I was looking at some images of Argentine troops around Port Stanley in 1982 and note the M20/M21 Super Bazooka being carried in support role.
I have no evidence of one being used in action, but it was obviously in the OOB. The M20 was obsolete in 1982, but would still have been effective against the light AFVs like the Scorpion.
Would the forum consider it a useful addition to the Falklands Range ? No pressure Phil.
I presume were not talking about the bubble gum here?
Don't think the Argentines had Bazookas - rather used the French LRAC, and US 90mm RCL's
IanS
Is the weapon in the photos possibly Blindicide? I believe that is sort of 'son of super-bazooka'?
The photo is in page 125 of Marshall Cavendish The Falklands War, (1983) . My first reaction was that the weapon was indeed the locally built version of the M67 (US 90mm RCL) as Ian has suggested. However I believe the weapon to be the M20.
1. Length - The image is warped due to the wide angle lens but suggests a long tube of 1524mm as opposed to 1346mm of the M 67.
2. The right side of the tubes is towards the camera. No sign of the hinged breech door (RCLs fire from a closed breech as opposed to an open bazooka tube).
3. Evidence of a broad ring around the tube in front of the trigger mechanism - this would support the M20 which could be dismantled into two parts as opposed to the M67 which is a one piece weapon.
4. The weapon tube has a flanged muzzle in keeping with a bazooka. I am conscious that this might be a local variation on the M67, but the RCL has a straight muzzle band.
I have handled the Belgian RL-83. Its a clean straight tube weapon. Not what's in the photo.
In terms of scale to 1/150, not a lot of difference - the Bazooka slightly longer with the flanged muzzle and no breech door. In terms of soldiering, I remember the USMC retained the M20 over the M67 as "it was a bitch" when it came to tabbing. As the M2O was in two parts it was more "man portable".
Comments welcome. Perhaps someone can scan or source the image?
Once they've been scaled down to 10mm figure size would there be a noticeable difference between the 2 weapons?
Having carried one of the bastards I can assure you that the M20 is not easy to carry - it's unbalanced and very uncomfortable. The Charlie G is much better, even though much heavier.
IanS
So, (1) in terms of CWC rules, what is the "best" weapon for Argentine 1982 forces - the M20 or the M46 ?
I can see the potential of some interesting games as an effective squad AT weapon checks the Brit AFVs
And (2) do we pass this thread to "requests" for Leon to task Techno ?
The 3.5" M20 was standard Argentinian squad anti-tank weapon, alongside rifle grenades. In theory each platoon had up to 6 per platoon, ie 2 per squad, although it is apparent that no where near that many went to the Falklands.
Whilst being obsolete, M20 ammo was still in production in South America at the time.
On a related theme, the South Koreans still have 90mm M67 as their platoon A/T weapon (up to 2010 at least), so obsolete doesn't necessarily mean crap.
For 10mm/6mm M20s, we use US WW2 bazooka teams.
Mark