When I first arrived in Vietnam I was a loader. When underfire and no matter where you were at, the loader jumped out of one of the two doors (L) of the pig and emptied and loaded the tubes manually. Yes, I was scared to death everytime I did it. I could hear small arms rounds passing by me. I was a lucky loader. I never was hit.
It was good to see the Ontos in action again. I served with 1st Anti-Tank Battalion from July 1963 to March 1965 at Camp Pendleton. I was transferred out of the battalion just one month before they shipped out to Vietnam. Roy Mark Sergeant, USMC 1963 - 1967
I shipped out to Vietnam in August 1965 with 2/1. I was in the Ontos Platoon. We actually dismounted during operation Harvest Moon and served as an ad-hoc Grunt Platoon.
There were not large numbers of Ontos in Vietnam. Only Three platoons and 5 Ontos to a platoon. In a platoon you had a Light Section (two Ontos) and in a Heavy Section (Three Ontos). At one point there were two platoons of Ontos 1st AT's and 3rd AT's but 3rd AT's were sent back to the States in 1967. 1st AT's remained in Vietnam until July 1969 before they were sent home.
Landed in Nam in April 1965 at HUE, 3rd AT C company 3rd plt. as the plt mech,some times driver,loader, spent almost two years there, got out of there in Jan. 1967.Hit a mine on June 16, 65.. lost a eardrum. you can tell a Ontos crewmen they called Ontos "Pigs"!
Wish we God we have hundreds+ more of them both THEN & NOW (upgraded versions of course), lighter faster better armed & better armored with better more powerful engines. Same for the US Army who needed them badly then & more so since (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s onwards). Now would be a GREAT time for a rebirth of the legendary All American ONTOS
The ONTOS ( thing) really proved its worth in Hue during Tet’68. That little Thing (ONTOS) was fierce-some deliverer of death and destruction upon the NVA. Truly a “Six-gun Slinger”.
@IonoTheFanatics Conventional cannons are a lot heavier than recoilless rifles. They also cannot be fired from light vehicles without having their recoil reduced, which would consequently lower the amount of force imparted onto the projectile and thus partially negate the superior range that they would normally have over recoilless rifles. The M40 106mm RR could even be fired from a HMMWV. The ease of use and large quantity would far outweigh any logistical problems it might have.
I'll tell you from experience, I was scared everytime. I know this may sound stupid to you, but as a Marine you learn to do what you have to do no matter what. Your life, your crews life and others lives depended on you doing your job.
@IonoTheFanatics The M2A3 Bradley's weight exceeds the 60,000 lb LVADS limit when fully combat loaded. And weight isn't the only issue, there's size as well: several vehicles the size of a Wiesel AWC could fit inside a single C130, allowing more to be deployed at one time. Even if you disregard the air-mechanized capabilities of such a platform, it could be issued to light infantry units to provide an extra bit of firepower whereas IFVs would prove to be too costly and few in number.
@IonoTheFanatics The Wiesel 2 has a troop-carrying module that can hold four fully equipped soldiers. If you have two or three of these, you can mechanize an entire squad while still retaining decent firepower by mounting small auto-cannons like the ASP-30 on them, as well as ATGMs, which would allow them to engage armor. Because they can be inserted behind enemy lines via airlift, they can strike weak points not protected by heavy units, and retreat through closed terrain if they encounter any.
@Alex98714 Another issue also arises if we assume that we issue the AWC to the troops that are air dropped, as i mentioned above, dropping is one thing, getting them back is another. Troops that normally do not have ground vehicle with them can be transported in, and out (especially with the V-22s starting to prove their worth) very quickly since we have a variety of fast air troop transport. Vehicles add extra problem to that since they cannot be inserted or pulled out quickly.
@Alex98714 True, but the problem with the recoilless rifle as a primary armament of a vehicle is that frankly it's role in the modern battlefield is too limited to justify it as a primary weapon of a vehicle. It's effective range against mobile target is pitifully short considering it's projectile speed and accuracy (we could try add guidance to it, but that turns it into an expensive mini missile which then begs the question why not just use a missile)
@Alex98714 yeah, and that's one of the problem with MGS, other countries version of it seems to have a better performance (Centauro in particular seems to have a rather impressive record so far in their use though it is slightly larger) That said, it's 18 105mm NATO shells,18 tank shells effectively, similar to the ones we used on the previous abrams So it's effective as both fire support, and anti tank and can utilize 105mm shells shared with other NATO members simplifying logistic
@IonoTheFanatics While it's true that the advent of the infantry fighting vehicle has provided a great deal of firepower to infantry units, its lack of strategic and operational deployability has hindered its ability to get to the fight in time. The Ontos' light weight and small size on the other hand, could enable it to be more easily transportable via air assets, and once on the ground, could maneuver through closed terrain and dominate light infantry.
@IonoTheFanatics A grenade machinegun is fine for close range, the only problem with it though is that it cannot quickly knock down thick walls like a recoilless rifle can. It's also much less suitable for taking out armor. The Swedish 106 3A round compatible with the M40 RR has an effective range of 2,000m and can penetrate 400mm of RHA, allowing it to successfully engage medium armor if its user decides to ambush it through closed terrain to negate the superior range of it's autocannon.
@IonoTheFanatics While aerial infiltration and exfiltration of vehicles would prove to be a long, drawn-out period of extreme vulnerability for both the helicopters and the units on the ground, I feel that the addition of tankettes to air mobile units would have potential within an operation setting.
With todays' modern technologies, updated armor, and an auto loader magazine system this would be the ultimate beast over the big and bulky M1 Abrams and Stryker AFV. The ultimate compact self propelled anti-tank weapons system! Err shall I say... ultimate anti-everything system! I love the Ontos! Small but mean!
@Alex98714 with the 60K LVADS you can, prior to that yes our LVADS can't airdrop such weight (so we had to resort to things like sheridan) but with the 60K LVADS this is no longer beyond our capability.
@IonoTheFanatics Even if a vehicle like the Ontos would become redundant when accompanying IFVs, its ultra-light weight and small-size would allow it to be deployed with Airborne or heli-borne forces. Most IFVs couldn't do that, with the exception of a few like the BMD. Considering that a tankette similar to the Ontos or Wiesel would weigh under 10 tons, it would mean that it could be more easily adapted for air-drop than a vehicle like the M113 could.
i think you can say the same for all counties' modern main battle tanks... ones that fire kinetic sabot rounds at any rate... but if you could fire a kinetic energy round from one of these rifles, and have it mounted on a very light, fast vehicle you have the makings of a pretty fierce and relatively cheap tank killer... on the other hand this vehicle would be utter fodder for any of the gunships you mentioned...
