Question about Recoilless Rifles

[Scipio]

I wonder that find nearly no material about WWII Recoilless Rifles.

They are very fine weapons in CM, but how common were they on the real battlefields?

[StellarRat]

I think they fell out of favor in the mid-sixties. The main problem is that they stand out like a sore thumb as soon as they fire due to the large amount of dust and smoke from the backblast. The backblast is also dangerous for the crew. Also, the muzzle velocities are low compared with regular guns, so their armor-piecing abilities aren't as good. They do have a squash-head round that is supposed to pierce armor, but I have no idea how effective it is compared to a Sabot round.

OOPS! I totally missed the point of your question! Sorry.

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[Michael Emrys]

Recoilless rifles were not widely used in WW II. The Germans issued them to Fallschirmjäger troops, but not very much otherwise. The Brits and US developed some late in the war but again, they came late and did not see much service.

They have mostly been replaced in recent years by ATGMs.

Michael

[Username]

Korea and Vietnam were big on RR.

[Hanns]

Don't forget the Davey Crockett warhead for the 90mm recoilless rifle. Nominal yield of .01-.02 kt nuclear warhead that could be fired from a Jeep

[gunnergoz]

For the infantry, RR's were the best way to shove a usefully large shaped charge out of a weapon that could be lugged around in the boonies. The US fielded 57mm, 75mm and 106mm versions, but the latter had to be carried on a jeep or tracked carrier.

My favorite RR story has to do with the first ones captured by the Chinese Communists in Korea. Supposedly, the Chinese troops all crowded behind the weapon to see the fall of shot and were baked by backblast for their trouble. For a while, the Chinese wouldn't go near the captured ones again. Later of course, things would change...

[gunnergoz]

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

Don't forget the Davey Crockett warhead for the 90mm recoilless rifle. Nominal yield of .01-.02 kt nuclear warhead that could be fired from a Jeep <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only problem with Davey Crockett was that the blast radius exceeded useful range...making it the Army's first official suicide weapon!

BTW, the Davey Crockett launcher was not a regular 90mm RR, it was purpose-specific and had AFAIK no other ammunition other than practice "shapes."

[Michael Emrys]

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

The only problem with Davey Crockett was that the blast radius exceeded useful range...making it the Army's first official suicide weapon!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somebody put forward this claim in a newsgroup not too long ago and somebody else rather authoritively shot it down. Not sure how this rumor got started, but it shouldn't be repeated. If .01-.02kt is a correct figure, that is a blast equivalent to 10-20 tons of TNT. Shouldn't be impossibly hard to come up with a gun that shoots farther than the blast radius for that amount of pop.

Michael

[Hanns]

Exactly...... I believe the Davey Crockett was designed as a "Fulda Gap" weapon for when the Reds came streaming through. The idea behind it as I understand it is a pair of soldiers in a Jeep would crest over the top of a hill, fire one of these lunchbox nukes off and then reverse behind the crown of the hill. When you're aiming at an entire Russian tank column, pinpoint accuracy is not really necessary. Remember close only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades and NUKES!!!!!! :eek: Also to keep this marginally in the WWII time period, did the US mount any RR to Jeeps in the ETO? I've seen pictures of them in Korea but none for Europe. 57mm RR would make a nice bunker buster.

[Col Deadmarsh]

What the hell is a recoilless rifle anyways? What is the difference between this and a gun?

[Scipio]

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

What the hell is a recoilless rifle anyways? What is the difference between this and a gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check this link:

Recoiless Rifle

It's sometimes called an American invitation - but that isn't true. The first US RR (57mm) is based on German 75mmm and 105mm Leichtgeschütze (I hope the name will be corrected in CMBB), captured in North Africa.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Sig]

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

(snip) The main problem is that they stand out like a sore thumb as soon as they fire due to the large amount of dust and smoke from the backblast.(snip)]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only that, but also the noise!! Saw one in action during my army days. It was on a jeep and when it fired, I thought my head would be ripped off. The noise of the explosion was unbelivable.

Sig

[Brian]

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

I wonder that find nearly no material about WWII Recoilless Rifles.

