|
|
|
Subject:
Recoilless Mortar/Rifle?!!!
GotGavin?
6/9/2004 5:15:06 PM
|
| First posting....
I know (or think I know) the pros & cons of recoilless rifles. The main logistical con: the perforated shell casing, i.e. you can't use a standard 105 mm howitzer shell in a 105 mm RR, so more supply issues. In the spirit of the new AMOS mortar & older Russina 120 mm SP mortar/howitzer artillery, could you fire a mortar round from recoilless-like smoothbore tube??? Make an 81 mm shoulder-fired weapon that uses the same ammo as the 81 mm mortar. I know, the Carl G is 84 mm, but think of logistics. Vary the charge to vary the range & recoil blast. It seems to me the shape of the mortar shell is better suited for recoilless fire than the perforated RR casings.
How about firing 120 mm mortar shells from 120 mm tank guns for urban warfare without shooting through 5 buildings (over-penetration).
Bring back the 106 RR firing 106 mm mortar rounds or make a new 105 mm mortar shell that fires from 106 mm mortars, 106 mm RR, 105 mm M1A1, and 105 mm howitzers. Turn those big guns into low powerurban-warfare demolition guns. The Russians did this a while ago, but use a longer range "special round" along with mortar rounds in their's. I say use standard mortar rounds and standard howitzer rounds in one gun system.
Simplify logistics for mortars/howitzers/shoulder-fired weapons.
The AMOS with indirect & DIRECT mortar fire facinates me (there are other, similar systems out there).
Am I missing something in the mortar or howitzer design that prevents this?? Could some good designing overcome any problems with firing, recoil, aiming, etc...? |
| |
|
|
|
