M113 106mm Recoilless - Revision history

imported>Administrator: 9 revisions imported

2023-06-21T17:18:15Z

9 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:18, 21 June 2023
(No difference)

imported>Administrator: 1 revision imported

2023-06-19T02:35:24Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:35, 19 June 2023
(No difference)

2001:67C:2628:647:12:0:0:209: /* IRL */

2022-04-28T22:24:23Z

IRL

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 28 April 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:
	The M40 Recoilless rifles had largely become obsolete by 1985, with guided missiles being far more effective and accurate for the role of light anti-tank weapon. However, by comparison, recoilless rifles were still very cheap, easy to operate, and could be mounted on a large enough vehicle with little trouble. In fact, they could even be locally produced, as the technology didn't require any expensive electronics or programming; they're little more than modified cannons. For this reason, many countries continued using recoilless rifles like Iran.		The M40 Recoilless rifles had largely become obsolete by 1985, with guided missiles being far more effective and accurate for the role of light anti-tank weapon. However, by comparison, recoilless rifles were still very cheap, easy to operate, and could be mounted on a large enough vehicle with little trouble. In fact, they could even be locally produced, as the technology didn't require any expensive electronics or programming; they're little more than modified cannons. For this reason, many countries continued using recoilless rifles like Iran.

	While the US never mounted the M40 on an M113, they did produce a dedicated six-rifled tank destroyer called the [[wikipedia:M50 Ontos\|M50 Ontos]]. This vehicle however was short-lived, so most countries used what they had, like the M113.		While the US never mounted the M40 on an M113, they did produce a dedicated six-rifled tank destroyer called the [[wikipedia:M50 Ontos\|M50 Ontos]]. This vehicle however was short-lived, so most countries used what they had, like the M113.

	{{Iranian Forces in Team Yankee}}		{{Iranian Forces in Team Yankee}}

			[[Category:Team Yankee]]
			[[Category:Vehicles]]

2001:67C:2628:647:12:0:0:209: /* Iran */

2022-04-28T21:22:33Z

Iran

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 28 April 2022
Line 2:		Line 2:

	====Iran====		====Iran====
			[[File:M113 AT Iran.png\|300px\|left\|thumb\|Iran]]
	Iran gets these units in competition with the Jeep 106mm for the ranged fire-support role. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company as company support, an unimpressive unit compared to the line infantry units of the East and West.		Iran gets these units in competition with the Jeep 106mm for the ranged fire-support role. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company as company support, an unimpressive unit compared to the line infantry units of the East and West.

Line 8:		Line 9:
	Apart from protection against small arms and artillery, there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. Factions with ‘expensive’ tanks like the IDF might prefer the M113 106, but this falls to the lack of a cheap fire support unit. Iranian players will have no shortage of budget tanks <s> for the enemy to shoot </s> to engage softskins considering Iran’s access to T-55s and Pattons. They might lack brutal, but a Patton platoon will stay on the board for much longer and has the range advantage to destroy many more IFVs, APCs and light tanks than a 106mm platoon.		Apart from protection against small arms and artillery, there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. Factions with ‘expensive’ tanks like the IDF might prefer the M113 106, but this falls to the lack of a cheap fire support unit. Iranian players will have no shortage of budget tanks <s> for the enemy to shoot </s> to engage softskins considering Iran’s access to T-55s and Pattons. They might lack brutal, but a Patton platoon will stay on the board for much longer and has the range advantage to destroy many more IFVs, APCs and light tanks than a 106mm platoon.

	TLDR: a situational pick for mechanized company lists which need brutal fire support for a low cost. Tank platoons preferable for the anti-armour role. Basiji preferred for an offensive infantry role.		TLDR: a situational pick for mechanized company lists which need brutal fire support for a low cost. Tank platoons preferable for the anti-armour role. Basiji preferred for an offensive infantry role.

	==IRL==		==IRL==

1d4chan>Catnip212 at 18:59, 18 September 2019

2019-09-18T18:59:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 18 September 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	====Iran====		====Iran====

	Iran gets these units in competition with the Jeep 106mm for the ranged fire-support role. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company as company support, an unimpressive unit compared to the line infantry units of the East and West.		Iran gets these units in competition with the Jeep 106mm for the ranged fire-support role. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company as company support, an unimpressive unit compared to the line infantry units of the East and West.

	Players are advised to look at the [[Jeep 106mm Recoilless]] from the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation, which lack the heavy weapons of their mechanized comrades but have the numbers and firepower to outdo them (if you can afford them).		Players are advised to look at the [[Jeep 106mm Recoilless]] from the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation, which lack the heavy weapons of their mechanized comrades but have the numbers and firepower to outdo them (if you can afford them).

			Apart from protection against small arms and artillery, there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. Factions with ‘expensive’ tanks like the IDF might prefer the M113 106, but this falls to the lack of a cheap fire support unit. Iranian players will have no shortage of budget tanks <s> for the enemy to shoot </s> to engage softskins considering Iran’s access to T-55s and Pattons. They might lack brutal, but a Patton platoon will stay on the board for much longer and has the range advantage to destroy many more IFVs, APCs and light tanks than a 106mm platoon.

	Apart from protection against small arms and artillery, there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. Factions with ‘expensive’ tanks like the IDF might prefer the M113 106, but this falls to the lack of a ~~cheap~~ fire support ~~unit~~. ~~Iranian players will have no shortage of budget tanks <s>~~ for the ~~enemy to shoot </s> to engage softskins considering Iran’s access to T~~-~~55s and Pattons~~. ~~However~~		TLDR: a situational pick for mechanized company lists which need brutal fire support for a low cost. Tank platoons preferable for the anti-armour role. Basiji preferred for an offensive infantry role.