@Alex98714 true, and i considered the merit of that as well when i mentioned that a tracked MGS is a more likely outcome. But there's one more problem i also notice with that idea. Some US troops currently on the field right now that are deployed via air insertion etc, often egress out in the same manner. They are very mobile indeed, air dropped in, air support blast anything they can't take out, then chopper ferry them out. Fast in and out. Vehicle however add the difficulty to egress out.
@frackcha at the cost of adding weight and size to the recoilless rifle itself unfortunately. one of the main advantage of recoilless rifle is that they are very light and simple comparatively to cannons. if you add autoloader mechanism to it chances are it will pretty much approaches the weight of a gun, which then brings to question of why not just mount a low velocity gun to it then instead of recoilless rifle.
@Alex98714 again, that pits Ontos in the same role and overall function as the lightweight mobile AFV like Stryker, or Piranha or BTR-90. And if small size and firepower is all that is needed, then armored weapon carriers like Wiesel would be more sensible choice given it can carry IFV weaponry and can be fitted with weapons suited to whatever the situation on the frontlines demand.
@Alex98714 and actually, iirc they didn't use low recoil version of the 105mm on MGS, that's actually the MAIN PROBLEM with it, the recoil and overpressure was so massive it took them ages to sort out at exorbitant cost because to no one's surprise the gun wasn't designed to be fired on light vehicle like MGS without causing damage to the vehicle itself. So the MGS is using a full power 105mm tank gun (unlike other countries version).
@Alex98714 technically even 'heavier force' like tank battalion or armor regiment do not take that long to be deployed IF necessary by using airlift capability. They are expensive of course so unless critical or time dependent, other more economical transportation would be preferable. And ironically what you are stating is precisely what the stryker brigade combat team is supposed to fill in, now we can argue whether stryker is doing this or not, but the goal is EXACTLY as you stated.
@Alex98714 All of that is true, but with the modern cannon being highly accurate and today's battlefield where collateral damage is becoming more and more difficult to justify given the low intensity combat we fight, lack of range and accuracy is no longer justifiable. Under the same role you describe for instance, we have the Stryker MGS, and all modern IFV (something vietnam didn't quite have) have firepower generally sufficient to support the troops.
@IonoTheFanatics And if you want to know, the M50 Ontos can fire a wide selection of ammunition that can well exceed the RPG-7's range, such as the M346A1 HE-P which has an effective range of 6,870 meters. The argument about trying to minimize collateral damage sounds kind of silly too, considering that the Coalition loves dropping bombs from planes thousands of feet from the air.
@IonoTheFanatics Wiesels can be transited through an operational sector by helicopter, to and from. While such a vehicle could not be easily and quickly recovered by air when deployed strategically, it can be deployed as part of a rapid reaction force that can respond to quickly emerging situations across the globe, and stay on the ground for prolongued periods of time until heavier forces arrive months later.
Battle of Hue...during the Tet Offensive. Khe San was just heating up...NVA wanted another Dien Bien Phu...got an enormous dose of B-52 hot foot instead!
@Alex98714 beyond RPGs (not AT missiles though, as israel experienced themselves with Kornet), but not beyond the munitions that the current IFV and AFV, wheeled or tracked carry So we're back to the previous problem, where does the Ontos enter when variants of IFV and AFV fill nearly every role and function already? Light weight fire support? We got plenty of that, wheeled or tracked, take your pick. Anti tank? same. Hell some even can be converted on depot from one function to another.
@IonoTheFanatics Lack of range and accuracy doesn't matter as much because the Ontos would've been used primarily for infantry fire support, not anti-armor roles. Most guided missiles are just as large, if not larger, than recoilless rifle rounds. They're also a lot more expensive. And air support is not always available to small infantry units. The Ontos was favored well in Vietnam.
@IonoTheFanatics Most IFVs can't stand up to the RPG-7 or other AT shoulder-fired weapons without applique armor, and by the time they're engaged, they're no longer able to utilize most of their superior firing range. The fact that the M50 Ontos or an Ontos-like vehicle has a low cost and is easier to maintain than most IFVs today would mean that is able to be fielded on a much wider scale and can therefore accompany more infantry units.
@Alex98714 But if you have a stationary target and you have a clear line of sight up to it over 5km and you totally can ignore collateral damage and you somehow cannot use any fire support assets such as artillery or air support, then you might as well use the Stryker MGS already in service which would place the rounds on the target much more accurately not to mention it can fire ALL existing 105mm NATO standard munition shells.
@Alex98714 fact is: if the Ontos closed in to effective range of the recoilles rifle, he also enters the effective range of most RPGs and AT missiles (which as Israel can attest to are not uncommon even from guerrillas) and like Stryker, it's survivability is questionable. if the target is something that cannot retaliate to light vehicles, then current wheeled AFV would decimate them anyway combined with the infantry supporting it, so where does Ontos enter the field here?
@Alex98714 that's a valid concern, but if so then why not just use the lighter tracked IFV? Out of the various variants of IFV out there on the world, many are very light in their base variant, not to mention that IF necessary they can be up armored quickly with applique armor. The conditions you are setting for Ontos viability is incredibly niche, it's somewhere the IFV can't be transported to (and since some IFV are very light this is questionable), and where other support are not available.
@IonoTheFanatics An Ontos-like vehicle would be a hell of a lot cheaper than an IFV, even a light one like a BMD-3 or up-gunned M113, and could even supplement them with a purely fire-support role, instead of having to worry about transporting infantry. The point you make about the existence of light IFVs is a good one; one that I admittedly forgot. But I'm not saying to completely discard the idea of light IFVs, I'm saying to supplement it, with a dedicated HE-chucker like the Ontos or Wiesel.
@Alex98714 cheaper in terms of single unit material cost perhaps, but not in terms of overall procurement because unless you take existing chassis as the base then you effectively have to build one from scratch. This makes it very difficult to justify it's cost since it would need a separate assembly compared to IFV and AFV which are highly modular and with good interchangeable parts.
@plainlake I'm really not up on modern weapons systems, but I would think not. The Ontos had very little armor protection; small arms fire could penetrate the sides and back. In today's conflicts it might be considered more of an armored coffin.
@Alex98714 Dropping the vehicle is relatively simple enough (hell you could even drop our bradley in that manner). But ferrying them out is a whole new ball. Every extra time you spend on the ground while preparing for the vehicle extraction is an extra time hazardous for the aircraft given how far forward the troops that are dropped in such manner operates. This assumes the aircraft can land or maintain their position long enough for it, we lost one of our chinook in this manner before iirc.
@Alex98714 similarly most modern armies have the equivalent for it, the russian been equipping some of their IFV and APC even, tracked or wheeled, with massive firepower the equivalent of the older era tank. Other countries usually also have wheeled AFVs equipped with heavy firepower either in anti tank role (like the TOW equipped Stryker) or in fire support role (like Stryker MGS). These vehicles are often light, and very fast, so given their proliferation i don't see where Ontos can enter.
@IonoTheFanatics If we hadn't wasted our money on the Stryker, we could've afforded to procure a vehicle like the Ontos or Wiesel, and outfit our infantry units with newly built/upgraded M113s to provide the mobility that the Stryker only half-assedly did.
@Alex98714 That's true, just remember though that if you are only dropping AWC like wiesel then the troops have no transport essentially so while it may be useful compared to troops with no ground vehicle, it certainly does not work better than with an IFV. Nor can AWC like wiesel withstand anything bigger than small arms, considering the kind of ordnance faced on the field, sending them without larger vehicle puts a rather obvious target sign on them.
@Alex98714 guided bombs that is, if you notice they have more and more difficulty using any sort of unguided heavy ordnance in recent wars... part of the reason why the cost for munitions from operations lately is sky high, the Libyan air strikes for instance were incredibly expensive. and M346A1 HE-P range of 6.8km is Maximum range, given recoil less rifle accuracy, this is effectively impossible to achieve in combat without luck, except against stationary target.
@IonoTheFanatics Again, trying to pluck vehicles off from a distance isn't as important because a vehicle employing a recoilless rifle would most likely be operating in closed terrain (cities, jungles, and even in adverse weather conditions) where range doesn't matter as much. For longer distances, yeah, a convention cannon would be ideal.
@IonoTheFanatics "part of the reason why the cost for munitions from operations lately is sky high, the Libyan air strikes for instance were incredibly expensive." Exactly, which is why we need to have heavy firepower organic to infantry on the ground (in this case, a light, tracked, HE-chucker). "and M346A1 HE-P range of 6.8km is Maximum range" There are still many other types of ammunition that have an effective range far beyond that of most unguided, hand-held AT weapons. My point stands.
@Alex98714 which would then bring it smack right into conflict with existing mobile AFV like Stryker family vehicles which are also designed with light weight, mobility, and deployability in mind... and then of course we found out that they are susceptible to RPGs and IEDs in low intensity conflict, and did nothing of the sort like 'dominating light infantry' because RPGs so common these days. Either way though, there are other vehicles already doing that job you described to the T.
@Alex98714 one or the other actually, the wiesel/wiesel2 being as small as they are cannot mount the autocannon with troop compartments, so you choose either in APC form or in fire support, but hmmm yeah i do see their value indeed, that's certainly much more useful and flexible than Ontos. It would still need a rework on their extraction plan though. We can't exactly just call in the V-22 or UH-60 to extract the squad out of the combat zone at full speed, and certainly not from a hot LZ.
@Alex98714 while i do have my own criticism on Stryker family vehicles, i do not believe Ontos or Wiesel make a better alternative for fire support in the conflict the US have faced so far, nor does the M113 even upgraded to current standard to be sufficient. Plus, if we are to use Ontos/Wiesel for fire support, and an M113 to carry the troops then why not just use the Bradley since carrying the 2 vehicles are not going to save time or space compared to carrying 1 bradley that does both
@Alex98714 Yeah that's true, though our troops are using the LAW and SMAW for that among other things iirc, which incidentally also brought me to thinking whether close range anti armor function is as useful with javelins and AT-4 among the troops inventory, considering javelin has about as much effective range. The best angle i can see coming for the recoilless rifle would be the cost, since Javelin for example are not cheap, but i highly doubt that's enough to sway anyone in charge.
@IonoTheFanatics I was just about to get to the Wiesel Armored Weapons Carrier - I think it would be an excellent choice, even more so than the Ontos. Unfortunately, the part about the Stryker, Piranha, and BTR-90 is bullshit, precisely because of the fact that they're wheeled. Wheeled vehicles generally have poorer performance off-road than their tracked counterparts, which can become very problematic if they intend to keep pace with infantry in closed terrain.
@Alex98714 and incidentally, the Libyan example is something that Ontos CANNOT solve because the whole point why it was so expensive is since that's ALL the NATO can do in Libya ie: air support. In case you did not notice, we couldn't deploy any sizable ground assets there (and for a good reason too), troops or vehicles. Ontos, wouldn't help AT ALL in that case.
@MrFreebeans manually, the crew basically go out and reload each recoilless rifle ONE by ONE using the ammunition stored in the vehicle like the recoilless rifle mounted on jeep. it's part of the difficulty in justifying the use of it in modern vehicle. It should be possible to design some form of auto loader for it... but not likely for all 6, that would make the size and weight prohibitive and defeat the original design of light vehicle. And if so, might as well use modern tank gun.
i think it would work. with the aiming technology we have now with the firing capabilities of the ontos, it could be a very scary vehicle to come up against even more than it was already. imagine one comes up and shoots at the target, adjusts for the shot and fires again within like 1-2 seconds. or it could be like a sort of field artillery platform. it already has 6 shots that are easy to reload, and if you could angle them with help of an aiming computer and an ammo truck you have a lot of bang with minimal resources.
@@thatguybrody4819They might as well just use an ATGM carrier if firepower is what's asked as ATGM carrier frankly are far more effective against most common targets with substantially greater range than recoilless rifle that Ontos carry... Part of the main draw of recoilless rifle is that they are very simple weapon, cheap, and they are also light (relative to a cannon). The more upgrade and weight you put onto something like Ontos, the less sense it make to use it compared to just using either ATGM carrier or just using a cannon armed light vehicle where in modern days we have plenty of 8x8 or even 6x6 vehicle carrying cannon as large as 120mm tank gun with autoloader. And Ontos is not easy to reload btw, I mean, reloading a single recoilless rifle (even the larger ones) is not too bad. But reloading ALL 6 that were carried on Ontos? That's substantially harder, and not something anyone wants to do in combat given all 6 rifles are completely exposed. Aiming Ontos firepower is not the problem for modern combat scenario. The problem is that it just doesn't make much sense to use it when we have ATGM carriers (with more range and killing potential), autocannon armed vehicles (which can throw hundreds of explosive or armor piercing shells per minute and continue to do so long after Ontos have expended all 6 rifles and has to reload), or even tank cannon armed vehicles (even light vehicles these days can carry tank cannon) which have more range and more shell options than recoilless rifle as well as having more shell velocity (making them overall easier and more effective to use against mobile targets). There's only very select few situation where having 6 short ranged recoilless rifle (that can only fire once before reloading) is more beneficial than having an autoloading tank gun, or autocannon + ATGM combo, hence why most modern vehicle carry either one of the later two and very few if any at all uses multiple recoilless rifle these days.
