Scipio Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 What is the difference between usual guns and recoiless guns? I mean in CM, not in reality, of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mensch Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 well I can tell you Recoiless guns, are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 The recoil effect was counter acted by allowing the vast majority of blast to go out the back of the weapon. Actually they are called recoiless rifles. Implying that they had rifling and shell spin. In shoulder fired versions, the firer would still feel the counter torque of the shell engaging the rifling in the gun. It would jerk on his shoulder and many firers felt the name "recoiless" was a misnomer. They were loud, heavy, and have mostly faded away except for some specialized units. I always liked the 106 mm US weapon mounted on a mechanical mule myself. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 They are light-weight, relatively speaking... a 75mm PAK 40 weights over a ton, while a heavier caliber recoilless gun can weight less than 200 kg's. This makes them mobile. Another thing is the lower muzzle velocity, which is much lower. It makes it harder to hit a moving target at bigger distances. Third, as a result of the previous, is that they use HEAT rounds. They penetrate equally from all ranges, unlike armour piercing rounds of normal AT guns, but Schürtzen reduces their effectiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: They were loud, heavy, and have mostly faded away except for some specialized units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suppose Finnish infantry is a specialized unit, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 They may have faded away in real life but they have kicked my butt in a couple of games, they fire very fast and arn't as easy to spot as you might think when dug in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 It doesn't appear that CM models the damage caused by the huge backblast when troops are standing right behind an RCL. Is that correct? ------------------ I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. --Eisenhower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 If the damage that could be caused by the backblast of a recoilless gun is not modelled then that's a major oversight. Equally if the dust and flame that resulted from one of these weapons doesn't give away their position then that too is an oversight. These side effects always imposed a severe restriction on their tactical usage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 I hear the noise from a recoiless gun is really something, even compared to all the other noisey stuff on the battlefield. Another thread was talking about exploding buildings. CM should've modeled recoiless guns so firing from within a building would be an automatic "CRASH!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 In CM I have had zooks and schrecks set their own cover on fire. I have also had them pin friendly units in a building with them. So the effects of the backblast are modelled. ------------------ Massada Lo Tipol Shenit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mayer Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 Oh yeah, the nasty bazooka back blast! In one game I was playing, I had a great strongpoint set up in a heavy building at the edge of town. The Germans were coming up the road, and my guys were hidden. Like an idiot I had placed my 'zook team in the building, and when it kicked off its ambush, poof! The building went up in flames . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted January 19, 2001 Share Posted January 19, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: They were loud, heavy, and have mostly faded away except for some specialized units.Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One could consider the modern ATGM to have evolved from RRs. The warheads are launched using similar principles, with the big difference being guidance systems and sustainer motors in ATGMs. Still, RRs were a major breakthrough for infantry AT weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted January 20, 2001 Share Posted January 20, 2001 I just tested it, and it looks like BTS inadvertently dropped the ball here. I set up two RCL's and a Püppchen, with infantry squads directly behind them in an open field. No injuries or suppression when the guns fired, where there should have been some bad casualties. ------------------ I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. --Eisenhower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 20, 2001 Share Posted January 20, 2001 Posted by Forever Babra: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CM I have had zooks and schrecks set their own cover on fire. I have also had them pin friendly units in a building with them. So the effects of the backblast are modelled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did not know that 'zooks and schrecks' are recoiless rifles. [This message has been edited by Panther131 (edited 01-19-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted January 20, 2001 Share Posted January 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: They were loud, heavy, and have mostly faded away except for some specialized units./B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the Serbians used a 20mm recoiless rifle in the recent Balkan campaign. IIRC it had a single shot action. The shooter had to lie at an angle to the gun or risk burning his legs from the backblast. I believe it was intended for taking out soft targets such as trucks and maybe light armored vehicles. