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.
British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
US M202 Incendiary Rocket Launcher with M74 Rockets - Manual
- Thread starter M8owner
- Start date
Kaptainssurplus
Active Member
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.
Here is the actual round it fired. Bad news for the occupants of the target structure......
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
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:
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.
There were two types of Incendiary rockets.
http://www.military-today.com/firearms/m202.htm
Good article that says the system is still in use and was stocked in Afghanistan.
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/us-incendiary-weapon-in-afghanistan-revealed/
Great article mentioning corroded rockets
http://www.military-today.com/firearms/m202.htm
Good article that says the system is still in use and was stocked in Afghanistan.
https://www.wired.com/2009/05/us-incendiary-weapon-in-afghanistan-revealed/
Great article mentioning corroded rockets
Last edited:
John I'd disagree with the way you state your point above. While the M202 went through a developmental phase like all munitions, I doubt that the XM-191 existed for long enough to characterize it as existing in the US inventory. I know that I've never seen one, and have never spoken to anyone that has seen one. The M202 rocket itself is extremely rare, the one that Pat shows above is one of only a handful of actual (non-BS pieces) that I've seen across the country. Stating that the US had two types makes it sound as if they were stockpiled. If you want to count minor developmental models you could probably say that the US had a couple of hundred types, going back to a dozen or so for the 2.36-inch. I would tend to discount the XM191 on this basis.
Each of the articles linked seem a bit weak. The first is written by a non-technical person that doesn't seem to know much about ordnance (LAWS? Thickened Pyrotechnic Agent?) and the second is overly emotional and relying on assumption and "failure to deny" to make their case. I personally doubt very much that the M202 was in theater in Afghanistan, the bulk of these systems were produced in the 1960s-70s and neither the motor propellant or the pyrophoric agent ages terribly well. Refitting the systems would make no sense as everything would need to be replaced. What the author failed to realize or explore was the Russian advancements (and US consequential interest) in thermobarics, well advanced beyond the M202. A little info got out on US entry into the field back around the entry into Afghanistan, then everything went quiet. That would seem like a much more likely scenario than deploying an obsolete and potentially hazardous (to the user) 30-40+ year old system.
Each of the articles linked seem a bit weak. The first is written by a non-technical person that doesn't seem to know much about ordnance (LAWS? Thickened Pyrotechnic Agent?) and the second is overly emotional and relying on assumption and "failure to deny" to make their case. I personally doubt very much that the M202 was in theater in Afghanistan, the bulk of these systems were produced in the 1960s-70s and neither the motor propellant or the pyrophoric agent ages terribly well. Refitting the systems would make no sense as everything would need to be replaced. What the author failed to realize or explore was the Russian advancements (and US consequential interest) in thermobarics, well advanced beyond the M202. A little info got out on US entry into the field back around the entry into Afghanistan, then everything went quiet. That would seem like a much more likely scenario than deploying an obsolete and potentially hazardous (to the user) 30-40+ year old system.
Thank you for interesting articles.
After consideration I realised I was wrong - the "stick effect" is possible. Rockets aren't delivered or stored separately - only in 4-rounds clips, factory loaded and sealed. So even in cause of TPA leak it couldn't start fire because it has no contact with air (a small amount of air inside the clip is unimportant). But thanks to rubber thickener it could acted as glue and stick rocket inside clip as you described.
After consideration I realised I was wrong - the "stick effect" is possible. Rockets aren't delivered or stored separately - only in 4-rounds clips, factory loaded and sealed. So even in cause of TPA leak it couldn't start fire because it has no contact with air (a small amount of air inside the clip is unimportant). But thanks to rubber thickener it could acted as glue and stick rocket inside clip as you described.
The clip was not a sealed unit. The warhead sections extend out (forward) of the clip, the motor section is enclosed in the clip. The clip is more like a magazine for a rifle, simply holding the rounds in position for firing. Pull the old clip out, insert a new clip. You can see this in the photos provided by M8 above, look at the reload clip inside its overpack, the last photo, you can see the warheads visible, with the yellow band midway (black and white) on the warhead.
Really interesting thread--THANKS to the OP for starting it and for sharing the manual. I travelled with the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board, and the safety engineers assigned would ask for certain things the minute we arrived on an installation: Copy of recent explosives safety site plan, storage location of OLDEST lot stored at that location, and location of any DODIC H110 (M74 Incendiary Rocket) stored there. The TEA munitions were considered by these engineers to be the MOST HAZARDOUS munitions items in the US inventory, and while they could not "survey" all munitions at even the smallest DoD installation, they NEVER missed checking on the TEA munitions anywhere we travelled worldwide. I don't have the accident/incident history that led them to this conclusion, but I know they would have preferred that this item be retired from service ASAP. These items could not be stored--based on Hazard Class/Division--with any other munition. I do note that my most recent Hazard Classification Guide "yellow book" is Rev 15, 1 June 2012, and DODIC H110 is still listed.
The military-today article is also by "blacktail", an alias of "Sparky"- more properly former 2nd Lt Mike Sparks, a well-known "reformer" type who hates the USMC and is pretty much an anti-source on military topics.
He's the guy who gave us the M113 "Gavin" meme and thinks the entire US military should be M113 variants. If you've ever had the misfortune to stumble across the CombatReform website....that's him.
Besides, per a DTIC paper, the XM191 used TPA, not napalm.
And yeah, the Wired article is empty alarmist fearmongering
He's the guy who gave us the M113 "Gavin" meme and thinks the entire US military should be M113 variants. If you've ever had the misfortune to stumble across the CombatReform website....that's him.
Besides, per a DTIC paper, the XM191 used TPA, not napalm.
And yeah, the Wired article is empty alarmist fearmongering
Kaptainssurplus
Active Member
Mike, do you have any info on the HE version of the M202? This is the first I have heard of the M202 using M72 HE rockets, would love any docs/literature/etc on it.