Olle Petersson Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Check6: ... They would have the common sense to stay away from the rear end of a RR.- The danger zone is a cone about 120 degrees wide. - Safety distance for only causing "shock" instead of casualties would be anywhere from about 10m for the 57mm RR up to about 25m for the 105mm RR. (These are my estimates based on current war-time regulations for Swedish RRs.) - Safety distance to avoid any effects is at least three times the distances above. Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Shipmonkey: 'Zooks and 'schreks arent recoiless rifles, but they do rely on the same principle... Wellllllll, that depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is. Oops! Wrong tape. But what I'm trying to say is that depending on how loose your definitions are, that may or may not be true. I'd say that on close examination, the differences between the two types of weapons are more striking than their similarities. Bazookas and Panzershrecks, as well as Panzerfausts, fire projectiles which are propelled by rocket motors. It so happens that all or nearly all the fuel is expended in the tube, but they are rockets nevertheless. Recoiless rifles fire a cased perforated round inside a breech. The breech has vents that are routed through rearward-facing venturis. So the propellent accelerates the shell down the rifled barrel the same as with other artillery (which is the major difference from a bazooka-type weapon) with part of its charge while the rest of its charge is accelerated to the rear to counteract the recoil. I am sure that there must be somewhere on the web an illustrated example that will show all this much better than mere words can explain. But to summarize, zooks and shrecks use rockets and RRs use shells. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I think what Babs was alluding to was the backblast which come with both Recoiless guns and Anti-tank rockets, in that the disadvatanges from this are common to both systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Rockets have much smaller backblast, since the rocket engine runs a longer time. This is why a rocket launcher is so much lighter than a RR, since it doesn't have to stand the lateral forces of a real blast. The disadvantage of rockets is that they're usually less accurate. Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Re ATGMs from recoiless rifles: Well, that may be true if you go down a notch to modern portable infantry antitank weapons. The 88mm Carl Gustaf (spelling?) recoiless rifle may still be in use in NATO, and I believe (I may be wrong) the US Army's current LAW is more-or-less a disposable version of the 88mm Carl Gustaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Mikey D: I believe (I may be wrong) the US Army's current LAW is more-or-less a disposable version of the 88mm Carl Gustaf.If you're referring to the AT-4 (eightyfour), you are correct. It fires the same projectile with the same ballistics. In Sweden it's known as P-skott m/86. Cheers Olle ------------------ Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts