U.S. Recoilless Rifles

[Aacooper]

Are US Recoilless Rifles in CM? What sizes made it into WW2; 57mm or 75mm or both? How well did they work, esp. compared to the bazooka?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Only the 57mm made it into service in the ETO. The 75mm model managed to see some service in the PTO.

I don't know how well it works in the game as I have only used them every once in a long while. Looking at the stats they are significantly less effective at short (100m) range vs. a Bazooka, but have the advantage of being able to hit things at much, much longer ranges (dunno exactly, but 1000m+)

Light and medium German armor has much to fear from this baby. Heavy stuff... depends on where the round strikes.

Steve

[Guest Seimerst]

I had the honor of commanding the last 106mm recoiless rifle platoon in the active army-- the offspring of the two you mentioned. In the hands of a good crew, they can be effective weapons. One unconventional area they excelled in was for breaching walls in urban combat-- just be sure you have plenty of room for the black blast (every action as an opposite and equal reaction). Their shaped charge warhead was just the ticket. No need to low-crawl across the street with your satchel charge. I would think the earlier versions would have the capability to a lesser degree.

[robo]

So why are the penetration values for the reckless rifles nearly the same at all ranges? What's at work here?

[Jeff Duquette]

Presumably its firing shaped charge ammo

[109 Gustav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Presumably its firing shaped charge ammo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, you'll notice the ammo for it is given as "C". It's the same as a zook or panzerfaust warhead, a chunk of explosive that directs all of it's energy forward and backward, blasting through whatever's in front of it.

------------------

Charon doesn't make change.

[russellmz]

correct me if im wrong, but the 57mm unit can't go 'fast'.

thus when i first tried it i was disappointed...the long range(which i didn't know about), didn't help me defend that town i was in

------------------

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz:

correct me if im wrong, but the 57mm unit can't go 'fast'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Makes sense, as they were much heavier than 'zooks. IIRC, they were supposed to be mounted on a modified .30 Browning MG tripod, but could be shoulder fired without too much difficulty.

------------------

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[paullus]

Funny story, the 106mm recoiless rifle is actually 105mm. The designation was changed because the first attempt at designing the weapon was so unsucessful.

[TP_Bomber]

Reminds me of a movie where a gang of back robbers used a recoiless rifle to blow open a bank vault. Cant remember the name of the movie but I think it was made back in the late 60s or early 70s. Guess the cops must have been all deaf back then or the bank has some really good soundproofing.

[Kingfish]

TP_Bomber,

You're not thinking of "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot" with Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges, are you?

IIRC, they used a 20mm AAA gun for breaking open the safe in that one.

------------------

...This is Romeo-Foxtrot, shall we dance?...

[109 Gustav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paullus:

Funny story, the 106mm recoiless rifle is actually 105mm. The designation was changed because the first attempt at designing the weapon was so unsucessful.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Tell us more. Did the 106mm fire the same shell as the 105mm howitzer?

------------------

Charon doesn't make change.

[Hun Hunter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Only the 57mm made it into service in the ETO. The 75mm model managed to see some service in the PTO.

I don't know how well it works in the game as I have only used them every once in a long while. Looking at the stats they are significantly less effective at short (100m) range vs. a Bazooka, but have the advantage of being able to hit things at much, much longer ranges (dunno exactly, but 1000m+)

Light and medium German armor has much to fear from this baby. Heavy stuff... depends on where the round strikes.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In his book, U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II, Bruce Canfield indicates that the 75mm did see some action in the ETO. He actually quotes a couple of reports on it's performance. The 17th Airborne Div (507th PIR) knocked out at least 3 Mk IV's with them, at ranges of 400, 450 and 600 yards (8 shots total fired).

BTW, Canfield's book is a must-buy for anyone interested in WWII U.S. Infantry (Army and Marine) weapons (knives to mortars).

