Vietnam Huey

Ray:

Ask you dad if that was unit SOP or just where crec chiefs sat? In my units 118th and A Co 227 I sat on the right side.

There could be a reason for the crewchief to sit on the left side, I am not aware of that reason. I could see all the gauges easily from my right side.

In your imagination place yourself if you are right handed in the left seat facing out holding a gun, and try to cover both forward and aft areas of fire, now move to the right seat and try it. You will find a righty in the right side is going to have to turn around to cover the rear area of fire. It is akward.

Unless someone comes up with unit SOP and a specific reason it is simple as this, this left hander can shoot more comfortably from the right seat.

Ed

Ed,

  Following your logic, it would seem that a right handed gunner would be most comfortable firing from the right hand side of the aircraft.  if I were a Crew Chief and outranked the gunner, I might just make him take the less desirable left side.  Maybe that's how it became "standard."  I'm going to my father's 145th CAB reunion next week at Rucker.  I will ask the guys there and see what they think.  At any rate, it's interesting that a simple thing like gunners positions that I thought I knew, wasn't necessarily standard.  I'm always learning.  I guess it'll be that way forever.  Thanks for the info and I don't think i've ever told you, thanks for your service my friend!

    Ray

I'm a lefty (not politically) and flew as gunner on the right side.  Most of us came in as individual replacements so when you were assigned to a ship you filled in.  The crew chief was on the left - but so were the others in my co.  I don't know who was left or right handed, just figured 'everyone' was right handed. 

There were exceptions I guess, but generally crew chiefs DID out rank gunners.  I understood you wouldn't go higher than Spec 4 as a gunner.  If you wanted rank you had to OJT and become a crew chief.

One crew chief told me he was on the left side so he could keep an eye on the less experienced, left seated pilot.  He was confidant that the the right seated A.C.s knew what they were doing.  The C.E. could quickly reach over the pilot and grab the controls, smack the back of his helmet or whatever was appropriate if the pilot abused his helicopter!

Welcome home Ed!

clear right

Howie

Hi Howie;

Thanks for the welcome. I am almost home and this coming December I will finish my 8th year overseas and come home for good. Our door gunners came from 25th I.D. in Hawaii.

The guy must have been a gorilla with long arms and I am short and would have a hard time reaching over or around anyone in the front seat. We also did not have the armored plated tilting seats, that came after I left. If anyone got it in the front seat, you better hope the other guy had the controls. After a few pilots died in the front seat, and they could not be removed, the tilting seat came out.

At the time I was a PFC and so was the door gunner, however I wanted the right side.

Clear right

Ed

Hi Ray:

Remember I was in a B model, not side facing seats in the back, and I was shooting a rifle. Go get a broom stick and sit in a chair facing forward holding the broom stick in your right hand and try to shoot to the rear, you would have to turn quite a bit in the seat to fire to the rear.

 The next time back to Nam I was a Bell tech rep and only flew as a passenger after that. Never noticed which side the crewchief sat on. In a D or H and with pintle mounted guns, the left hand was not a handicap on either side as I see it.

I went through a recent Huey dash 10 and it states that you must have one pilot on board. Kinda figures, right? The pilot assigns the duties of the rest of the crew. Looks like folks may have standardized where crew sat, however honestly it doesn't make any difference. An argument could be made for either side. I guess people think that everything is uniform in the military. While their are procedures that must be uniform to insure safety, in combat we had a lot more freedom.

In the early days a lot of things were trial and error.

Always enjoy talking to you, my friend.

Ed 

OK, here's what a Browning 30 cal on a Huey actually looks like:

This UH-1A belonged to UTTHCO at Tan Son Nhut Air Base.  Photo is from November 1962.  Check out old school red seats and Mighty Mouse rockets.  This pic is from Bob Chenoweth's excellent book Army Gunships in Vietnam.

   Ray
 

Ed,

I didnt realise you had been a member of 227, im sorry for missing it before so can i take the oppertunity now along with Howie and Ray to give you a big welcome home (for when you get home ) and thankyou for your service

Andy.