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. -Commercial fishing in Kodiak, Alaska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 20, 2001 Share Posted January 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: I did not know that 'zooks and schrecks' are recoiless rifles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They aren't. ------------------ Massada Lo Tipol Shenit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panther131 Posted January 20, 2001 Share Posted January 20, 2001 Posted by Forever Babra: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They aren't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Much wit from you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted January 20, 2001 Share Posted January 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: One could consider the modern ATGM to have evolved from RRs. The warheads are launched using similar principles, with the big difference being guidance systems and sustainer motors in ATGMs. Still, RRs were a major breakthrough for infantry AT weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How a rocket propelled guided missile evolved from a rifled cased-propellant free-flight gun is one of the mysterys of all time. Panzerfausts are kind of recoiless non-rifled disposable weapon systems. But panzerfausts are not descendants of flare guns. Mortars are also not derived from submarines or landmines. They are not related to starfish either and have no likeness to battleships. Lewis PS They are mostly dropped from major armies that might concievably fight a real war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shipmonkey Posted January 20, 2001 Share Posted January 20, 2001 'Zooks and 'schreks arent recoiless rifles, but they do rely on the same principle, as opposed to the PAIT, which I understand was more than capable of tossing users on their asses. BTW isn't the Carl Gustav used by the Special Forces and the Marines a shoulder fired recoilless rifle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mikey D: I hear the noise from a recoiless gun is really something, even compared to all the other noisey stuff on the battlefield. Another thread was talking about exploding buildings. CM should've modeled recoiless guns so firing from within a building would be an automatic "CRASH!!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From my live experience with these guns I can confirm that the sound is very powerful, as is the blast at both ends. CM models the sound with a woosh and the blast as something less than that from a Bazooka. Last night I set up a test scenario with all RRs and rocket weapons available in CM, placed each gun completely inside a small, light building (using the editor trick to first place the gun on the map and then a house on the gun). When they fired there was no blast effect whatsoever on the crew. For the regular Zooks and Schrecks you usually find the shooter pinned directly after firing the weapon indoors, but with these much heavier guns there were no effect. These things; the faulty audiovisual representation and lack of blast for the RRs in CM is to me the biggest annoyance in the game, and probably the hardest issue for Charles to correct. I hope to see it corrected in CM2 though. Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted January 22, 2001 Author Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson: These things; the faulty audiovisual representation and lack of blast for the RRs in CM is to me the biggest annoyance in the game, and probably the hardest issue for Charles to correct. I hope to see it corrected in CM2 though. Cheers Olle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree, would be very nice if the sound map would be expanded. BTW, Olle, check my sound mod. It's not perfect, cause zooks and recoilless rifles uses the same soundfile, but maybe you like it. ------------------ Keine Gefangenen! http://www.scipiobase.de/cm_mods.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shipmonkey: 'Zooks and 'schreks arent recoiless rifles, but they do rely on the same principle, as opposed to the PAIT, which I understand was more than capable of tossing users on their asses. BTW isn't the Carl Gustav used by the Special Forces and the Marines a shoulder fired recoilless rifle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Canada still uses the Carl G as well. I believe it is classed in the same league as the bazooka or panzerschreck, as it fires an 84mm round in the same manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check6 Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 I shall defend BTS on this one. As to the RR-in-building thing, that is an unintended use of any towed weapon. It was included as a convenience to scenario designers, but it is not a major part of real tactics or the game. Squad locations are mildly abstracted. You can assume that twelve men are scattered over a twenty-meter area or so. They would have the common sense to stay away from the rear end of a RR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: How a rocket propelled guided missile evolved from a rifled cased-propellant free-flight gun is one of the mysterys of all time. Panzerfausts are kind of recoiless non-rifled disposable weapon systems. But panzerfausts are not descendants of flare guns. Mortars are also not derived from submarines or landmines. They are not related to starfish either and have no likeness to battleships. Lewis PS They are mostly dropped from major armies that might concievably fight a real war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee, by that reasoning, modern rifles did not evolve from muskets, either. Maybe you should READ people's posts and TRY to THINK about what they are saying BEFORE you open you mouth and make an ass of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
busboy Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 Intellweenie, that was a joke, and I thought it was very funny myself. I understand your reaction, but he wasn't trying to insult anyone. ------------------ busboy CO, 99th Dragons A Warbirds Squadron 'We will heat you up' "It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it." -Robert E. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts