Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Carl Gustav Rules In America
SYSOP    9/10/2014 5:33:04 AM
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
Blacktail       9/11/2014 1:22:11 AM

The TOW is not perfect but it is a very accurate weapon.


I think the argument is that the TOW was not a reason to stop using the recoiless rifle. I do think that they did away with it in order to promote the TOW as well as because in the European type of war that they anticipated it was going to be more useful.


But this argument is mute. There will be a replacement for the TOW.


What I think is interesting is that for many infantry units the recoiless rifle is a big asset. It is lightweight, its munition is not heavy. It is certainly another arrow in the quiver that should not be discarded just like that.

I don't doubt there will be a replacement for the TOW, as the US military leadership has since the 1940s been extremely tank-conscious. What I worry about is that they'll abandon organic heavy fire support systems entirely, leaving the GIs outgunned by potential foes that *have* such weaponry.
For at least the third time.
Quote    Reply

avatar3    Blacktail's right   9/11/2014 7:44:32 AM
  Blacktail you are right about U.S. Military leadership stripping the troops of heavy organic equipment. I offer three examples that happened to me in the 1960-70's. In the hunt to give lightly armed  Airborne and Air Assault units a punch we were issued an air deployable 90MM self-propelled anti tank gun. This was a lightweight open chassis vehicle with inflatable wheels under treads. When fired it had a kick like a mule and except for a front plate, left the crew completely exposed, but all in all the gun was a pretty effective piece of equipment. 
  This vehicle was withdrawn from American service and replaced by the aluminum hulled Sheridan, a vehicle that it self did not last long in front line service.
  Another piece of equipment that was issued and later stripped from units was the M42 Duster. This was a tank chassis with an open turret that mounted twin 40MM Bofars Guns. Built at the end of WWII as an antiaircraft  gun it did good work providing ground suppressive fire enmass. We turned them over to our Vietnamese allies and that was that.
Quote    Reply

HR    Black tail and avatar   9/11/2014 9:31:11 AM
"What I worry about is that they'll abandon organic heavy fire support systems entirely, leaving the GIs outgunned by potential foes that *have* such weaponry." - you are preaching to the choir. I also agree that weapons are decommissioned with out reason. We are now suddenly re-discovering the value of highly portable weapons. And I do want to emphasize that the TOW is a very good weapon but should not have been used to discontinued something as useful as the recoilless rifle.
Quote    Reply

vahitkanig       9/11/2014 3:24:37 PM
Recoiles Rifles is  out  of date ; has sevaral  limitation  night , terrain and  hard to be use in goup.
I am  trying  to imaginate  Special  Operation  on the ranch  using  recoiles  rifle.
Quote    Reply

Blacktail       9/11/2014 10:16:06 PM

Rocket launchers can also employ counter-masses for similar results. Probably the best known example is the German Armbrust RPG system;
You want to know what the application of counter-mass technology to the most recent Recoilless Rifles and RPGs is? It's a technology that's literally as old as the Recoilless Rifle itself --- because it was introduced as an integral feature of the Davis Gun, which was the first weapon of this type!;
It took another 70 years before the defense industry was able to pull it's head out of it's ***, and re-introduce this feature into modern recoilless weapons.
Quote    Reply

Blacktail       9/11/2014 10:21:43 PM
The comment system cut-off my first paragraph for some reason. What I said was that the application of "counter-mass" technology to Recoilless Rifles has virtually eliminated their blast, flash, smoke, and even recoil. That first video demonstrates the AT4 CS, which is one such weapon to use a counter-mass.
Quote    Reply

IndividualAnon    What do you guys think about the Spike?   9/12/2014 1:08:04 AM
The Spike is a very small and light-weight man-portable infantry missile for use by U.S. Marines or U.S. Navy Seals against "low value" unarmoured or lightly armoured targets. The reusable launcher weighs 2.3 kg (5.1 lb) and the missile 2.0 kg (4.4 lb), and it is expected that a single soldier can carry a launcher and three missile rounds in a backpack. Spike uses a solid-fueled rocket motor with no visible flame and no smoke, so that the launcher's position is not easily revealed. The motor also allows firing of the weapon from enclosed positions. The missile uses an electro-optical (TV) imaging seeker, which can be locked on a target before firing, making Spike a fire-and-forget weapon. For night-time operations, a laser spot seeker could be fitted as an alternative. Spike can be used against stationary or moving ground targets, and low and slow flying helicopters. It has a maximum range of about 3.2 km (2 miles), and the high-explosive warhead of about 1 kg (2.2 lb) is detonated by a contact fuze.

Quote    Reply

Blacktail    IndividualAnon   9/12/2014 3:13:05 AM
The Spike is one of the best ATGMs in it's class, but it's a poor choice for general-purpose fire support. First, there's the issue of cost-effectiveness. A single Spike round costs $5000 or more, while an 84mm shell sells for $100 to $600, depending on the model. The Spike is also about as cheap as an ATGM will ever be. Second, consider the weight of the Spike missiles. The Spike-SR, Spike-MR, Spike-LR, and Spike-ER weigh 9kg, 14kg, 14kg, and 34kg, respectively. 84mm shells weigh between 2.7kg and 9.5kg, with most weighing about 5.5kg. That means a weapon team can carry a lot more ammunition at a fixed load of gear. Third, all Spike family missiles in service have shaped charge warheads, which makes them relatively weak against structures, and almost useless against personnel in the open. Compare that to all the types of ammunition the Carl Gustav can fire; That's no small matter, because compared to enemy troops, structures, and thin-skin vehicles, everything else you fight in a conventional war is rarer than bigfoot --- and in a guerrilla war, you never fight anything else. HE, HEDP, HESH/HEP, APERS, and WP rounds are better for use against these targets. Finally, in many combat situations, guiding the projectile is a fifth wheel. It takes much longer to engage a target with a guided round, and you generally have to fixate on it as well. With unguided projectiles, you literally just "point and click"; line-up the sights on the target, lead it (if it's moving), and pull the trigger. In a Mogadishu-style firefight, you have to do a lot of snap-shooting.
Quote    Reply

IndividualAnon    Different missile. Same name.   9/12/2014 6:19:09 AM
It's confusing.
Quote    Reply

joe6pack       9/12/2014 12:42:25 PM
I don't know enough about the system to really comment on it's usefulness.
 But a few things - that I'd question:
"It's easier to carry one Carl Gustav, at 8.5 kg, and a bunch of rocket propelled shells at about 2.2 kg (5 pounds, with packaging) each"
Well, it seems more reasonable as written above.. but I'd think reality would be the gunner would have "at least" one round available.  So, the difference in weight from an AT-4, is really more like a little more than 10 lbs.  For a single shot. 10 lbs added, may not seem like a lot.. until it gets added to all the other stuff being carried and worn.
I read in a side article that the Rangers would give the gunner a pistol as a secondary weapon.  That is certainly lighter than carrying the M4, M16,  M16+M203 that the fellow carrying an AT-4 would also have..  But in a standard infantry squad or platoon, would you want to make that type of change?  Give up a rifle (usable in just about every situation) versus an a more niche weapon system?  Or just tack on the extra weight?
Just a couple random thoughts - as I said, don't know enough on the weapon system to really have a strong opinion.
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT