Recoilless Rifle?

[Swift]

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.

sgtGOody

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

FAS claims that the AT4 is a RR but I don't now the definition of one so i'm not sure. What I do now is that the AT4 doesn’t fire a rocket. It fires a fin stabilized grenade. The M3 Carl Gustaf is rifled but also fires a fin stabilized grenade and the latest versions have a rocket motor attached to create a flatter trajectory.

[Auggy]

The M3 is a recoiless rifle.

[PJungnitsch]

Near as I can make out from Ian Hogg's 'Tank Killers' a 'recoiless rifle' uses a charge, whereas a 'rocket launcher' uses a rocket motor, ie a panzerfaust is a very simple recoiless rifle, whereas a panzerschrek and a bazooka are rocket launchers.

This was complicated when the Soviets reengineered their RPG-2 (very similar to Panzerfaust) with a charge and a rocket motor, with the function of the charge being the rocket motor is ignited a distance away from the firer, protecting the soldier and giving the warhead more range.

So it sounds as though some weapons have the characteristics of both.

He lists the 'Carl Gustav' as being a recoiless rifle, although it is quite probable it has been given rocket assisted shells, putting it in the hybrid category.

[SgtMuhammed]

Quick comment about the link on the AT4. Good stuff although anyone who has ever fired one will get a chuckle from the "hardly any recoil" remark. The damn thing kicks like a 12 guage.

[JasonC]

People seem to be fixating on whether a round is a "rocket" or not. All of the smoothbores have very short ranges, typically 300 yards or less, and use fin stabilization for low muzzle velocity rounds. RRs are -rifles-. They use spin stabilization and achieve much longer effective ranges - kilometers, not a few hundred meters.

That is the prime tactical difference between the "one shot disposable infantry AT" (which, whatever any of the sticklers say, are all referred to as rocket launchers by everyone who actually uses them), and the recoilless rifles.

The accent, in other words, is not on "recoilless". It is on "rifle". The whole point of the bleeding things (US WW II variety and onward, not the original German ones which were just lightened arty for airborne ops) was that zooks (and fausts) did not have enough range. The modern replacement for them is the ATGM.

[MikeyD]

JasonC writes:

"which, whatever any of the sticklers say, are all referred to as rocket launchers by everyone who actually uses them".

Yeh, like WWII G.I.s swearing every anti-tank gun was an '88'.

[Swift]

In Sweden we focus on the AT role for our RR (we only have the Carl Gustaf left in service) but I suspect that they could be very usable in their AP-HE role. Is there any relatively realistic way to simulate the use of modern RR's in CM (in an AP role) and what CM unit resembles the Carl Gustaf most?

PS. Jason, we never use the word rocket to describe the AT4 in Sweden. It might be a language thing but just in case you might call us sticklers

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The accent, in other words, is not on "recoilless". It is on "rifle".

Depends on who you ask.

In Sweden we simply drop the "rifle" part, and make a clear distiction between "recoilless" (in practice meaning "backblast") weapons and rocket launchers.

Furthermore I'm 100% sure that the AT-4 used by the Swedish army is not a rocket launcher.

BTW, take a look at the projectile:

Where is the rocket engine and where do you think the propellant is stuffed?

_____________________________

The Bazooka was, IMO, a flawed design because it fired rockets that had burned out by the time they left the barrel.

The positive side of this was that they had a better precision than if the rockets had burned for a longer time, and that the firer didn't get exhausts in the face.

The downside was that the rocket engine made the projectile relatively heavy at the same time as the short burn resulted in a muzzle velocity.

A backblast weapon firing the same warhead, less rocket engine, would have a higher muzzle velocity while needing a thicker tube.

Cheers

Olle

[JasonC]

In one column, right down the effective ranges of the following weapons - bazooka, panzerschreck, panzerfaust, LAAW, AT-4.

In another column, right down the effective range of the following weapons - US 57mm RR (late WW II), US 75mm RR (ditto), US 106mm RR (postwar), Dragon ATGM, Javelin ATGM.

Then pontificate your merry heads off.

[Stalin's Organ]

The definition of a gun vs a rocket launcher is simple - a rocket carries the propellant with it in the projectile. A projectile from a gun doesn't.

The Pz-faust is a little of both - having both a charge that doesn't travel with the projectile and one that does.

the German RR's were most certainly NOT "just lightened artillery" - they used pretty much the same principle as the later American models that most ppl are familiar with (well those my age at least!).

The operative word is NOT Rifle - modern smooth bores are quite capable of reaching out kilometers, while recoiless rifles used for the aT role typically do/did only have rages measured in hundreds of metres - IIRC the maximum engagement range for the 106 was 800m.

these days tactical rockets can have ranges of kilometers - there's no point trying to define generalities like that!

[Nidan1]

The thing that still bothers me, is the fact that the Germans were using a Recoiless Rifle in an indirect fire mode. Its going to take me a while to read through Andreas's link, because my "deutsch" is not what it used to be. Perhaps I'm just fixed on the RRs that I was used to. I guess you could just elevate the barrel and fire one that way, but I never saw it done.

[Andreas]

Sorry, totally forgot about that. Etterlin gives the maximum elevation level as +45 degrees on the 75mm LG (working from memory here). The range is slightly higher than that given in the website, IIRC. The range of the 105mm LG is quite a bit higher with 7,800m (elevation level similar).

He states they were intended as infantry gun replacements for specialist applications, which also implies that while expected to fire directly most of the time, they would need indirect fire capability.

Etterlin mentions another LG which from the picture looks like the US RR, and that has a range of 2,000m, which clearly would put it in the direct fire only camp.

Edit to add - they all had just one charge.