Greg

------------------

"The Germans found out who the 'master race' was when they met us" - Henry Havlet 45th Infantry Division "Thunderbirds"

[Olle Petersson]

Is it only I who's a bit depressed that the recoilless guns in CM are modelled like rocket launchers instead of cannons?

As is they go off with a WOOSSSHHHH and some smoke, which is great for Bazookas and Panserschrecks.

RRs should go off with a loud BOOM, have a regular muzzle blast at the front and a twice as big blast in the rear.

My live firing experience with recoilless ATGs says that the most tranquil place in the vincinity when the gun goes off is the gunners position. A couple of metres to the side it's a mess and very noisy...

Anyone within a dozen or two (depending on which gun it is) metres to the rear of the gun will become combat ineffective and in need of medical treatment (= a casualty, in CM terms). (IIRC; Peacetime safety distance 90m to the rear, wartime 25m.)

Correcting the graphics is probably too cumbersome for CMBO, but ought to be addressed for later editions.

Cheers

Olle

[tss]

The Soviets also experimented with recoilless guns early. My sources are once again unavailable right now, but I think that the first prototype of 76mm recoilless gun was designed in 1934. It was a relatively compact weapon (one captured specimen (probably to only one still existing) is in the Finnish War Museum in Helsinki), comparing to a conventional 76 mm gun. However, it certainly wasn't a man-portable weapon as it weighs something like 200 kg. Its shells were a little less effective than conventional artillery shells and the maximum range was about 3.5 km.

The Soviets had also some truly monstorous recoilless designs, including a 152 mm recoilless howitzer. I wouldn't want to be near that thing when it got fired.

However, the most insane idea was a recoilless heavy AA-gun. I don't know why anybody thought that it would be a good idea to fire a recoilless gun with a good-sized backblast upwards.

- Tommi

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss:

...it certainly wasn't a man-portable weapon as it weighs something like 200 kg.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly squad packable, if the 200kg can be divided in smaller parts.

The ATG i crewed weighed 250kg total, and the 6 man squad had no problem carrying it shorter distances if needed. Otherwise we just kept it on the wheels and ran.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... the most insane idea was a recoilless heavy AA-gun. I don't know why anybody thought that it would be a good idea to fire a recoilless gun with a good-sized backblast upwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All recoilless weapons aren't back blast.

There are for example a couple with counter mass operation, i.e. a ballast is pushed backwards as the projectile moves forward. This increase the weight but reduce blast.

There are other considerations that make the concept of recoilless AA guns a bad idea though...

Cheers

Olle

[paullus]

Recoiless rifles were first designed as possible replacements for machine guns on military aircraft. Unfortunately, no one could really get the concept to work (due to space limitations, ammunition concerns, etc).

The US military first designed a 105mm recoiless rifle for use in WWII & Korea, but due to manufacturing problems, the weapon was almost useless and abandoned.

A couple of years later, a new team was put together and solved some of the outstanding issues. The later model was still 105mm (uses a smaller, lighter shell than the 105mm howitzer), but the designation was changed to 106mm to avoid the unfavorable reputation of the original.

The 106mm uses a HEAT round and was found to be very effective against armored targets and bunkers.

[IntelWeenie]

Even more info:

All the RRs in CM used a system that relied on expelled gas (the backblast) to reduce the recoil (gas is lighter but much faster and you end up with the force about the same as the projectile). Some other RRs have used a countershot method, though most have been too dangerous for obvious reasons. The Germans had a couple of experimental models for aircraft that used countershots (500kg projectiles and countershots, IIRC) There were even a couple of experiments with RRs in WWI on aircarft since the "stringbags" back then couldn't handle too much recoil.

------------------

Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit.

[robo]

Interesting to compare the US 57mm RR with the German 75mm RR. Don't have the CM numbers in front of me but it seemed like the 57mm has much better pentration values than the 75mm though with a very small blast radius. The 75mm however has a blast radius equal to the Panther's 75mm!