Vietnam Huey

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 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:

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?

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

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 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

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
 

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 

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

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 

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

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" />

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

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,

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.

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
 

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 

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

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

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

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

Ray,

Thanks for the link, Ive just finished watching the An Khe video. Its great, thank you , some nice footage of B/Co 229th hueys.

If your interested in some more videos, heres a link to an absolute Gem of a site . Theres hours of early footage Including: The Fight for LZ X-Ray, First Cavalry Division (Airmobile) in Vietnam, The First Team in Vietnam, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), The Air Mobility Concept, The Army and Vietnam, The Combat Infantry Soldier, 5 videos about Bruce Crandall and on the set of "We Were Soldiers" theres loads of videos on the army media player but those are the ones concerning Vietnam and Helicopters.

http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/crandall/video/index.html

Andy

rotorwash wrote:

Howie,   Your point about the scale is well taken, I just put them up for comparison like Andy suggested.  It does make the point, though, that perspective is important for telling them apart.  Browning 30 cal was originally chambered for .30-06 Springfield, but many were converted to 7.62 NATO, same as M60.  Ed,    My dad told me that Crew Chiefs sat on the left and gunners on the right.  I guess he never met a left handed Crew Chief!  Any chance this was standardized later in the war after you left?  I look forward to seeing your pics.   Ray

I don't think the Army ever standardized the left/right issue for crew chiefs, it was more of an accepted practice and in some cases did boil down to personal preference. Aircraft commanders and pilots seats were set, but not always followed also. We never carried gunners after Vietnam. 

AC sat on the right side, pilot on the left, but again if the AC wanted to sit on the left, he did. Sometimes if both were rated as AC they would even switch duties during flight and then was logged as such.

Never heard of the .30 being rechambered for 7.62, but it could have been. The military had tons of ammo left over from WW II, you can still find it in some gun stores. Remember in 1971 using .50 cal at Graf that had been repacked in 1953.

Clear

Howie Belkin wrote:

During my tour the helicopter belonged to the C.E. and gunner, while the pilot and copilot rotated from ship to ship.  They didn't explain much to us - it just was.  As far as I knew, the Army intentionally didn't want us to grow too strong a bond between crew members so it was less traumatic when somebody was hit.  It also kept a ‘distance' between the officers and us lowly enlisted men (EMs).

IIRC, Bob Mason mentions this practice a few times in his book "Chickenhawk".

Howie,

  Your point about the scale is well taken, I just put them up for comparison like Andy suggested.  It does make the point, though, that perspective is important for telling them apart.  Browning 30 cal was originally chambered for .30-06 Springfield, but many were converted to 7.62 NATO, same as M60.

 Ed,

   My dad told me that Crew Chiefs sat on the left and gunners on the right.  I guess he never met a left handed Crew Chief!  Any chance this was standardized later in the war after you left?  I look forward to seeing your pics.

  Ray

Ray

Unfortunately the pictures of the .30 and .50 cal mg's aren't to scale. For those of you who might not realize it, the sizes are opposite of what seems to be shown.  The .50s are much bigger and heavier than the .30s.  The bullet for the .30  is close to that used on the M60 (but NOT the same, I believe).  I always had one word to differentiate between the 30 and the 50:  BIG.  Not that that helps anyone else to tell the difference!

BTW, a couple of posts ago, Andy provided a couple of photos including one showing expended brass on the Huey's floor.  Generally anything to do with the guns was the door gunner's responsibility while mechanical matters were the crew chief's.  So the gunner would be cleaning up the brass ‘etc' while the C.E. checked her out so she'd be ready to fly - or undertake maintenance.  The gunner and C.E. worked with each other to get their jobs done.  You pitched in as necessary.

During my tour the helicopter belonged to the C.E. and gunner, while the pilot and copilot rotated from ship to ship.  They didn't explain much to us - it just was.  As far as I knew, the Army intentionally didn't want us to grow too strong a bond between crew members so it was less traumatic when somebody was hit.  It also kept a ‘distance' between the officers and us lowly enlisted men (EMs).

FYI in that photo of spent brass: there are also coiled dark steel ‘links' in that mess.  Mission Models has a set of 50 cal rounds, including spent rounds and photoetch that has to be ‘curled' to create links.  You slide your rounds thru the curls or loops, creating the disintegrating ammo belt, just like the real deal.  With every spent brass expended a link was also expended.  So if you really want to shoot for reality, your mess of expended brass should also have those expended links!

Thanks Andy for the ‘welcome home' - I don't want to claim more than my due though...  The heroes are those who gave all. We all had different experiences depending upon when and where we were.  More than anything I wanted to fly and am grateful to have had that opportunity and lived to tell about it.  But my tales might put you to sleep compared to some of what you've read about!  I don't know how ‘obvious' UK vets appear to the general public, but they're there.  Their numbers are dwindling to a trickle from WWII but the UK was involved in quite a few ‘wars' during the last half of the last century, and war is war whether with Monty or Malaysian monsoons.  I imagine your 'press' has been beating them up like ours has here over the War on Terrorism...  Definitely give them their due!

Grandadjohn's point about the M-23 being on both sides when used, is one of the reasons I'm waiting to hear what Dragon has done with their new UH-1D release.  Did they provide two M-23 mounts or is it like the Panda combo release with the DML figure set?

BTW   - the photo of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is a good example of a replacement door - at some time this door replaced a previous one.  The OD is darker, possibly a semi-gloss.  A lot of Hueys were a patchwork of different shades of OD when a simple patch wouldn't do the trick and an entire panel or door would be replaced.  And the Huey would keep on tickin...

I have to check out that site with the video you provided, Ray.  Thank you!

Well, enough from  me tonight!

Clear right!

Howie

Ray:

I have gotten guite a smile from all the comments on the brass and who sat on what side. I crewed a B model and sat on the right side, why? I was left handed so I could cover that side better, also I had no problem seeing the center of the console that had all the important stuff at least from a mechanics standpoint. Besides it was my ship so I sat on the side most comfortable for me, and the door gunner most likely was right handed so he sat on the left. And if the gunner was left handed, he still sat on the left side as it was my ship.

I did notice the brass from my side right, would fly up and over the boom and hopefully miss the  tailrotor. In those days before M-60's we carried M-14's. Chances are that if you throw enough brass out either side you gonna hit the tail rotor. (Edited, brass from left side was more likely to hit tail rotor than from right side. The tail rotor blades that I saw were damaged most when the blade hit the brass on the base of the case. You could set a shell casing base in the depression on the leading edge.)

I haven't had a chance to look up the angle of the synch elevators however they are not of equal angle. You can't do anything about it as I beleive it is made into the elevator horn mounted inside the tailboom, could be the elevator attachment, however one or the other is correct. If someone really wants to know I can find the prints and then that would show which side had more or less pressure acting on it.

I was in A Co 227 11th Air Assault and then it became 1st Cav Div. I got out of the Army in Oct 65 so I didn't have to go back to Nam with them, but did go twice later for Bell Helicopter. I have a picture of Hal Moore not sure if he was Lt Col or Col inspecting weapons and I think the other person was Harry WO Kinnard, a general. My buddy was in the picture. When I get back to the states I will make it available for folks to see. Also have one of BG Cider Joe Stillwell, and another general who became chief of staff later. I can see his face but right now the name has gone south. (Edited the general was Westmoreland, could only think of gray haired guy yesterday)

Borrowing a line from my friend, Melgyver

Clear Right 

Ed 

Andy,

  I found this site and thought you would like it.  Check out the An Khe video in particular.  Lot's of early 1st CAV Hueys(65-66) and as best I could tell, NO M-23 mounts!  There is footage of CH-47's, Ch-54's, and huey gunships as well.  Look carefully and you will see a M16 being fired out the door in front of the cameraman in one shot.  Clips show rotors and engines being serviced, fueling, rockets being loaded, lots of stuff you don't see on most videos about Hueys.  There are also lots of other helo videos as well.  Check it out:

http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/asf/welcome.html 

Ray 

Andy,

  Your wish is my command.

   Here's the 30 cal:

[img]http://

And the 50 cal:

[img]http://

Any other requests?

   Ray