Andy,

  When I was a kid, I was always proud of my dad and his service.  I didn't understand why Vietnam caused such dissention among young Americans.  Then I went to college and found out what the "educated" people were saying about the war and the warriors.  That's why I am interested in getting it right.  Even down to the the correct positions of the gunners and crew chiefs.  The reason so many people believe all the negative press about the war and its soldiers is because they are too lazy to do research for themselves or don't care enough to ask the guys who were actually there.  by the way, as an American (not a soldier), it's nice to know we still have some allies over the pond.

     Ray

Ed

wow - please accept that as a multiple ‘welcome home.'  They were going to make some field mods to those ‘Roundabout' electric chairs to make us not-so-young armchair Generals mobile - but the .50 kept knocking it over and the M60 spun it around in circles.  They had a whole Div of VN vets good to go, especially since DRAFT is really a four letter word and nobody wants to use it!

Enuff politics - you'll have to fill us in on what your helo's looked like, since Nam.  

Ray - I guess not enuff politics just yet.  What you see going on today is similar in any ways, re the ‘press' distorting the truth and on a mission to grab defeat out of the jaws of victory.  Few listen to the vets coming home, and take all the bad news that's blasted at us as gospel truth.  The biggest difference is that there's no draft this time, though according to the statistics, the vast majority of those who served in Nam volunteered and weren't drafted.  But we have Congress trying to cut off the flow of money, stating that there is no war on terrorism that that's simply a false slogan, but ‘we back the troops', of course.  After the VN war VN communist leaders openly admitted - and still do - that the West's press and protestors helped them win that war.  They said that they manipulated and used them and knew from the news that all they had to do was hang in there, just a little bit longer. They admitted total defeat during Tet yet we reported it as our defeat!  And so on and so on.  ‘Same-same' very much as today except with our computers and alternative news sources, much of the good news does get out and it's getting harder and harder to con the people.  From either side, actually!

Even so, we haven't fought to win, and our leaders today are desperately looking for the exit door,  possibly regardless of repercussions.  Like you said, most people  "...are too lazy to do research for themselves or don't care enough..." sad to say.

In my humble opinion, "Vietnam didn't cause such dissention" in reality: it only did in the media which made it appear a lot worse than it really was!  Only because that made better news than GI's building a school or orphanage.  So every bit of bad news was jumped on and blown way out of proportion and every bit of good news was buried.  You would think that virtually every young American back then was protesting but I'd bet in fact they represented maybe 1 or 2% of the population, and many of them did it out of cowardice/fear for their lives (if the war is right or wrong, I refuse to risk my life!), selfishness (nobody owes their country a thing - I'll just take whatever I can from it), and free love (if you hung out with girls who protested, you were guaranteed to get laid).  And for politics - for one party to blame the other for political advantage - regardless of repercussions.

Andy, I appreciate your support, but don't beat on the UK!  It's been our best ally especially this last decade or so.  It's a shame both countries are so intent upon blindly granting our freedoms that they risk losing all - letting their media be not only irresponsible, but subversive.  We never would have won WWII with a press being so blatantly subversive.  If they cried about the losses on D Day we would have packed up and cut our losses, gone home before many more would die.  But that's what happens in war - people die!  Our schools are just as bad, either teaching nothing, or teaching nothing good.  I really think that in the USA the vast majority of baby boomers did nothing during Nam.  Neither went to war or protested.  And in their guilt have gotten on the bandwagon to portray Nam and Nam vets as wrong, evil, murderers, rapists and all.  To paint it so, paints them as being in the right.  For if Nam was (and it was) like JFK and LBJ said, to bear any burden to help other peoples be free, then they were cowards for not joining and fighting the communists.  Again, if it was US imperialistic domination for oil or rubber or whatever resources we selfishly wanted, and would rape, pillage etc for it - then they look like heros.

BTW, I don't recall many countries coming to the UK's aid after WWII to put down communist insurgents in Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere in the Pacific.  If you look at the big picture, all of that and Korea, and Vietnam - were all battles in the Cold War on communism.  Communism wouldn't have fallen if you and we hadn't stood firm, as long as we did.

That's my humble - and minority opinion!  And just touches the surface of it.  God help the West if we 'cut and run' in the Middle East...

Howie

Wow, things are getting heavy around here.  How about a non-political question.  Howie, can you explain exactly how C-ration cans were attached to the reciever on an M60 to aid in feeding the ammo belt?  I've seen lots of pictures, but I can't tell what the mod looked like.  I know I could just ask dad, but he doesn't do computers, and I think it's best explained by the person who did it.  Thanks,

    Ray
 

Here's a picture of my dad with his 60 to show what I'm talking about for anyone who hasn't seen it (By the way, he's holding the crew chief's cigarette in his left hand): 

" border="0" />

Ray,

i will always do my best (from my side of the pond) to support men like your father in an effort that people may someday afford them the credit they are due.

Even more so now, with the current events in the middle east and the negative comparisons it draws from the press in relation to Vietnam, Although based on the comparative descisions of governments, somehow in the public eye, as with Vietnam and due to our beloved press and backed up by (careful Andy) people who dont understand war, Our troops will always be the ones to take the blame and bare the flack and resentment of there own people  when those same govornments that sent them in the first place or future governments abandon them in an effort to gain votes and to appease media based public opinion when the reality of war hits the TV channels. We support our guys all the while they are getting killed but it soon changes when we fight back, if you get me! i better leave it there lol.

Andy

Ray

sorry 'bout that!

We'll see what any of the others say, but all I remember was if you placed the can against the M60, there was already a 'clip' that the can snapped into, real easy.  It must have been a mod attached to aviation M60s...  The can was the larger - like a Campbell soup 11 oz size can, not a short or extra large one.  As per your dad's photo, it fit exactly where you wanted it.  As far as I know, we all used an unopened, full can - not an empty one.  How's that for more than you need to know?

BTW you weren't supposed to smoke near the helicopters much less on them, but that- and the rotor wash - didn't stop anybody.  None of us knew how serious a health hazard smoking was until years later.  They were cheap, plentiful - and even a small sample pack came with your C rations!

clear right!

Howie 

Lol sorry about the heavyness Ray took me a while to type that and i missed your comments, Interesting question about the C rat can, never really thought about it before, (resists the urge to say super glue)

Andy

Howie,

Enjoyed your post very much, would love to get into it more but after my last two posts i had to remind myself its a modeling forum lol.

Though i salute your comments

Andy 

Howie,

  Thanks for the info.  I had no idea you used unopened C rations.  That's new info to me.  By the way, I wasn't trying to stop the philosophical discussion and no one has to apologize.  That's why they call it a forum.  After all, Andy started this thread so he should be able to lead the discussion.  Besides, it's about time we listened to our veterans!

     Ray
 

Just a comment, the wall isn't that hard to find and it was a very moving experience to visit it. One of the things I HAD to do when I visited DC with my son back in 95.

Best to our British friends has well

Grandad,

  The wall was one of my first stops as a kid when I went to DC.  It was all I could do to stand there without breaking down.  Yeah, it's a must see.

     Ray

Just thought I would tell you guys how much I have enjoyed reading this thread for the past hour and a half. I'm an armor guy personally, but ever since I was a kid I immersed myself in anything related to the Vietnam War. Thanks for turning a crappy Saturday morning into a pleasant history lesson.

Regards

SST

rotorwash wrote:

How about a non-political question.  Howie, can you explain exactly how C-ration cans were attached to the reciever on an M60 to aid in feeding the ammo belt?  I've seen lots of pictures, but I can't tell what the mod looked like.

 Ray,

The M60 has a magazine mount on the LH side of the reciever body that was originally designed to carry a 40 round belt.  The magazine was basically a metal can with a hinged lid that clipped in between two spring loaded posts, the primary purpose of which was to keep a dangling ammo belt from being caught up in foliage etc whilst patrolling through the bush.  The gunner would simply feed a short belt of 40 rounds into the magazine, the rounds from which would exit directly under the belt feedway on the side of the weapon.  Should the patrol be contacted, 40 rounds was typically enough for the gunner to get to a fire position and then clip a full belt (100 rounds - field carry not A/C pack) onto the end of what ammo was left to continue firing.

