Recoilless Rifles

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Heorot RE:Recoilless Rifles - Worchester 3/24/2004 1:00:37 PM

When I said that RR were artillery pieces, I meant in the sense of a shell that explodes inside the weapon to launch a free flying projectile that does not carry its own propellant as is the case with a rocket. An artillery piece doesn't have to be rifled. Smoothbore artillery was still in use as recently as the ACW and were still called artillery.

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:Recoilless Rifles - Heorot 3/24/2004 1:10:45 PM

"Recolless rifles are inherently a single shot weapon." Perhaps for modern armies fighting other modern armies but sometimes the sheer lightness compared to conventional artillery is its own virtue. I saw Serbs irregulars using one during the Bosnian fighting and they were not being used as single shot weapons. In the mountains of the Balkans, it was often the only artillery available and firing over open sights in a restricting terrain at infantry positions, the short range didn't matter so much.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:Recoilless Rifles - Heorot/Isot & single shot 3/24/2004 2:38:53 PM

"An artillery piece doesn't have to be rifled." No one said it did. Just that a recoiless rifle doesn't have to be artillery. "single shot weapon" This is military slang for if you fire it, the enemy will kill you. With the recoiless flash and modern IR sights you wont get a second shot. Recoiless rifles of 106mm -120mm caliber were replaced in the US and UK 20 years ago. The short range (1000m is normal) and the weight of the damn thing make almost any man-portable guided missile better. RR were replaced in the US and UK 20 years ago by TOW and Swingfire, missiles with 4000m range and a split launch and sustainer motor giving a lower launching signature. At the same time, the Russians adopted Sagger and Swatter. "perhaps for modern armies fighting modern armies." Which is why you haven't seen large recoilless rifles in use in the US or UK forces for 20 years. If you make a habit of fighting the low quality armies - or hope you will - then a bolt action rifle might suffice; but its not a weapon of choice.

Quote Reply

IsoT Isot & single shot 3/26/2004 12:50:21 AM

Well It doesn't really help you that you see the plume as they have already fired. then youa re unfortunately in the recieving end of the package.. Not a big deal if you are riding in brand new tank, but with APC/MICW type of vehicle you are dead.

Quote Reply

andyf RE:Recoilless Rifles rocket definition.? 5/8/2004 2:15:39 PM

id say a rocket was something that had a sustainer motor, ie the engine was firing and acceleration the weapon after it left the launcher

Quote Reply

Steve RE:Recoilless Rifles rocket definition.? 5/8/2004 7:02:13 PM

That is a poor definition. All rockets are recoilless. Recoilless rifles have RIFLED barrels. Many light AT rockets burn out before leaving the launcher. The M72 had no sustainer but certainly wasn't a RR. On the other hand, the presence of a sustainer motor doesn't mean a projectile wasn't launched from a RR. We have RAP (rocket assisted projectile) rounds for the Carl Gustav, probably the most common RR in the world today.

Quote Reply

Curtagrinder RE:Recoilless Rifles 5/19/2004 1:37:28 PM

It is possible to have a recoilless weapon that is not rifled (it would be not exactly an RR after that, but in principle identical). I believe the 8.8cm Puppchen used by the germans was of this description. A RR is still the most efficient way to bring down man portable explosive fire on a fixed position. In antitank applications weaons like 106mm and WOMBAT have long since been replaced by TOW type missiles. The attration of recoilless weapons remain the same, though- a large explosive charge projected down range by a comparatively light weapon.

Quote Reply

BR1GAND RE:Recoilless Rifles 6/7/2004 12:23:42 PM

When I was in the Rangers we had the M-67 90mm recoiless rifle. It was very bulky and a pain to maintain. You had to door bundle them on jumps. We experimented with a cut down (shorter barreled) version for a time before finally deciding on the RAAWs.

Quote Reply

eon RE:Recoilless Rifles and Rocket Launchers 6/7/2004 2:57:43 PM

Some weapons straddle the definition. The original WWII "Panzerfaust" was a primitive recoilless gun, but the propellant charge was attached to the back end of a projectile more like that of our 2.36in "Bazooka"- but with a bigger warhead. Today, the Russian RPG-7 series rocket launchers use a recoilless charge to fire the rocket from the tube; the rocket's own motor only fires about 20m downrange. This allows for a longer burn of the motor, giving increased velocity (and thus range) without endangering the firer with backblast. And let's not forget the German Armbrust of 20 years ago, which fired a hollow-charge round out the front end and a "counterweight" of plastic "chips" out the back- a direct reversion to the principle of the Davis non-recoil aircraft gun of World War One. (The RFC and RNAS used it to shoot down at surfaced U-boats from flying boats). This is one of those areas in ordnance design where the normally-sharp divisions can get a bit blurred..

Quote Reply

ambush RE:Recoilless Rifles and Rocket Launchers 6/7/2004 9:55:49 PM

I for one loved the 106mm and you used to be able to drive nails with it out to about 1000 meters. But Recoilless Rifles were replaced by ATGMs like the TOW to meet the expected mass armor threat of the Soviet Union. Missiles and Rockets have the advantaged over recoilless rifles by having a lighter weight launcher and in the case of the ATGMs being more accurate. As a grunt I would much prefer carrying a SMAW, or AT-4 over a 90mm. This is not to say that the Recoilless Rifle does not have its advantages. These being: 1. Rate of fire. It takes a TOW missile about 12 seconds to reach its max range of 3000 meters. Even at half that it is a slow rate of fire. I always felt that getting rid of the M40 (106mm) was a mistake. It could have been part of a layered, combined defense with the TOWs concentrating on the Main Battle Tanks while the 106s took on the more numerous BMPs, BTRs. PT76s and BRDMs. The 106s would also be able to provide more covering fire as the TOWs and other 106s displaced to new firing positions. Imagine engaging targets in a narrow urban setting where you have only a few seconds to get a shot at an enemy vehicle as it darts across and intersection. The tracking and flight time of most ATGMs make them useless in this situation. 2. An anti-personnel round. The beehive was a killer and cleared vegetation as well. You do not have that option with ATGMs or Rockets. The 106mm also excelled as a counter sniper weapon. 3. Obstructions: The TOW as an example had a reduced range when firing over water because of the effect on the guidance wires. Those same wires could be affected by power lines and other obstructions in an urban setting. I have always believed that the effectiveness of the 106mm could be further improved with new ammunition like thermobaric and tandem warheads. Perhaps with the disappearance of the massed Soviet Armor threat it time to bring the 106s back; not as a replacement for ATGMs but as another tool for the commander.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 NEXT