They are very fine weapons in CM, but how common were they on the real battlefields?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were extremely rare for the most part. The only force which actually issued them as a standard weapon was the Luftwaffe for their paratroopers. They used them from about late 1942 onwards. The Allies first encountered them in Tunisia.

Simulteanous to the Germans developing them, all the Allies were as well (yes, even the Russians had a Rcl apparently, althought it was an extremely rare weapon and only encountered, unusually in fortresses such as Sevastapol). All, except the Russians, adopted different methods for venting the propellant gases to the rear in order to achieve the recoilless effect.

The Rhienmetall "method" which because standard for the Germans, utilised a frangible disk in the base of the cartridge, which blew out when the round was fired, expelling the gases rearward, whilst the projectile left the muzzle towards the target, each counterbalancing the other.

The British utilised the Burney method, which had a shell case, which had large holes drilled into it and which was then lined with a thin sheet of brass. Grouped around the breech were a series of venturis. When the round fired, the brass liner fractured where the holes in the normal case were and the gases exhausted through the venturi, counterbalancing the recoil. The Burney system was however found to be very prone to wear and erosion 'cause the venturi turned 90 degrees.

The Americans utilised a similar case to the British, except their's had a great deal many more holes in them. Their weapon's breech was also different in that it basically had a series of slots in its sides which were open at the rear, around the breech block. When the round fired, again the liner in the case burst where it wasn't supported by the main case which was covered in many small holes and the gases exited the chamber via the venturi around the breech. This did not suffer as much from the wear as the Burney system.

Both the American and British guns either did not reach the troops or if they did, were issued on an extremely limited, experimental basis.

Rcl's tend to have lower muzzle-velocities compared to conventional guns, which is why they rely on HEAT or HESH rounds (indeed, Burney invented the HESH round for that very reason).

[Brian]

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

My favorite RR story has to do with the first ones captured by the Chinese Communists in Korea. Supposedly, the Chinese troops all crowded behind the weapon to see the fall of shot and were baked by backblast for their trouble. For a while, the Chinese wouldn't go near the captured ones again. Later of course, things would change...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pity it isn't true. Nice story. The PLA deployed to Korea with their own Rcl's which were basically copies of the US 57mm and 75mm weapons which they had captured from the Nationalists during the civil war which had ended in 1949. So I doubt they were so unfamilar with the weapon that they'd have barbecued their own troops with them.

[Username]

The recoiless effect is actually balancing out the forward and rearward forces. The shell still bites into the rifling with a band and there is a jerk felt in the shoulder fired weapons. Together with the terrific blast, it makes a very uncomfortable weapon to fire.

I read about a battle in Vietnam where a M48 tank was firing away. A RR (90mm) setup behind him and was using the tank as cover to fire at the same targets. The tank commander would jump out of his sh*t every time the RR fired because he thought that his tank was hit by something. The tank ran out of ammo and the RR offered him some of his to fire but neither of them knew if it would work in a tank gun.

Lewis

[dfgardner]

As late as 1983, the US Army was using 90mm RR with the 9th ID out of Ft. Lewis, WA. Two were assigned each rifle platoon.

As a practical, offensive weapon, they were extremely deficient (IMHO) primarily because the 90mm ammo was so difficult to carry. The gunner carried the weapon (think of a 4-5ft long stovepipe) while the ammo bearer, and whomever else we could get carried the rounds (if I recall the basic load was about 3 rounds per gun). The rounds were very heavy.

The accuracy was ok out to about 200-300 meters for a head on shot; never saw someone make a lateral (right to left or left to right) shot.

The weapon did have a tremendous backblast, but so did (does?) the Dragon (wire guided short range AT weapon 1000m ) and the TOW (wire guided long range weapon ~3000m). Because of the backblast of all AT weapons, the drill was to find a flank shot where enemy visability to the backblast was limited.The 66mm handheld LAW did not have the stopping power of the 90mm RR.

As bunker busters the 90mm RR was extremely effective. If the round didn't penetrate the bunker, the round detonation would have scared the bunker occupants silly provided the bunker was earthworks. Never saw a concrete target. The 90mm was 100% effective against the APCs of the day (M113, BMP, BTR or even Bradleys). As for a tank, well, you'd have to hope for a lucky shot and roll out of the way quickly before you were squashed . :eek:

As for pure testosterone, seeing 3-4 guns (never called "rifles") shoot in rapid succession on a live fire range was something....particularly if you hit a vehicle that had some residual fuel in it (wow ).

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

Check this link:

Recoiless Rifle

It's sometimes called an American invitation - but that isn't true. The first US RR (57mm) is based on German 75mmm and 105mm Leichtgeschütze (I hope the name will be corrected in CMBB), captured in North Africa.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the link. Hard to believe those things weigh 115 lbs--only looks to be about half that heavy.

[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Douglas Rudd]

Here is a link for the Davey Crocket: http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.htm

Doug

[gredeker]

I recall reading somewhere (sorry, no references handy) that one of the other reasons the Germans phased out RRs (in addition to the monstrous backblast) is because they used 3 to 4 times as much propellant as a standard artillery shell. Of course, this was late in the war, when they were having shortages of all kinds of strategic materials...

Another analogy I read was to think of it as a giant bazooka (sometimes on a tripod), only the round is spin-stabilized instead of fin-stabilized for better long range accuracy and all the propellant is burned before the round leaves the tube.

IIRC, (and this is only for comparison) modern ATGMs like the TOW have two rocket motors - a small one to get the round out of the tube and a ways downrange from the launcher, then a main motor to carry the missile to the target.

[dfgardner]

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

IIRC, (and this is only for comparison) modern ATGMs like the TOW have two rocket motors - a small one to get the round out of the tube and a ways downrange from the launcher, then a main motor to carry the missile to the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One point of clarification on the TOW. The TOW does have 2 motors, a lauch and flight motor. The launch motor fires for an extremely short time (in fact I believe it expends its propellant load while completely in the launch tube).

The flight motor only fires for 1 or 2 additional seconds to boost speed to reach max range. If I remember correctly (as a former TOW platoon leader) observation or noticing the flight motor burn was overcome by the general initial explosion (and I do mean explosion) of the weapon firing. BTW, the TOW actually glides to the target, with the tail fins maneuvering to guide the round.

Time of flight was ~ 15-17 seconds to max range (3000m)....a long time for the gunner to track the target under fire.

[gredeker]

Thanks, dfgardner. It helps to hear from someone with "Real Life Experience". Most of my military knowledge is from books, the odd museum, and of course CM and ASL.

[jwxspoon]

DFGardner is right about the Army using them until recently. I was an FO in the 2nd Ranger Battalion at Ft. Lewis and know that we used the 90mm until 1990 at least. We loved the 90 (altho I never had to carry it), especially the APERS rounds that fired a massive flechette charge. We also carried LAW rockets, but were very happy with the 90 because it gave us a significant anti armor threat far beyond the ability of the LAW.

[dfgardner]

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

Thanks, dfgardner. It helps to hear from someone with "Real Life Experience". Most of my military knowledge is from books, the odd museum, and of course CM and ASL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And to you sir for your intelligent comments. Luckily I never had to test my theories in actual practice!

[Brian]

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

DFGardner is right about the Army using them until recently. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do people believe it unusual to use RCL's over ATGW?

Many armies are armed with the L35a1 Carl Gustav 84mm RCL. Indeed, its export and continued use is like the Bofors 40mm AA gun of the biggest success stories of the Swedish defence industries.

Not bad for a design which is esssentially 50 years old.

The M3 version, utilises a carbon-fibre wrapped steel tube for a barrel and weighs about 8 kgs. Its a significant saving over the original, which weighs in about 35 lbs.

[Charlie Rock]

The US Army still uses RRs.

Rangers have Carl Gustavs. Marines have the SMAW, which is also a RR.

Panzerfausts, which are recoilless rifles in the sense that they were propelled by a powder charge rather than a rocket, were developed in part because the panzerschreks, which were rockets, were sucking up a lot of resources and propellent. (Someone mentioned that previously)