. As long as you had it supported or aimed slightly higher if not..... it usually hit the target....... and if my memory serves me correctly our launchers were 3 piece? Tubes.
Ha ha I remember having one of these as a kid with my Action Man (G I Joe in the US)
Never knew Action man was GI joe
Lol me too!! As soon as i saw it i clicked on for just that reason!!!!
Look online for 'Mattel Sonic Blaster and Kurt Russell'. The Sonic Blaster was an imitation bazooka that was so loud that it damaged kids' hearing and was recalled.
Me too!
Still have a pretty collection. ;)
50 years ago I was in the T&AVR. We had these things and had a "Range Day" with one. The rocket weighed about 25lbs and, when loaded into the end of the tube, you really had to pull down to keep the tube on target. The fun started, for me anyway, when fired, as the 25lb + weight of the rocket moved forward and you weren't quick enough to stop pulling down so as to balance the bloody thing. Luckily we were only firing sand filled projectiles, as the round hit the ground just in front of our firing position. Hence the "0 to 450 yards" range.!!! When we finally got to fire live rounds, the resulting "bang" on the old Tanks used as targets was, to say the least, "satisfying".!!
Bazooka 2: super boogaloo
My neighbors Father had one of these with a blast shield for the gunner. He was a collector and had an M1919 too. Never let us touch the damn things.
Home defence in Texas
Nawh, we use 'em for hogs...
Slope tank Armor works on the fact that the projectile isnt making a stright 90 degree angle into the armor, with sloped armor the metal is pyut on a angle as t oavoid direct 90degree hits, thus increasing the chances of the round bouncing off due to the acute angle of entry ,
I have never read any where that Sloped Armor works on the basis that the path is longer than non sloped....as mentioned at@4:00
A weapon to surpass Metal Gear.
"Weight to awesomeness ratio" This is gold, I literally laughed out loud :D
But how do you deactivate a Bazinga?
Marky cancel the show ?
Bazoinkz
You add bad writing and a cheesy laugh track
Borjonkles!
Gadzooks
Reminds me of making homemade bazookas as a kid with PVC pipe and model rocket engines and potato guns of course!!!
"And a hole the size of the bore diameter"
As I look at the screen... "And so the lord placed his hands on the sick man, and his wounds were healed..."
Dawwwwwww 😍😍 Look at the cute puppy!! 🐶🐶 @15:39
Did I miss it, or did you never talk about the name "Bazooka" at the end?
I was in a high school ROTC unit in the late 60's. (Actually, NDCC -- National Defense Cadet Corps -- but the cool kids still called us Rotcees.) and we had one of those in the arms room for training. It wasn't deactivated, but of course we didn't have and couldn't get ammunition for it.
Fired the 3.2 during infantry training at Camp Gieger during ITR 1961. All kinds of crap blown back into your face when fired, will never forget that blast.....Also was taught the first WWII were 2.8 later stepped up to 3.2 and then 3.5 even later on
flypaper2222 I way in A.I.T in 1961,but I have not heard of “I.T.R. ?,
I remember these. I actually fired one in ITR and made tools to repair them. The last one I seen was in the early 70’s I believe.
Why deactivate it when I'm sure the actual munitions for it are just as scarce if not more so than the launcher?
Im sure if someone wanted to bad enough they could make some.
Crazy how such a simple weapon has so much care and thought put into it. I guess that's part of the reason it is so famous.
Can I use this for concealed carry?
Just take it apart and put it in your backpack:
www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2011/01/giant-backpack09-1294528363.jpg
Whenever i make it to the end of a Forgotten Weapons video and Ian says, "Thanks for watching" I always reply back, "Oh no, no, no Ian. Thank YOU, for presenting and making these videos in the first place!"
Oh no the 30-06 chauchat isn't there anymore..... that means it's been on the table in front of a camera right!?!? Lol I hope so
We had these in 1968 at the 82 ABN. When taken down (collapsed) they looked like the gunner was carrying a tuba. LAW had superseded the 3.5 by then.
"some of the rocket launchers that will be sold"
*ANCAP MUSIC GETS VERY LOUD*
There was also an M20 A1 UK that was a British license built version. It used the original latch mechanism and had a different optical sight reticule. Used throughout the 50s until replaced with the Carl Gustav in 1964.
so the only thing that makes it "deactivated" is a bar and a thin plate whats stopping someone just cutting that bar out and welding a much stronger plate to the side
Well...No one can stop you from doing anything illegal until you do it...
I guess the same thing that stops them from buying functioning destructive devices illegally on the black market: the law. The fun of firing your own rocket launcher just isn't quite worth the potential jail time for most people.
Frankly "deactivating" rocket launchers is a waste of time, and simply a political gesture. The "weapon" is the rocket, not the launcher! You can launch a rocket off anything, including the back of a rather startled donkey as done by the Taliban with Chinese 107 rockets in Afghan!
needs a piece of sheet metal and a welder. got both of those in my basement
Honestly the sheet metal doesn't really matter as long as it doesn't impede the rocket. These aren't bottle rockets. All the momentum comes from an explosive charge in the base of the round. No major sustained pressure in the tube. Although there is a sharp spike to deal with though. Diminishing quite rapidly the further up the tube you go.
Thank you, utterly fascinating and informative.
The Bazooka (musical instrument) it was named after th-cam.com/video/5YjXFOV6Nwk/w-d-xo.html
Fact of the day: This channel is awesome!