@@IonoTheFanatics if that's the problem they could be turned into unmanned RC tanks. they are light enough and would probably be driven to the battle manually but once they get close enough they hop out and follow behind the now remote controlled tank.
@@thatguybrody4819 they could, but then that begs the question of why not just use a proper combat unmanned ground vehicle that is designed from the ground up for unmanned use. The process of turning a vehicle into a remotely controlled vehicle isn't exactly that simple (nor cheap) especially if it's meant to be actually combat capable and not just move towards a position (if the vehicle just needs to move like target drone then yeah that's relatively easy conversion, but if you actually want it to be able to fire at hostile targets as well and act the way other combatants do, that's a lot harder) There's also the problem that Ontos is frankly not that suitable as an unmanned platform because it's weapons (those recoilless rifles) are among the worst weapon an unmanned ground vehicle could be carrying since each rifle is basically a one shot weapon without a crew to reload it and devising a way to automatically reload them, defeats half the benefit of using recoilless rifle in the first place (ie: simplicity and light weight). Overall most military do not see the point of using multiple recoilless rifle, and for light vehicles... they'd rather use autocannons which can have more range with modern shells, more rate of fire, and overall FAR more versatility being able to engage anything from light vehicles, infantry or even low flying slow aircraft, and light structures. Or ATGM, which have more range, and killing potential capable of knocking out modern tanks as well as low flying helicopters. Or both, with combination of autocannon + 2 or even 4 ATGM launchers (and some of them can fire all 4 ready ATGM simultaneously to different target, without even maintaining lock on them, allowing them to immediately hide after firing and reloading their ATGM) which give such IFV both the short range volume of fire that autocannons provide while still having the reach and punch that ATGM have. Others, just straight up put tank cannon onto light vehicles, which have more range than recoilless rifles, more shell velocity, etc.. With such options available, most military would not even look at something like Ontos and bother with it and if they want an unmanned ground vehicles? They'd expect the unmanned ground vehicle to have the same weapons as the ones their IFV or tanks are carrying for the advantages mentioned above + to maintain commonality and streamlining logistic.
You cant just do that, because the kinetic energy is generated from a long heavy barrel and a powerfull cartidge. Furthermore, while the Ontos is pretty much declared useless here, people forget one thing. All that firesupport from gunships, aircraft, laser guided stuff....is EXTREMELY expensive, Costly and time consuming to make and shockfull of electronics that can fail. Deploying large numbers of small vehicles like this can mean alot more for the infantry then the costly gadgets.
@Alex98714 That's the thing though,it's the ONLY range it can realistically be effective except against stationary targets but would a vehicle that's only effective in close range (and yet highly vulnerable in close quarter itself to portable AT weapons) and have no real other role be worth it? The second question of course would be if GMG would not be sufficient for that purpose in close range. If there's something that GMG really can't handle, then it's probably missile worthy target.
@Alex98714 Since EVERY single modern army today basically have IFV, and with most troops today being mechanized infantry... the troops are often accompanied by IFV (and if they can't be accompanied by IFV then chances are nor can Ontos class vehicles), the Ontos would need to be able to justify itself against the firepower already presented by modern IFV and modern infantries. This is not vietnam era, modern mechanized infantry carry massive firepower comparably.
@Alex98714 If we adopt such vehicle, a pure fire support light tracked vehicle that is, and i can see the use of that in some situations, it is also VERY unlikely they will consider recoilless rifle as primary armaments for it like Ontos It neither have the flexibility of standard guns (like MGS or centauro 105mm), nor the accuracy and effective range. The best you can hope for is a tracked version of the MGS really because i cannot see how to justify otherwise with such limited role.
@sgtmyers88 not exactly, recoilless rifles are not exactly accurate, and it's range is ultimately not very impressive either compared to a standard cannon of the same caliber. to make matter worse, anti tank missiles are lighter and far more accurate, not to mention it has better range which more or less render recoilless rifle obsolete. for infantry support, with the presence of airpower and the accuracy of modern cannons it's very difficult to justify the Ontos recoilles rifle as well.
@Alex98714 note: if NATO deployed ground forces there it effectively will be labelled by the middle east countries as Libyan invasion, the rebels effectively will lose their credibility and downplayed as a NATO cover. Yes it doesn't prove that Ontos wouldn't be a reliable system, but it also does not provide any indications that Ontos would've helped. If we had ground troops they would've used IFV and tanks to do many of the job and it would've been cheaper indeed.
@IonoTheFanatics But the fact that NATO didn't have the balls to deploy ground forces in Libya doesn't mean that the Ontos wouldn't have proven to be a reliable system there.
im by no means an expert here, but.. the kinetic energy is surely a function of a large charge? not barrel length?? with a smaller charge a kinetic round might not have as much punch, but it will still hit, and hard..? not every foe on the field is a fully armored battle tank...
When I first arrived in Vietnam I was a loader. When underfire and no matter where you were at, the loader jumped out of one of the two doors (L) of the pig and emptied and loaded the tubes manually. Yes, I was scared to death everytime I did it. I could hear small arms rounds passing by me. I was a lucky loader. I never was hit.
Tim Tomas but there was only a commander and driver... was there?
Tim Tomas you’re lucky to tell the story
PC tips someone has to load the guns
tom_jako just like space is fake and the earth is flat.
I was in a Bn with them mounted on mules
It was good to see the Ontos in action again. I served with 1st Anti-Tank Battalion from July 1963 to March 1965 at Camp Pendleton. I was transferred out of the battalion just one month before they shipped out to Vietnam.
Roy Mark
Sergeant, USMC 1963 - 1967
I shipped out to Vietnam in August 1965 with 2/1. I was in the Ontos Platoon. We actually dismounted during operation Harvest Moon and served as an ad-hoc Grunt Platoon.
"yessir alright sir"
*FOR THE FIRST TIME THE VIETNAMESE FACE THE HOLOCAUST OF CONVENTIONAL WAR*
There were not large numbers of Ontos in Vietnam. Only Three platoons and 5 Ontos to a platoon. In a platoon you had a Light Section (two Ontos) and in a Heavy Section (Three Ontos). At one point there were two platoons of Ontos 1st AT's and 3rd AT's but 3rd AT's were sent back to the States in 1967. 1st AT's remained in Vietnam until July 1969 before they were sent home.
Landed in Nam in April 1965 at HUE, 3rd AT C company 3rd plt. as the plt mech,some times driver,loader, spent almost two years there, got out of there in Jan. 1967.Hit a mine on June 16, 65.. lost a eardrum. you can tell a Ontos crewmen they called Ontos "Pigs"!
Wish we God we have hundreds+ more of them both THEN & NOW (upgraded versions of course), lighter faster better armed & better armored with better more powerful engines. Same for the US Army who needed them badly then & more so since (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s onwards). Now would be a GREAT time for a rebirth of the legendary All American ONTOS
The ONTOS ( thing) really proved its worth in Hue during Tet’68. That little Thing (ONTOS) was fierce-some deliverer of death and destruction upon the NVA. Truly a “Six-gun Slinger”.
Amen!
Those 106s have some punch
@IonoTheFanatics Conventional cannons are a lot heavier than recoilless rifles. They also cannot be fired from light vehicles without having their recoil reduced, which would consequently lower the amount of force imparted onto the projectile and thus partially negate the superior range that they would normally have over recoilless rifles. The M40 106mm RR could even be fired from a HMMWV. The ease of use and large quantity would far outweigh any logistical problems it might have.
I'll tell you from experience, I was scared everytime. I know this may sound stupid to you, but as a Marine you learn to do what you have to do no matter what. Your life, your crews life and others lives depended on you doing your job.
Tim Tomas Semper Fi
@IonoTheFanatics The M2A3 Bradley's weight exceeds the 60,000 lb LVADS limit when fully combat loaded. And weight isn't the only issue, there's size as well: several vehicles the size of a Wiesel AWC could fit inside a single C130, allowing more to be deployed at one time.
Even if you disregard the air-mechanized capabilities of such a platform, it could be issued to light infantry units to provide an extra bit of firepower whereas IFVs would prove to be too costly and few in number.
106 was a badass weapon! On an Ontos and on a Mule.
The tactic in North vietnam was to approach the target, Fire, retreat behind cover and reload there. It worked very well actually
Applicable then & since & more so Now
@IonoTheFanatics The Wiesel 2 has a troop-carrying module that can hold four fully equipped soldiers. If you have two or three of these, you can mechanize an entire squad while still retaining decent firepower by mounting small auto-cannons like the ASP-30 on them, as well as ATGMs, which would allow them to engage armor. Because they can be inserted behind enemy lines via airlift, they can strike weak points not protected by heavy units, and retreat through closed terrain if they encounter any.
Big Ernie Cheatham directing the ontos, a real war hero.
@Alex98714 Another issue also arises if we assume that we issue the AWC to the troops that are air dropped, as i mentioned above, dropping is one thing, getting them back is another.
Troops that normally do not have ground vehicle with them can be transported in, and out (especially with the V-22s starting to prove their worth) very quickly since we have a variety of fast air troop transport. Vehicles add extra problem to that since they cannot be inserted or pulled out quickly.
@Alex98714 True, but the problem with the recoilless rifle as a primary armament of a vehicle is that frankly it's role in the modern battlefield is too limited to justify it as a primary weapon of a vehicle. It's effective range against mobile target is pitifully short considering it's projectile speed and accuracy (we could try add guidance to it, but that turns it into an expensive mini missile which then begs the question why not just use a missile)
@Alex98714 yeah, and that's one of the problem with MGS, other countries version of it seems to have a better performance (Centauro in particular seems to have a rather impressive record so far in their use though it is slightly larger)
That said, it's 18 105mm NATO shells,18 tank shells effectively, similar to the ones we used on the previous abrams
So it's effective as both fire support, and anti tank and can utilize 105mm shells shared with other NATO members simplifying logistic
@IonoTheFanatics While it's true that the advent of the infantry fighting vehicle has provided a great deal of firepower to infantry units, its lack of strategic and operational deployability has hindered its ability to get to the fight in time. The Ontos' light weight and small size on the other hand, could enable it to be more easily transportable via air assets, and once on the ground, could maneuver through closed terrain and dominate light infantry.
@IonoTheFanatics A grenade machinegun is fine for close range, the only problem with it though is that it cannot quickly knock down thick walls like a recoilless rifle can. It's also much less suitable for taking out armor. The Swedish 106 3A round compatible with the M40 RR has an effective range of 2,000m and can penetrate 400mm of RHA, allowing it to successfully engage medium armor if its user decides to ambush it through closed terrain to negate the superior range of it's autocannon.
"Destroyed DOZENS of cities in World War II" LOL
@IonoTheFanatics While aerial infiltration and exfiltration of vehicles would prove to be a long, drawn-out period of extreme vulnerability for both the helicopters and the units on the ground, I feel that the addition of tankettes to air mobile units would have potential within an operation setting.
With todays' modern technologies, updated armor, and an auto loader magazine system this would be the ultimate beast over the big and bulky M1 Abrams and Stryker AFV. The ultimate compact self propelled anti-tank weapons system! Err shall I say... ultimate anti-everything system! I love the Ontos! Small but mean!
We need to resurrect it & upgrade it ASAP, for both USMC & Army
@Alex98714 with the 60K LVADS you can, prior to that yes our LVADS can't airdrop such weight (so we had to resort to things like sheridan) but with the 60K LVADS this is no longer beyond our capability.
Not Slaughter. It was Gartland and the driver was Spaulding.
@IonoTheFanatics Lol, you can't air-drop a Bradley.
@IonoTheFanatics Even if a vehicle like the Ontos would become redundant when accompanying IFVs, its ultra-light weight and small-size would allow it to be deployed with Airborne or heli-borne forces. Most IFVs couldn't do that, with the exception of a few like the BMD. Considering that a tankette similar to the Ontos or Wiesel would weigh under 10 tons, it would mean that it could be more easily adapted for air-drop than a vehicle like the M113 could.
i think you can say the same for all counties' modern main battle tanks... ones that fire kinetic sabot rounds at any rate... but if you could fire a kinetic energy round from one of these rifles, and have it mounted on a very light, fast vehicle you have the makings of a pretty fierce and relatively cheap tank killer... on the other hand this vehicle would be utter fodder for any of the gunships you mentioned...
@Alex98714 true, and i considered the merit of that as well when i mentioned that a tracked MGS is a more likely outcome.
But there's one more problem i also notice with that idea.
Some US troops currently on the field right now that are deployed via air insertion etc, often egress out in the same manner. They are very mobile indeed, air dropped in, air support blast anything they can't take out, then chopper ferry them out. Fast in and out.