Note: It seems that the older versions of the M60 has a slightly different magazine mounting system from the newer ones.  Certainly the ones that I trained people on (Oz Army) in the early 80's had a different magazine mounting system to the ones I can find pictured on the internet today.

On the above photo you can see the two "pyramid" shaped blocks either side of the flat plate directly below the ammunition belt feedway.  The magazine was the appropriate width to just "click" between these spring loaded blocks.  The magazine mounting blocks are shaped that way so that you could just force the magazine on without having to manually open the blocks (I hope that makes sense).

So anything you find that is the correct width and has a slight rim on it will click in between these posts... hence the ration can as seen in the image below.

On the above photo you can see the forward magazine post (pyramid shaped block) is visable where the can meets the weapon body.

So there was no actual "mod" to the weapon at all, it was just a matter of using the correct size can that would fit into the exisiting weapon magazine mounting system.  This gave the ammo belt being fed into the weapon a smoother entry path rather than the sharp 90 degree bend that could occur on the standard weapon.

Interestingly, if you left the original M60 magazine on the weapon it would also do exactly the same thing as it had a curved top pretty much the same profile as the can seen above.  I'll see if I can find a pic of one for ya'll.

HTH

BTW: Is there a way of "attaching" pics on this forum rather than linking to existing ones in cyberspace?

Andrew,

  Thanks man!  That answers the question beautifully!  The pictures sealed the deal and yes I get it.  Do you happen to have a pic of the 40 round magazine?  I hate be greedy, but hey, you ever know.  Welcome to the Huey thread, by the way.  What is/was your rank in the Aussie armed forces?

  thanks again,

    Ray
 

rotorwash wrote:

Andrew,   Thanks man!  That answers the question beautifully!  The pictures sealed the deal and yes I get it.  Do you happen to have a pic of the 40 round magazine?  I hate be greedy, but hey, you ever know.  Welcome to the Huey thread, by the way.  What is/was your rank in the Aussie armed forces?   thanks again,     Ray

Ray,

I'm certainly having trouble finding a pic of the US 40 round mag that we used to use.  It was shaped mor like a "D" than a circle and the flat part of the "D" is what mounted up against the body of the weapon.

Working om memory now, so this may not be 100% accurate... we used to tell recruits that the M60 was primarily based on the German MG42 (or maybe FG, not sure now), or at least the belt feed mechanism was.

The pic below I think is of the magazine system on an airsoft MG42 and is pretty close to the original system on the weapon.

I discharged from the Australian Army in 1995 with a worn rank of Sergeant.  I had passed all my requirements for promotion to Warrant Officer Class Two but discharged before promotion.  I was in the Corps of Engineers.

I'll keep looking for a pic of the magazine we used to use.

Andrew,

   Thanks again.  I see what you mean about the magazine shape.  I went online after you explained it to me and did a quick search.  So far, no luck.  Thanks for your service, you guys have always been great allies to the US and we appreciate it.

     Ray

rotorwash wrote:

Thanks for your service, you guys have always been great allies to the US and we appreciate it.      Ray

Australia an Ally of the USA... I was sure that the USA was an Ally of Australia!  ;)

The closest pic I can find to the magazine we used to use on our M60s bak in the early 80s is this one:

It's actually a pic of a MAG58 magazine but it is *very* close to the M60 version I'm familiar with.  It looks to be about the same size only the M60 one was a slightly different shape.  As you can imagine the magazine can stay on the weapon and the belt can still feed over the top of the mag and directly into the feedway.

Andrew,

  Thanks again.  Here is a pic of a M60 from the TACOM web site that shows an attached magazine I think.  I can't see how wide it is, though.  Is this a Vietnam era mod or is this a newer addition?  If I am correct about my identification, this is an M60A, right?

     Ray
 

" border="0" /> 

rotorwash wrote:

Andrew,   Thanks again.  Here is a pic of a M60 from the TACOM web site that shows an attached magazine I think.  I can't see how wide it is, though.  Is this a Vietnam era mod or is this a newer addition?  If I am correct about my identification, this is an M60A, right?      Ray   " border="0" />

Ray,

The pic that I can see above is the same as almost every other pic I've been able to find on the net in the last few hours.  It is different from the ones I posted above.

Your pics don't show an M60 with a magazine, but rather they show an M60 with a different magazine mounting plate to what mine show.  The mounting plate is the large flat rectangular piece with the vertical rib on the LH portion of the plate.  You can see it folds directly into the feed plate for the ammo.

I gather the difference in the new magazines compared to the old is that the magazines now have the retaining clips on them rather than the weapon.  I say this only because I can't see any way of the magazine being held firmly in place on all these "newer" pictures I'm looking at. I'm also figuring that they also can now take a larger magazine from other images I've seen... looks to be about 100 rounds.

I don't know what the model designation was for our M60s were... we just knew them as a "GPMG M60".

LOL... the subject of "The M60 ration can mod" could almost be a thread in itself now.

Andy:

I kind of wondered what happened to the 227th. Our publicity guy must have been asleep  

Like I told the 1-1 Cav guys in Iraq at my farewell ceremoney, this has been a labor of love. I have spent over 30 years working with the military and felt guilty that I wasn't working, I was having fun teaching and learning from them. If there is a place where we will meet someday, I can be recognized by the grin from ear to ear.

I met the Australians when they fought in Nam and also have a friends in England. I think most Americans feel a real bond with you all and the New Zealanders. Everyone can't join in every fight we find ourselves in, but I at least never questioned your loyalties.

I at least went to Nam because I thought that democracy was a better way of life. Not every government that claims to be a democratic one is good for the people. That is why we have communism and dictatorships. If these forms of government offer a better life for all the people and the majority are happy with it, fine.

I live in Taiwan and the people here think freedom is cutting in front of you to make a turn. To them freedom is doing what you want and when you want.

I applaud all of you for trying to bring some truth to the younger generation on what it was really like. I will be back in December and from wherever they send me next I hope I can contribute something to our young people.

Clear right

Ed

Grandad,

  The document referred to in the following entry from the Defense Technical Information Center is from 1961, but it makes clear that there was at least a 100 round canvas magazine at some point in the M60's history.  I'll keep looking for photographic evidence, though.

    Ray

Accession Number : AD0259416

Title :   EVALUATION OF MODIFIED FEED SYSTEM FOR GUN, MACHINE, 7.62MM, M60

Corporate Author : ARMY ARCTIC TEST CENTER FORT GREELY ALASKA

Report Date : 10 JUL 1961

Pagination or Media Count : 1

Abstract : The M60 Machine Gun was equipped with the test item, with 100 rounds of ammunition in a T-7 bandoleer attached, weighed 1.2 lbs. less than an M60 Machine Gun equipped with the current mounting bracket and canvas magazine filled with 100 rounds of ammunition. Approximately 12,000 rounds were fired from each of four M60 machine guns equipped with modified feed systems. The ammunition was fed from various containers that were not attached to the gun. No interference from the hook on the modified systems was noted. No difference in the ease of attachment of a loaded T-7 bandoleer to the hooks was observed. The Type A Modified Feed System, when used in conjunction with a bandoleer identical to the Machine Gun Bandoleer, T-7, was superior to the mounting bracket-canvas magazine combination used on the Gun, Machine, 7.62mm, M60, and is suitable for Army use. The Type B Modified Feed System for the Gun, Machine, 7.62mm, M60, is not suitable for use with the Gun, Machine, 7.62mm, M60. The design of the Machine Gun Bandoleer, T-7, is suitable for use with the Type A Modified Feed System for the Gun, Machine, 7.62mm, M60. However, this bandoleer lacks the desired durability. (Author)

Descriptors :   *AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, *AMMUNITION FEED MECHANISMS, GUNS, LOADERS, SMALL ARMS.

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE