Recoilless Rifle?

[nevermind]

The german 75mm and 105mm recoilless rifle,i did a search but didnt find what i wanted to know.What the heck are they exactly?

[Hawk]

Not quite sure what you mean. I entered "recoilless rifle" in Alta Vista and got more than 2900 hits.

Here's a snip from one of them:

"[recoilless rifle are] light enough to be carried by hand; these rifles are fast and accurate, with no recoil, ideal for infantry fighting. Recoil is avoided by letting part of the gases escape through the breech as the projectile goes forward."

Was it something like that you wanted to know?

[Captain Pies]

this site security arms Has a picture of a US recoiless rifle. Basically a tube that fires a shaped charge or HE projectile. The gasses escape out the back hence no or little recoil

[Sergei]

They are kinda like big bazookas replacing ATG's. The reason for having RR's is, that while conventional Anti-Tank guns were lightweight in 1930's when calibers were around 37mm to 45mm, the development of armour meant that even heavier guns were needed. 75mm PaK 40 was already a heavy piece, and things heavier than that just were virtually immobile without help of some sort of heavy tractor.

Now, RR's are very light in comparison. I served with a 95mm RR myself. One man could move it on a road with ease and it could be pulled in a sled during winter.

It was only 150 kg; PaK 40 weighed 1,4 tons!

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sergei:

They are kinda like big bazookas replacing ATG's.

Not quite correct in all cases - in the Wehrmacht they were called 'Leichtgeschuetze', and initially served as organic artillery in airborne and mountain units. I.e. they would most of the time be used in indirect fire mode.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Not quite correct in all cases - in the Wehrmacht they were called 'Leichtgeschuetze', and initially served as organic artillery in airborne and mountain units. I.e. they would most of the time be used in indirect fire mode.

That sounds odd, considering the poorer range the recoilless rifles had, when compared to standard artillery pieces of the same caliber. But since you mentioned airborne/mountain units, I take it that the overall weight of the weapon is an important factor?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

Not quite correct in all cases - in the Wehrmacht they were called 'Leichtgeschuetze', and initially served as organic artillery in airborne and mountain units. I.e. they would most of the time be used in indirect fire mode.

That sounds odd, considering the poorer range the recoilless rifles had, when compared to standard artillery pieces of the same caliber. But since you mentioned airborne/mountain units, I take it that the overall weight of the weapon is an important factor? </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Not quite correct in all cases - in the Wehrmacht they were called 'Leichtgeschuetze', and initially served as organic artillery in airborne and mountain units. I.e. they would most of the time be used in indirect fire mode.

True, I just was referring to them in their AT use. I guess my bias shows

[Nidan1]

My personal experience with RRs in the early 60's has led me to believe that they were direct fire weapons, because they had a 50cal mounted on top as a spotting round, the 50 tracer round was fired then the 106RR round went right behind it. We used them against bunkers and fixed positions in Vietnam. I cannot imagine one being used in an indirect mode.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

My personal experience with RRs in the early 60's has led me to believe that they were direct fire weapons, because they had a 50cal mounted on top as a spotting round, the 50 tracer round was fired then the 106RR round went right behind it. We used them against bunkers and fixed positions in Vietnam. I cannot imagine one being used in an indirect mode.

US RRs in the 60s, okay, don't know anything about this. Wehrmacht LGs did not come with .50s I'll post the data from Etterlin on Sunday or so.

[ February 21, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[MikeyD]

It took a LOT of doing, but I did locate photo references on the German 105mm recoilless guns (there were two types) but I havem't found a bit about the 75mm gun though. I understand they were in German service as early as 1940.

Recoilless guns are pretty much regular guns, but with the back end completely open instead of a closed breech and recoil system. I understand they make a fearful noise when fired. The latest U.S. LAW is a disposable recoilless weapon based on the (88mm?) Carl Gustaf.

[jjhays]

The latest U.S. LAW is a disposable recoilless weapon based on the (88mm?) Carl Gustaf.

not sure on relationship of the design with the Gustav but the LAW is just about not part of the inventory anymore. The M136 and the Javelin have taken over. But just recently I have seen all three deployed in the same brigade.

[MikeyD]

Yes jjhays, I was refering to the AT-4/M136 84mm weapon (which is a recoilless gun), not the old Vietnam era disposable LAW seen in those old Dirty Harry Movies.

The old LAw was Bazooka technology and couldn't punch its way out of a paper bag. The AT-4 was its replacement. It was an upgraded disposable derivative of the Bundeswehr recoiless anti-tank weapon.

[Swift]

The M136 and the M3 Carl Gustaf Rifle have the same caliber (84mm) and both are Swedish but made by different companies. The M3 might have ammunition that have the same warhead as the M136 but i'm not sure.

Both weapons make a lot of noise when fired (and a forcefull shockwave). The M3 can be used to fire HE rounds (with a VT fuse) over 2000 meters.

As stated in this thread the Germans (and other nations) used the recoilless rifle as a man-portable HE weapon when normal arty was impossible but i have read that the high cost of RR rounds compared with standard rounds (mostly the fact that RR rounds need (twice?) more propellant) made the ammunition scarse for German units.

[Swift]

Check out the movies at http://www.saab.se/dynamics/node1293.asp?category=103

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Yes jjhays, I was refering to the AT-4/M136 84mm weapon (which is a recoilless gun), not the old Vietnam era disposable LAW seen in those old Dirty Harry Movies.

The old LAw was Bazooka technology and couldn't punch its way out of a paper bag. The AT-4 was its replacement. It was an upgraded disposable derivative of the Bundeswehr recoiless anti-tank weapon.

Once again with all these direct fire AT weapons in the US inventory found other uses in Vietnam because in the early part of the war the NVA and VC did not have a lot of armor. Along with the 90mm and 106mmRRs we had 3.5in rocket launchers (updated, for that time, bazookas ), and then in 1967 we got the LAAW, it was a lot lighter than the 3.5 and one man could carry 4 or 5 of them along with his regular load. All of these weapons were used against bunkers. The disposible part of the LAAW backfired on us, when we found that the VC were picking up discarded tubes, packing them with explosives and making booby traps out of them. We were then told not to throw them away after use, but to destroy them, by smashing them to pieces with an entrenching tool or rifle butt. This became a very interesting task in the middle of a firefight.

I am still interested in how the Wehrmacht used the RR as an indirect weapon, Andreas, if you have any references on that please post.

[Andreas]

Have a look here, you can see how the mount allowed swiveling to quite steep angles.

Range for both versions is given as 6,500m.

[MikeyD]

My very first look at the 75mm recoiless rifle! Thanks.

[JasonC]

Neither the LAAW nor the AT-4 are recoilless rifles. They are disposable rocket launchers, which shoot a fin stabilized round from a smoothbore tube. A recoilless rifle uses spin stabilization like any other rifled cannon. The accuracy is much greater at much longer ranges that way. It also involves a higher muzzle velocity and much larger powder charge in the reaction chamber. The principle of eliminating recoil by letting exhaust gasses out the back is the same, certainly.

The Germans developed the RRs for airborne troops. It was designed to replace the infantry gun and be air transportable, typically glider landed. The 105mm versions replaced field howitzers. Both were meant to be capable of either direct or indirect fire, neither was meant to be man portable. The 75mm versions were used quite early in the intended role.

After the Crete battle, the Germans essentially abandoned large scale air landings. The RRs continued to be used in FJ units, and also were used by GB, who had a similar problem with weight and lack of prime movers. The alternative for the later was mule guns (which can be dismantled), or trying to get trucks to operate in mountains with mountain guns. Of course both types of formation (and the FJ essentially always) were sometimes used as ordinary infantry.

Production of the RRs was not very high despite the weight savings the principle brought, because there was cost on the other side. The propellant used to fire off one shell was several times as high as with an ordinary firing chamber. Which meant the ammo was several times as expensive per round (Germany was short of explosive, and nitrates to make it, extending the available supply of TNT with 60/40 amatol etc).

Late in the war, the US developed man portable recoilless rifles, in 57mm and 75mm calibers. These were intended as upgrade of the bazooka, meant to give much greater range and accuracy to man portable AT. They were used in Korea, where they proved a disappointment in AT ability. T-34/85s in particular withstood direct hits by 75mm RR HEAT. Spin reduces the effect of the HEAT principle.

60mm bazookas were also ineffective, so large 3.5 inch bazookas - essentially copies of the Panzerschreck - were rushed over instead. They worked, but the NK armor threat quickly disappeared anyway (they never had that many tanks and once lost did not manage to replace them). The problem with the larger bazooka was again its limited range.

This all led to the development of the 106mm RR, which is actually 105mm caliber, the same as the howitzers. The extra millimeter is not really there, it is just a quartermaster's designation to prevent ammo type confusion. The 106mm was too heavy to be truly man portable, although it could be manhandled into position like a 50 cal. They were mounted on jeeps.

They were TOE at the start of the Nam era, but many units did not take them to Nam, prefering additional MGs instead, because the enemy was largely infantry (especially early in the war). The man portable AT role was taken over by the LAAW. Advances in HEAT warhead design allowed a light round smaller than a WW II bazooka to have more penetration than a WW II schreck. The range was still low, but in Nam terrain that didn't seem to matter much.

For Europe, though, it obviously would. ATGMs were the answer, with the "Dragon" man portable wire guided missile becoming the infantry AT weapon of choice. (TOW has much better range, but at the cost of vehicle mount weight like the 106mm RR). Dragons were still in use as recently as the Gulf war. In recent times, the Dragon has been replaced by the "Javelin", a modern ATGM with top-attack capability, better penetration, and range.

As Dragons and Javelins took over the distant AT role but drifted to platoon or company crew served heavy weapons , a need was felt for some form of infantry AT for line squads. That is what the AT-4 is meant for. It is essentially an oversized LAAW. The extra bulk is needed to get a warhead able to defeat modern MBT armor, in particular T-80s. The range is no better than a LAW or WW II bazooka, because it remains a fin stabilized smooth-bore.

