Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
  • Login:
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,244
    Images
    6
    Thanks
    376
    Thanked 908 Times in 419 Posts

    US M202 Incendiary Rocket Launcher with M74 Rockets - Manual

    I rediscovered this manual in my collection after 30 years. Here some of the interesting pages. I am willing to part with this book if anyone just has to have it.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to M8owner For This Useful Post:

    Ivashkin (31st March 2021), Joerg (31st March 2021), MINENAZ16 (31st March 2021), proditto (31st March 2021), stecol (31st March 2021), Taber10 (8th April 2021)

  3. #2
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    80
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 13 Times in 11 Posts
    Would you like some TEA with that?

  4. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    West London, UK
    Posts
    2,075
    Thanks
    157
    Thanked 201 Times in 167 Posts
    Are any of these launchers known to be owned deactivated in collections?

    It was seen used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1985 film Commando. Looking closely at the photos of that one, it looks like it could be a prop dummy.

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,244
    Images
    6
    Thanks
    376
    Thanked 908 Times in 419 Posts
    There are a few launchers in private hands in the US - very difficult to locate these.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to M8owner For This Useful Post:

    Spaceinvader (5th April 2021)

  7. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Falcon View Post
    Are any of these launchers known to be owned deactivated in collections?

    It was seen used by Arnold Schwarzenegger in the 1985 film Commando. Looking closely at the photos of that one, it looks like it could be a prop dummy.

    There are quite a few in collections. Also in commando it was a prop and it was fired backwards, as in the launcher fired from what is supposed to be the rear, not meaning the direction it was fired, which went behind her.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Kaptainssurplus For This Useful Post:

    Spaceinvader (5th April 2021)

  9. #6
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Wichita Kansas, U.S.A.
    Posts
    291
    Thanks
    788
    Thanked 367 Times in 83 Posts
    Here is the actual round it fired. Bad news for the occupants of the target structure......
    100_9207.jpg100_9206.jpg
    "Artillery Brings Dignity to What
    Would Otherwise Be Just A Brawl"

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wichitaslumlord For This Useful Post:

    M8owner (5th April 2021), MINENAZ16 (4th April 2021), Spaceinvader (5th April 2021)

  11. #7
    Ordnance Approved
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Illinois USA
    Posts
    942
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 320 Times in 170 Posts
    I have fired all 3 versions of this system, 1. the M 72 LAWs, 2. the CS rockets and of course 3. the flame TE one. All were great for effect, the system could be reloaded with a 4 rd clip, and sight wasn't too bad. But it was heavy to hump around in the field.

    Other then the system launcher they are just 66mm LAW version rockets. Why the US did not keep the flame rocket in service is beyond me
    any live or dug ordnance shown in my posts was dealt with by EOD personell

  12. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    75
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by weberoed View Post
    I have fired all 3 versions of this system, 1. the M 72 LAWs, 2. the CS rockets and of course 3. the flame TE one. All were great for effect, the system could be reloaded with a 4 rd clip, and sight wasn't too bad. But it was heavy to hump around in the field.

    Other then the system launcher they are just 66mm LAW version rockets. Why the US did not keep the flame rocket in service is beyond me
    Thank you - for me it's a new information. I have no idea that there really was 4-barrel launchers M202 with other rockets than incendiary. Only one, not very reliable source, was a small photo or drawing published in some aviation magazines at early 1980s. It shows a Quicksilver ultra-light plane in "military" configuration, with a rich arsenal of light armament exposed: machine guns, rifles, hand-grenades, rifle-grenades etc. And there was also two 4-barrel launchers, certainly M202s or very similar, described ad "anti-tank rockets". But it wasn't probably an "real" military project, only a work done by some air enthusiast.

    According to single-tube LAW-type launcher, there was probably a small production of flame thrower with incendiary rocket. I found a photo of M113 APC in and old issue of German military magazine Truppendienst from 1970s. In front of the vehicle all the weapons and equipment of infantry squad was displayed. Among of this there were some LAWs (8 or 10?) described as anti-tank rockets and two identically looking launchers (maybe in other, darker colour - the photo was b&w) described as flame throwers.

    AFAIK the small batch of some hundreds police LAW-type launcher with CS tear gas rocket was produced for Thailand I think or other East Asian country. Also this rocket was presented in one of "Dirty Harry" series action movie.
    Last edited by Speedy; 7th April 2021 at 03:25 PM.

  13. #9
    Premium Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    4,475
    Thanks
    799
    Thanked 1,284 Times in 739 Posts
    The reason for discontinuing the system that I heard, was that the Napalm rockets leaked into the launch tubes, causing the warheads to stick to the inside of the tube. You can probably imagine a rocket motor behind a leaking napalm container on a person's shoulder.
    ___HAZ/
    _____/ORD Hazardous Ordnance Recognition
    ________Saving Lives Through Education

  14. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Warsaw, Poland
    Posts
    75
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 Times in 7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by HAZORD View Post
    The reason for discontinuing the system that I heard, was that the Napalm rockets leaked into the launch tubes, causing the warheads to stick to the inside of the tube. You can probably imagine a rocket motor behind a leaking napalm container on a person's shoulder.
    I think it isn't possible. Incendiary composition called TPA (Thickened Pyrophoric Agent) was a mix of TEA (triethylaluminium) and synthetic rubber. TEA spontaneously start to burning (self-ignited) when contact with air. So the leak from the warhead would caused much more serious problem than sticking something.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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