L14A1 Carl Gustav 84mm Anti Tank

[Gil Boyd]

"Illumination only to be fired in mountainous terrain" for obvious reasons, from valley to valley so to speak, otherwise the 40 metre backblast would kill you aimed at the ground immediately behind you as you grasped the sky for elevation, well it would certainly spoil your day and uniform

[muffett.2008]

Didn't the lads bring down a chopper in the early invasion of the Falklands using Illum.?

[aussiedave]

Brings back memories, firing illumination rounds in the sand at Tin Can Bay and firing HEAT rounds at the Centurions at Singleton.

[Peter Laidler]

I don't ever remember Charlie G illum in UK service but there might have been. I often used to ponder about how high you'd have to be to get away from the ferocious blast. I know the standing on the top of a 432/113 with the venturi pointing down over the decking wasn't sufficient. Did anyone ever see the double ended breech plug/block used for the sub calibre adaptor? It incorporated a cartridge seating for a special blank that was meant to represent the back-blast noise and flash. The blast from this special blank was accentuated by the venturi shape. The problem was that we wanted it as an indoor trainer and if you fired the back-blast blank, it'd scare the xxxx out of the recruits sat at the back of the range. Mind you....... not as much as the blast and crack from the real thing used to!

I do recall in my memory banks somewhere that when Australia took some to SVN in the late 60's, the Swedes wouldn't replenish the ammo stocks so they were hurriedly resupplied from the UK stockpiles from Hong Kong. I could be wrong here.......memory and all that! Quite what they'd be used for there, heaven knows. The VC and NVA didn't have armour (until much later) or bunkers which the Charlie G was also good at breaking. It could have been for tropical trials under combat conditions which the Poms took advantage of without being seen to be breaking the conditions of the 1946 'peace' accord

[Gil Boyd]

This action and others involving an Argentinian submarine conning tower being hit show the use of the 84mm down south

Battle for Grytviken
22 Royal Marine Defenders on South Georgia
Despite news of the British Royal Marine surrender on the Falkland Islands, the far smaller Royal Marine contingent on South Georgia under the command of Lieutenant Keith Mills decided to resist Argentine attempts to take the island.
This was despite the fact that Lt Mills had far from clear orders from Britain about the level of resistance that he should offer. On the 3rd April 1982, the Argentine commander called for them to surrender by radio.
The Argentines had requested that the British assemble on the beach to surrender and set down a section of men by helicopter 40 yards from the Marines with more being set up across the bay. One of the Argentine soldiers aimed their guns at the British who immediately took up defensive positions.
The Argentines opened up and a firefight ensued. When the Argentine helicopters tried to reinforce their foothold they became the target of concentrated fire from the Royal Marines. It was severely damaged, barely making it back across the bay to do a forced landing. Another helicopter was also damaged and pulled out of the combat but a third continued to ferry troops across from the ships to the point but being a far smaller machine it could only carry a few at a time.
At this point the ARA Guerrico decided to approach to try and land more troops to reinforce their toehold. The Royal Marines delivered a hail of bullets and anti-tank weapons at the approaching ship causing severe damage to the ship and forcing it to pull back across the bay.

The troops landed on the opposite side of the bay had started working their way around the cove and through the whaling station. The Guerrico also started using her 100mm front gun on the defenders although from a safe distance this time. With all hope of withdrawal to the heights being lost and with ammunition becoming perilously low, Lt Mills decided to surrender.
He had achieved the goal of making it clear that the invasion was resisted and helped provide yet more evidence of Argentine aggression for the diplomats at home and in the United Nations.

I don't believe that any 84mm were used in PARA ILLUM roll down south, HE was the preferred option as carrying extra stuff was just not an option, and the illum was left to the 2" and 81mm mortars

[Bruce_in_Oz]

I remember the "L1A2, adapter, sub-cal" in 6.5 x 55 that was supposed to be used with a "reduced-load", indoors / short range or a "full-strength" ball / tracer round on a "proper" range. The cute part of that system, for those who have never seen one, is that the "adaptor" looked just like a HEAT round, but the "standoff" spigot at the front was actually the forward part of the sub-cal "rifle barrel" and the main body of the adapter closely resembled the rest of a round in shape and weight, with the rear containing the firing mechanism that was triggered by the fall of the main weapon's striker; pretty clever.

Never saw any other system fired. Come to think of it, I never got to fire the 6.5 subcals either; I think I had more 6.5 x 55 ammo in my meagre cartridge collection than the "official sources" seemed to admit to owning. Then again, our Swedish cousins, having adopted the 7.62 NATO round in the mid 1960s, also produced a suitable sub-cal adapter for that cartridge, but I never saw one of those, either.

I did, however spend several other very noisy days on the range, starting with the 21mm sub-cal trainers for the 66mm M-72 launcher, and, after the instructors were happy, firing the "real thing".

Because you can only "re-use" the M-72 "shell" so many times before bits start falling off or breaking, (notably the pop-up sights or the trigger mech), the fired shells of the "real" ones were officially "recycled" at Ordnance workshops to become "trainers", as opposed to being "discarded" with extreme prejudice. As I recall, we were allowed a MAX of 35 subcal rounds to be fired in a "real" M-72 shell with an adapter fitted. The "shells" fell to bits / failed to fire at around those figures, but the actual 21mm "adapter" had a much longer service life; no moving parts for starters.

The sub-cals for the M-72 are still very noisy for such a small device; the "rocket" motor consumes its fuel in such a short burn inside the tube, that it is effectively a "slow-ish" explosion. If set up correctly, they can be surprisingly accurate, the solid metal 21mm "warhead" producing a satisfying "whack" on hitting a solid target.

[Gil Boyd]

One nearly rejuvenated and the other about to be started. Traffic cone cut down and sprayed first coat to match and simulate the size of the venturi. Only missing part with no drawings is the other half of the bracket for the telescopic sight to hold the unit to the tube.

I remember there being a bar configuration of sorts that unclicked for cleaning and stowing in the telescope case, but sadly it is not defined enough in the manual to make it. Anybody got any close up pictures on that connection please?

[Gil Boyd]

No the nail varnish isn't for my nails either, I stole it from a Royal Marine...............its for the telescope anti tamper red on the screw head

[Gil Boyd]

Rubber mat as rifling stuck in an first coat applied and foresight done.now the bracket for the telescope I got off that website with a partial part of the bracket for the earlier 84mm other half missing.

[Peter Laidler]

Hey....., that#'s a jolly good copy Gil. Would pass muster I'm sure.