	~~). You aren't lacking any ability to engage light targets already with what you have~~.

	==IRL==		==IRL==

1d4chan>Catnip212 at 19:02, 16 September 2019

2019-09-16T19:02:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 16 September 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	====Iran====		====Iran====

	Iran gets these~~. Questionable usefulness~~. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company, ~~so you need~~ to ~~buy heaps~~ of ~~M113s to fill the mandatory slots. You should look at the [[Jeep 106mm Recoilless]] with~~ the ~~same gun that you can take in the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation which you probably will be taking already~~. ~~If you aren't taking Basij, why are you playing Iran???~~		Iran gets these units in competition with the Jeep 106mm for the ranged fire-support role. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company as company support, an unimpressive unit compared to the line infantry units of the East and West.

	~~If you have enough m113s, sure~~, but ~~apart~~ from protection against small arms there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. ~~Sure durability is great and if you are playing Iran you~~ will have no shortage of tanks for the enemy to shoot~~, but the low AT value of 17 limits this~~ to ~~fighting light vehicles (which can be done better by your~~ Pattons ~~or said jeeps~~). You aren't lacking any ability to engage light targets already with what you have.		Players are advised to look at the [[Jeep 106mm Recoilless]] from the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation, which lack the heavy weapons of their mechanized comrades but have the numbers and firepower to outdo them (if you can afford them).


			Apart from protection against small arms and artillery, there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. Factions with ‘expensive’ tanks like the IDF might prefer the M113 106, but this falls to the lack of a cheap fire support unit. Iranian players will have no shortage of budget tanks <s> for the enemy to shoot </s> to engage softskins considering Iran’s access to T-55s and Pattons. However


			). You aren't lacking any ability to engage light targets already with what you have.

	==IRL==		==IRL==

1d4chan>Strike Potat0: /* Iran */

2019-07-23T09:06:19Z

Iran

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:06, 23 July 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	====Iran====		====Iran====

	Iran gets these. Questionable usefulness. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company, so you need to buy heaps of M113s to fill the mandatory slots. You should look at the ~~Anti-Tank Jeeps~~ with the same gun that ~~come~~ in the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation which you probably will be taking already. If you aren't taking Basij, why are you playing Iran???		Iran gets these. Questionable usefulness. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company, so you need to buy heaps of M113s to fill the mandatory slots. You should look at the [[Jeep 106mm Recoilless]] with the same gun that you can take in the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation which you probably will be taking already. If you aren't taking Basij, why are you playing Iran???

	If you have enough m113s, sure, but apart from protection against small arms there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. ~~Oh did I mention~~ the ~~massive tax~~ of ~~the mechanised infantry formation you need~~ to ~~take~~ (~~6 m113s minimum~~ to ~~get the formation~~		If you have enough m113s, sure, but apart from protection against small arms there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. Sure durability is great and if you are playing Iran you will have no shortage of tanks for the enemy to shoot, but the low AT value of 17 limits this to fighting light vehicles (which can be done better by your Pattons or said jeeps). You aren't lacking any ability to engage light targets already with what you have.

	==IRL==		==IRL==

1d4chan>Strike Potat0: /* In Team Yankee */

2019-07-23T09:02:10Z

In Team Yankee

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:02, 23 July 2019
Line 3:		Line 3:
	====Iran====		====Iran====

	Iran gets these. ~~I don't know why you ever would take them~~. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company, so you need heaps of M113s to fill the mandatory slots ~~anyway~~. You should look at the Anti-Tank Jeeps with the same gun that come in the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation which you probably will be taking already. If you aren't taking Basij, why are you playing Iran???		Iran gets these. Questionable usefulness. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company, so you need to buy heaps of M113s to fill the mandatory slots. You should look at the Anti-Tank Jeeps with the same gun that come in the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation which you probably will be taking already. If you aren't taking Basij, why are you playing Iran???

			If you have enough m113s, sure, but apart from protection against small arms there isn't much difference between this and the AT Jeeps. Oh did I mention the massive tax of the mechanised infantry formation you need to take (6 m113s minimum to get the formation

	==IRL==		==IRL==

1d4chan>Strike Potat0 at 01:22, 21 July 2019

2019-07-21T01:22:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:22, 21 July 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==In Team Yankee==		==In Team Yankee==

			====Iran====

			Iran gets these. I don't know why you ever would take them. They can only be taken as part of a Mechanized Company, so you need heaps of M113s to fill the mandatory slots anyway. You should look at the Anti-Tank Jeeps with the same gun that come in the [[Basij Infantry Company]] formation which you probably will be taking already. If you aren't taking Basij, why are you playing Iran???

	==IRL==		==IRL==

2601:582:8602:C02A:4989:A6BD:2A29:BB28: /* IRL */

2019-03-18T21:57:15Z

IRL

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 18 March 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==IRL==		==IRL==
			The M40 Recoilless rifles had largely become obsolete by 1985, with guided missiles being far more effective and accurate for the role of light anti-tank weapon. However, by comparison, recoilless rifles were still very cheap, easy to operate, and could be mounted on a large enough vehicle with little trouble. In fact, they could even be locally produced, as the technology didn't require any expensive electronics or programming; they're little more than modified cannons. For this reason, many countries continued using recoilless rifles like Iran.

			While the US never mounted the M40 on an M113, they did produce a dedicated six-rifled tank destroyer called the [[wikipedia:M50 Ontos\|M50 Ontos]]. This vehicle however was short-lived, so most countries used what they had, like the M113.
	{{Iranian Forces in Team Yankee}}		{{Iranian Forces in Team Yankee}}