Way more history than anybody asked for lol. Maybe it is interesting to some.

[ February 21, 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Aaron]

Originally posted by JasonC:

This all led to the development of the 106mm RR, which is actually 105mm caliber, the same as the howitzers. The extra millimeter is not really there, it is just a quartermaster's designation to prevent ammo type confusion. The 106mm was too heavy to be truly man portable, although it could be manhandled into position like a 50 cal. They were mounted on jeeps.

This is the gun GIjOE used. I had one when I was a kid.

Aaron

[MikeyD]

The AT-4 may be fin stabilized, but so's most tank gun ammo nowadays. The AT-4 round isn't a warhead attached to a rocket, it's a proper round expelled from a tube by expanding gasses... e.g. an expendable recoiless gun. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that short expendable tube may even be slightly rifled to impart a bit of spin, but someone will have to confirm this.

[nevermind]

Thanks for the replies everyone,you cleared things up for me.I was mainly wanting to know what kinnda projectile it fired,since it said "rifle" yet looked(in the game anyhow)to be mounted on a tripod,and it seemed to fire a bazooka type round.

Also,thanks for the links,those are some nice sites.However i couldnt get a picture from the link that Captain Pies posted.Oh well,thanks again everyone

Ps,

One further question if anyone is interested in continuing this disscussion.Ive seen that RR's were around since(aprox.)'39-'40 so why in CM is their rarity so high?80% until '45 where it is 100% and higher.From what i saw in its limited use in my QB it was a nice lil weapon,but i guess the germans didnt think so?Or was it a matter of production?

Thanks again!

[ February 21, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Ares_the_Great ]

[JasonC]

There were few made, and production stopped in 1944. "Few" means around 530 105mm and 570 75mm versions over the whole war. For comparison, here are the production runs of some other German guns -

50mm PAK - 9500

75mm PAK - 23300

88mm PAK - 3500

88mm FLAK - 14300

75mm Infantry Gun - 8300

150mm Infantry Gun - 4300

105mm Howitzer - 17250

150mm Howitzer - 5400

A gun type with only 3 digits of production is a rare gun - less than 1% of the mix.

As to why the Germans didn't make more of them, the weight savings were not worth the decrease in number of rounds that could be made for the same amount of explosive used on shell and propellant.

Only in mountain fighting or air drops was the ammo cost worth it. (The Germans made about as many mountain guns as RRs, incidentally). And as mentioned, after the losses in the Crete operation the Germans gave up on large airdrops.

If you are tossing HE indirect, do you care whether the shooter is a 105mm RR or a 105mm howitzer? No. But the second can have 3-4 shells for the powder the first uses on 1 shell. The powder requirement difference for an RR shot vs. a fully chambered shot is not a few percent, but a large factor. Would you buy a lot of indirect FOs with the same cost but 1/4 to 1/3 of the ammo? No.

As for direct fire AT, 75mm PAK or 88mm FLAK does it better - more accurate and harder hitting. In the case of the smaller PAK in particular, also with less blast to reveal the shooter's location.

In CM, you might like them for the combo of decent AT ability and low base price. The low base price does not mean they were any easier to have scads of in real life than 88mm FLAK, just that they aren't as powerful.

CM base prices only reflect how good a unit is supposed to be (for balance). Rariety adjusts that for how many were fielded, not actual economic cost.

With the ammo costs included, the RRs cost at least as much economically speaking as units in CM that have much higher base prices. That acts on German production decisions, encouraging production of the powerful guns. Which therefore get lower rariety (e.g. 75mm PAK).

[ February 22, 2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The AT-4 round isn't a warhead attached to a rocket, it's a proper round expelled from a tube by expanding gasses... e.g. an expendable recoiless gun. ... that short expendable tube may even be slightly rifled to impart a bit of spin,

I'll second this.

I'm trained in four different Swedish RRs;

* Pskott m/68 (Miniman) now obsolete disposable LAW, about 65mm calibre.

* Carl Gustav Grg, 84mm man-packed RR. I'm trained on the old steel version, but there's a newer made of composites.

Standard ammo is HEAT, HE and smoke.

* Pskott m/86 (AT-4), use the very same warhead as the reloadable version, but this one is single shot.

* 9cm pvpjäs (Huggpipan, the Chisel), wheeled recoilless ATG. Ammo was HEAT only, in addition to the 7.62mm semi automatic ranging weapon.

The weapons above were all rifled, AFAIK.

The ATG was initially designed smoothbore, but got rifling and ranging gun to improve effective range.

These were also all backblast weapons. For these it's a rule of thumb that about 2/3 of the propellant (gasses) exit rear, and 1/3 accelerate the projectile.

(Bazookas are rocket launchers.)

Cheers

Olle

[SgtMuhammed]

There is no rifling in the AT4 or the LAW, they are simply fiberglass tubes. Both fire rockets not shells.