Vehicle however add the difficulty to egress out.
@frackcha at the cost of adding weight and size to the recoilless rifle itself unfortunately.
one of the main advantage of recoilless rifle is that they are very light and simple comparatively to cannons.
if you add autoloader mechanism to it chances are it will pretty much approaches the weight of a gun, which then brings to question of why not just mount a low velocity gun to it then instead of recoilless rifle.
A good fire support platform
@Alex98714 again, that pits Ontos in the same role and overall function as the lightweight mobile AFV like Stryker, or Piranha or BTR-90.
And if small size and firepower is all that is needed, then armored weapon carriers like Wiesel would be more sensible choice given it can carry IFV weaponry and can be fitted with weapons suited to whatever the situation on the frontlines demand.
@Alex98714 and actually, iirc they didn't use low recoil version of the 105mm on MGS, that's actually the MAIN PROBLEM with it, the recoil and overpressure was so massive it took them ages to sort out at exorbitant cost because to no one's surprise the gun wasn't designed to be fired on light vehicle like MGS without causing damage to the vehicle itself.
So the MGS is using a full power 105mm tank gun (unlike other countries version).
When the mini Battleship pulls up and broadsides your postion with enough Flechettes to nail a 2 story home together
@Alex98714 technically even 'heavier force' like tank battalion or armor regiment do not take that long to be deployed IF necessary by using airlift capability. They are expensive of course so unless critical or time dependent, other more economical transportation would be preferable.
And ironically what you are stating is precisely what the stryker brigade combat team is supposed to fill in, now we can argue whether stryker is doing this or not, but the goal is EXACTLY as you stated.
Gartland must have rotated shortly after Hue, I just don't remember him, however I do remember George. I arrived in country in January.
@Alex98714 All of that is true, but with the modern cannon being highly accurate and today's battlefield where collateral damage is becoming more and more difficult to justify given the low intensity combat we fight, lack of range and accuracy is no longer justifiable.
Under the same role you describe for instance, we have the Stryker MGS, and all modern IFV (something vietnam didn't quite have) have firepower generally sufficient to support the troops.
@IonoTheFanatics And if you want to know, the M50 Ontos can fire a wide selection of ammunition that can well exceed the RPG-7's range, such as the M346A1 HE-P which has an effective range of 6,870 meters. The argument about trying to minimize collateral damage sounds kind of silly too, considering that the Coalition loves dropping bombs from planes thousands of feet from the air.
@IonoTheFanatics Wiesels can be transited through an operational sector by helicopter, to and from. While such a vehicle could not be easily and quickly recovered by air when deployed strategically, it can be deployed as part of a rapid reaction force that can respond to quickly emerging situations across the globe, and stay on the ground for prolongued periods of time until heavier forces arrive months later.
Battle of Hue...during the Tet Offensive. Khe San was just heating up...NVA wanted another Dien Bien Phu...got an enormous dose of B-52 hot foot instead!
@Alex98714 beyond RPGs (not AT missiles though, as israel experienced themselves with Kornet), but not beyond the munitions that the current IFV and AFV, wheeled or tracked carry
So we're back to the previous problem, where does the Ontos enter when variants of IFV and AFV fill nearly every role and function already?
Light weight fire support? We got plenty of that, wheeled or tracked, take your pick. Anti tank? same. Hell some even can be converted on depot from one function to another.
@IonoTheFanatics Lack of range and accuracy doesn't matter as much because the Ontos would've been used primarily for infantry fire support, not anti-armor roles. Most guided missiles are just as large, if not larger, than recoilless rifle rounds. They're also a lot more expensive. And air support is not always available to small infantry units.
The Ontos was favored well in Vietnam.
@IonoTheFanatics interesting.. but wouldn't having an auto loader negate the need for 6 barrels?
@coastalsea
Do you think something like that could be used in current conflicts?
@IonoTheFanatics Most IFVs can't stand up to the RPG-7 or other AT shoulder-fired weapons without applique armor, and by the time they're engaged, they're no longer able to utilize most of their superior firing range.
The fact that the M50 Ontos or an Ontos-like vehicle has a low cost and is easier to maintain than most IFVs today would mean that is able to be fielded on a much wider scale and can therefore accompany more infantry units.
@Alex98714 But if you have a stationary target and you have a clear line of sight up to it over 5km and you totally can ignore collateral damage and you somehow cannot use any fire support assets such as artillery or air support, then you might as well use the Stryker MGS already in service which would place the rounds on the target much more accurately not to mention it can fire ALL existing 105mm NATO standard munition shells.
@Alex98714 fact is: if the Ontos closed in to effective range of the recoilles rifle, he also enters the effective range of most RPGs and AT missiles (which as Israel can attest to are not uncommon even from guerrillas) and like Stryker, it's survivability is questionable.
if the target is something that cannot retaliate to light vehicles, then current wheeled AFV would decimate them anyway combined with the infantry supporting it, so where does Ontos enter the field here?
@Alex98714 that's a valid concern, but if so then why not just use the lighter tracked IFV?
Out of the various variants of IFV out there on the world, many are very light in their base variant, not to mention that IF necessary they can be up armored quickly with applique armor.
The conditions you are setting for Ontos viability is incredibly niche, it's somewhere the IFV can't be transported to (and since some IFV are very light this is questionable), and where other support are not available.
@IonoTheFanatics An Ontos-like vehicle would be a hell of a lot cheaper than an IFV, even a light one like a BMD-3 or up-gunned M113, and could even supplement them with a purely fire-support role, instead of having to worry about transporting infantry.
The point you make about the existence of light IFVs is a good one; one that I admittedly forgot. But I'm not saying to completely discard the idea of light IFVs, I'm saying to supplement it, with a dedicated HE-chucker like the Ontos or Wiesel.
@Alex98714 cheaper in terms of single unit material cost perhaps, but not in terms of overall procurement because unless you take existing chassis as the base then you effectively have to build one from scratch. This makes it very difficult to justify it's cost since it would need a separate assembly compared to IFV and AFV which are highly modular and with good interchangeable parts.
m40 is good for urban as infantry support, and any apc kill cheap,efficent and deadly, if list some new ammo, it could be wonder
@plainlake
I'm really not up on modern weapons systems, but I would think not. The Ontos had very little armor protection; small arms fire could penetrate the sides and back. In today's conflicts it might be considered more of an armored coffin.
@Alex98714 Dropping the vehicle is relatively simple enough (hell you could even drop our bradley in that manner). But ferrying them out is a whole new ball.
Every extra time you spend on the ground while preparing for the vehicle extraction is an extra time hazardous for the aircraft given how far forward the troops that are dropped in such manner operates. This assumes the aircraft can land or maintain their position long enough for it, we lost one of our chinook in this manner before iirc.
@Alex98714 similarly most modern armies have the equivalent for it, the russian been equipping some of their IFV and APC even, tracked or wheeled, with massive firepower the equivalent of the older era tank. Other countries usually also have wheeled AFVs equipped with heavy firepower either in anti tank role (like the TOW equipped Stryker) or in fire support role (like Stryker MGS).
These vehicles are often light, and very fast, so given their proliferation i don't see where Ontos can enter.
@IonoTheFanatics If we hadn't wasted our money on the Stryker, we could've afforded to procure a vehicle like the Ontos or Wiesel, and outfit our infantry units with newly built/upgraded M113s to provide the mobility that the Stryker only half-assedly did.
@Alex98714 That's true, just remember though that if you are only dropping AWC like wiesel then the troops have no transport essentially so while it may be useful compared to troops with no ground vehicle, it certainly does not work better than with an IFV. Nor can AWC like wiesel withstand anything bigger than small arms, considering the kind of ordnance faced on the field, sending them without larger vehicle puts a rather obvious target sign on them.
@Alex98714 guided bombs that is, if you notice they have more and more difficulty using any sort of unguided heavy ordnance in recent wars... part of the reason why the cost for munitions from operations lately is sky high, the Libyan air strikes for instance were incredibly expensive.
and M346A1 HE-P range of 6.8km is Maximum range, given recoil less rifle accuracy, this is effectively impossible to achieve in combat without luck, except against stationary target.
@IonoTheFanatics Again, trying to pluck vehicles off from a distance isn't as important because a vehicle employing a recoilless rifle would most likely be operating in closed terrain (cities, jungles, and even in adverse weather conditions) where range doesn't matter as much. For longer distances, yeah, a convention cannon would be ideal.
That almost looks like Slaughter as the OC. The video is poor so I can't really tell. Do any of you 0353 know who was the OC in the flick.
Tim Tomas looks like George Spaulding.
@IonoTheFanatics "part of the reason why the cost for munitions from operations lately is sky high, the Libyan air strikes for instance were incredibly expensive."
Exactly, which is why we need to have heavy firepower organic to infantry on the ground (in this case, a light, tracked, HE-chucker).
"and M346A1 HE-P range of 6.8km is Maximum range"
There are still many other types of ammunition that have an effective range far beyond that of most unguided, hand-held AT weapons. My point stands.
@Alex98714 which would then bring it smack right into conflict with existing mobile AFV like Stryker family vehicles which are also designed with light weight, mobility, and deployability in mind...
and then of course we found out that they are susceptible to RPGs and IEDs in low intensity conflict, and did nothing of the sort like 'dominating light infantry' because RPGs so common these days.
Either way though, there are other vehicles already doing that job you described to the T.
If the barrel is short, the projectile would very quickly loose its "energy" as it leaves the barrel
@Alex98714 one or the other actually, the wiesel/wiesel2 being as small as they are cannot mount the autocannon with troop compartments, so you choose either in APC form or in fire support, but hmmm yeah i do see their value indeed, that's certainly much more useful and flexible than Ontos.
It would still need a rework on their extraction plan though. We can't exactly just call in the V-22 or UH-60 to extract the squad out of the combat zone at full speed, and certainly not from a hot LZ.
@Alex98714 while i do have my own criticism on Stryker family vehicles, i do not believe Ontos or Wiesel make a better alternative for fire support in the conflict the US have faced so far, nor does the M113 even upgraded to current standard to be sufficient.
Plus, if we are to use Ontos/Wiesel for fire support, and an M113 to carry the troops then why not just use the Bradley since carrying the 2 vehicles are not going to save time or space compared to carrying 1 bradley that does both
In Desert Storm the Iraqi army had a lot of recoiless rifles in their bunkers positions. Glad they didnt want to fight much.
POV: You are stopping talking trees
@Alex98714 Yeah that's true, though our troops are using the LAW and SMAW for that among other things iirc, which incidentally also brought me to thinking whether close range anti armor function is as useful with javelins and AT-4 among the troops inventory, considering javelin has about as much effective range.
The best angle i can see coming for the recoilless rifle would be the cost, since Javelin for example are not cheap, but i highly doubt that's enough to sway anyone in charge.
@IonoTheFanatics I was just about to get to the Wiesel Armored Weapons Carrier - I think it would be an excellent choice, even more so than the Ontos. Unfortunately, the part about the Stryker, Piranha, and BTR-90 is bullshit, precisely because of the fact that they're wheeled.
Wheeled vehicles generally have poorer performance off-road than their tracked counterparts, which can become very problematic if they intend to keep pace with infantry in closed terrain.
@Alex98714 and incidentally, the Libyan example is something that Ontos CANNOT solve because the whole point why it was so expensive is since that's ALL the NATO can do in Libya ie: air support.
In case you did not notice, we couldn't deploy any sizable ground assets there (and for a good reason too), troops or vehicles.
Ontos, wouldn't help AT ALL in that case.
@MrFreebeans manually, the crew basically go out and reload each recoilless rifle ONE by ONE using the ammunition stored in the vehicle like the recoilless rifle mounted on jeep.
it's part of the difficulty in justifying the use of it in modern vehicle.
It should be possible to design some form of auto loader for it... but not likely for all 6, that would make the size and weight prohibitive and defeat the original design of light vehicle. And if so, might as well use modern tank gun.
i think it would work. with the aiming technology we have now with the firing capabilities of the ontos, it could be a very scary vehicle to come up against even more than it was already. imagine one comes up and shoots at the target, adjusts for the shot and fires again within like 1-2 seconds. or it could be like a sort of field artillery platform. it already has 6 shots that are easy to reload, and if you could angle them with help of an aiming computer and an ammo truck you have a lot of bang with minimal resources.
@@thatguybrody4819They might as well just use an ATGM carrier if firepower is what's asked as ATGM carrier frankly are far more effective against most common targets with substantially greater range than recoilless rifle that Ontos carry...
Part of the main draw of recoilless rifle is that they are very simple weapon, cheap, and they are also light (relative to a cannon).
The more upgrade and weight you put onto something like Ontos, the less sense it make to use it compared to just using either ATGM carrier or just using a cannon armed light vehicle where in modern days we have plenty of 8x8 or even 6x6 vehicle carrying cannon as large as 120mm tank gun with autoloader.
And Ontos is not easy to reload btw, I mean, reloading a single recoilless rifle (even the larger ones) is not too bad.
But reloading ALL 6 that were carried on Ontos? That's substantially harder, and not something anyone wants to do in combat given all 6 rifles are completely exposed.
Aiming Ontos firepower is not the problem for modern combat scenario.
The problem is that it just doesn't make much sense to use it when we have ATGM carriers (with more range and killing potential),
autocannon armed vehicles (which can throw hundreds of explosive or armor piercing shells per minute and continue to do so long after Ontos have expended all 6 rifles and has to reload),
or even tank cannon armed vehicles (even light vehicles these days can carry tank cannon) which have more range and more shell options than recoilless rifle as well as having more shell velocity (making them overall easier and more effective to use against mobile targets).
There's only very select few situation where having 6 short ranged recoilless rifle (that can only fire once before reloading) is more beneficial than having an autoloading tank gun, or autocannon + ATGM combo, hence why most modern vehicle carry either one of the later two and very few if any at all uses multiple recoilless rifle these days.
@@IonoTheFanatics if that's the problem they could be turned into unmanned RC tanks. they are light enough and would probably be driven to the battle manually but once they get close enough they hop out and follow behind the now remote controlled tank.
@@thatguybrody4819 they could, but then that begs the question of why not just use a proper combat unmanned ground vehicle that is designed from the ground up for unmanned use.
The process of turning a vehicle into a remotely controlled vehicle isn't exactly that simple (nor cheap) especially if it's meant to be actually combat capable and not just move towards a position (if the vehicle just needs to move like target drone then yeah that's relatively easy conversion, but if you actually want it to be able to fire at hostile targets as well and act the way other combatants do, that's a lot harder)
There's also the problem that Ontos is frankly not that suitable as an unmanned platform because it's weapons (those recoilless rifles) are among the worst weapon an unmanned ground vehicle could be carrying since each rifle is basically a one shot weapon without a crew to reload it and devising a way to automatically reload them, defeats half the benefit of using recoilless rifle in the first place (ie: simplicity and light weight).
Overall most military do not see the point of using multiple recoilless rifle, and for light vehicles... they'd rather use autocannons which can have more range with modern shells, more rate of fire, and overall FAR more versatility being able to engage anything from light vehicles, infantry or even low flying slow aircraft, and light structures.
Or ATGM, which have more range, and killing potential capable of knocking out modern tanks as well as low flying helicopters.
Or both, with combination of autocannon + 2 or even 4 ATGM launchers (and some of them can fire all 4 ready ATGM simultaneously to different target, without even maintaining lock on them, allowing them to immediately hide after firing and reloading their ATGM) which give such IFV both the short range volume of fire that autocannons provide while still having the reach and punch that ATGM have.
Others, just straight up put tank cannon onto light vehicles, which have more range than recoilless rifles, more shell velocity, etc..
With such options available, most military would not even look at something like Ontos and bother with it and if they want an unmanned ground vehicles? They'd expect the unmanned ground vehicle to have the same weapons as the ones their IFV or tanks are carrying for the advantages mentioned above + to maintain commonality and streamlining logistic.
You cant just do that, because the kinetic energy is generated from a long heavy barrel and a powerfull cartidge.
Furthermore, while the Ontos is pretty much declared useless here, people forget one thing.
All that firesupport from gunships, aircraft, laser guided stuff....is EXTREMELY expensive, Costly and time consuming to make and shockfull of electronics that can fail. Deploying large numbers of small vehicles like this can mean alot more for the infantry then the costly gadgets.
Well, you'd rather be *next* to it, standing behind it is almost as bad as in front, it's a recoilless gun, there's a lot of backblast.
Amperzand lol true haha,just like Rambo movie where he shoots the law in the chopper with all the pows in the back lol .
@Alex98714 That's the thing though,it's the ONLY range it can realistically be effective except against stationary targets but would a vehicle that's only effective in close range (and yet highly vulnerable in close quarter itself to portable AT weapons) and have no real other role be worth it?
The second question of course would be if GMG would not be sufficient for that purpose in close range. If there's something that GMG really can't handle, then it's probably missile worthy target.
@Alex98714 Since EVERY single modern army today basically have IFV, and with most troops today being mechanized infantry... the troops are often accompanied by IFV (and if they can't be accompanied by IFV then chances are nor can Ontos class vehicles), the Ontos would need to be able to justify itself against the firepower already presented by modern IFV and modern infantries.
This is not vietnam era, modern mechanized infantry carry massive firepower comparably.
@Alex98714 If we adopt such vehicle, a pure fire support light tracked vehicle that is, and i can see the use of that in some situations, it is also VERY unlikely they will consider recoilless rifle as primary armaments for it like Ontos
It neither have the flexibility of standard guns (like MGS or centauro 105mm), nor the accuracy and effective range.
The best you can hope for is a tracked version of the MGS really because i cannot see how to justify otherwise with such limited role.
@sgtmyers88 not exactly, recoilless rifles are not exactly accurate, and it's range is ultimately not very impressive either compared to a standard cannon of the same caliber.
to make matter worse, anti tank missiles are lighter and far more accurate, not to mention it has better range which more or less render recoilless rifle obsolete.
for infantry support, with the presence of airpower and the accuracy of modern cannons it's very difficult to justify the Ontos recoilles rifle as well.
how did the ontos reload
bad-ass tank
@Alex98714 note: if NATO deployed ground forces there it effectively will be labelled by the middle east countries as Libyan invasion, the rebels effectively will lose their credibility and downplayed as a NATO cover.
Yes it doesn't prove that Ontos wouldn't be a reliable system, but it also does not provide any indications that Ontos would've helped.
If we had ground troops they would've used IFV and tanks to do many of the job and it would've been cheaper indeed.
@IonoTheFanatics But the fact that NATO didn't have the balls to deploy ground forces in Libya doesn't mean that the Ontos wouldn't have proven to be a reliable system there.
im by no means an expert here, but.. the kinetic energy is surely a function of a large charge? not barrel length?? with a smaller charge a kinetic round might not have as much punch, but it will still hit, and hard..? not every foe on the field is a fully armored battle tank...
It used heat and hesh rounds, so the kinetic energy is not longer that important
Range and accuracy is better with barrel length. Flatter trajectory the faster it goes.
holy shit they're using meters in this video?! whats going on =)
Strange thing that Ontos was.
Although it had a great place in infantry support, it must have been a bitch to have to get out and reload all 6 recoiless rifles while being shot at.
You spelled awesome wrong
I’d look to see them fired all at once
Based and redpilled
Это гуки и они на деревьях...
ok
Hue, no boubt.
@adlkdflsk Agree with you I do.