[ February 25, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Nidan,

I think where you are getting confused is the size of the systems in question. The old 90mm that you used and that I also used in Berlin was man portable and was akin to a bazooka on steroids. The RRs in the game are bigger but still not as big as a comparable arty piece. These things had light mounts rather than being shoulder fired. Remember the 105 RRs that the Army used to have on jeep mounts?

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Sorry, totally forgot about that. Etterlin gives the maximum elevation level as +45 degrees on the 75mm LG (working from memory here). The range is slightly higher than that given in the website, IIRC. The range of the 105mm LG is quite a bit higher with 7,800m (elevation level similar).

He states they were intended as infantry gun replacements for specialist applications, which also implies that while expected to fire directly most of the time, they would need indirect fire capability.

Etterlin mentions another LG which from the picture looks like the US RR, and that has a range of 2,000m, which clearly would put it in the direct fire only camp.

Edit to add - they all had just one charge.

Vielen dank, Andreas, I'm going to read it anyway because I need the practice. I can see the German need for a lightweight airborne weapon for Fallschirmjaeger use, especially in the early war years. However since Hitler put the kabosh on major airborne operations after the Crete fiasco, the Germans did not continue with the development of light indirect fire weapons in the vein of a RR. I guess going forward from there the RR developed into a pure direct fire AT weapon.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by sGTGoody:

Nidan,

I think where you are getting confused is the size of the systems in question. The old 90mm that you used and that I also used in Berlin was man portable and was akin to a bazooka on steroids. The RRs in the game are bigger but still not as big as a comparable arty piece. These things had light mounts rather than being shoulder fired. Remember the 105 RRs that the Army used to have on jeep mounts?

sGTGoody,

You are right, but they were never shoulder fired, they were man portable, but either mounted on a tripod, a jeep as you stated, and if you remember the "Ontos" it had six 106's mounted on a small lightly armored tracked vehicle.

My problem arises from the term "rifle" which indicates to me that the weapon has to be aimed. I guess you could point a "rifle" up in the air and get some trajectory out of it, but it does seem to be a contradiction in terms.

[Andreas]

Nidan, if it helps, the Wehrmacht did not use the term 'rifle' (Gewehr), but 'gun' (Geschuetz).

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Nidan, if it helps, the Wehrmacht did not use the term 'rifle' (Gewehr), but 'gun' (Geschuetz).

Ach so, that is a distinction that I need to remember, thank you.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Spin reduces the effect of the HEAT principle.

Does that mean shaped-charge shells fired from our CM tanks or towed guns are less effective than warhead size would indicate? Or are they fin-stabilized?

[SgtMuhammed]

Actually yes they are less effective but remember that HC or HEAT warheads were a new thing and not really well understood.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

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

Spin reduces the effect of the HEAT principle.

Does that mean shaped-charge shells fired from our CM tanks or towed guns are less effective than warhead size would indicate? Or are they fin-stabilized? </font>

[JasonC]

The ranges of true RRs are measured in kms, of infantry AT measured in 100s of meters. The maximum effective range of the 106mm RR is not 800m, it is 8400 yards. The 75mm RR 7000 yards, the 57mm RR 4300 yards. They could be and were used to chuck HE like any other tube artillery. They were commonly used for direct fire at point targets at 1-2 km ranges.

You get neither that range nor that accuracy from fin stabilized shoulder fire AT systems with muzzle velocities of a 100-200 m/sec. Anyone who thinks the minutae of round classification -within- the family of shoulder fire AT with 250 yard and under maximum ranges (which the supposedly so uninformed practioners all commonsensically call "disposable rocket launchers") are important, is kidding themselves.

Yes, modern ATGMs have km ranges while being "smoothbore". I said they are the modern replacement, didn't I? They still don't have the range of the RRs, though for direct fire they tactically comparable and their guidance system accuracy more than makes up for their slow velocity. (While the unguided low velocity shoulder fired AT are hopeless beyond tiny ranges).

When I spoke of the early German RRs as "lightened artillery", that is exactly how they were designed and deployed, in place of infantry guns and field howitzers in FJ and GB divisions. The contrast is with late war US RRs which were treated as infantry heavy weapons (like mortars and MGs) and were man portable. The larger 106mm RRs, developed when the 75mm proved inadequate in AT power, were used from tripods or vehicle mounts and intermediate in weight and tactical employment.

Modern hyper velocity smoothbore tank cannons with their long rod penetrators are a recent development. Saboted AT rounds were first developed by the Brits in WW II, but were still fired from rifles using spin stabilization.

The fellow who thinks the connotation of "rifle" has to do with direct aiming seems to "hear" an infantry connotation in the term where none exists. Rifling means grooves inside the barrel to impart spin to the projectile. Rifled cannon have been common since the mid 19th century, and essentially all tube artillery (as opposed, e.g. to mortars) has been rifled since before WW I. There is no direct fire or infantry connotation to the term.

[ February 25, 2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Nidan1]

Thanks JasonC for an accurate discription and explanation of the terms involved.

Maybe you msunderstand my confusion of the term Recoiless Rifle as relating to an indirect fire role. I am aware that "rifling" as a physical application of lands and grooves into a gun barrel, to impart spin and thus improve accuarcy is something that has been around since the 1860's in both shoulder weapons and certain artillery pieces. What confused me was my personal experiences with 1960's era recoiless rifles as direct fire weapons, and the information that the Germans used a "recoilless rifle" for an indirect fire application. What I was saying is that my experience with RRs indicated that they had spotting rounds fired first and had to be aimed to follow the spotting round. I just could not picture a RR firing effectively in an indirect fire role .

Granted the Germans in WWII developed these weapons for airborne and mountain troops to be used in an indirect mode, it just seemed odd to me that they would employ the the RR technology, which I thought was basically a direct fire weapon in my experience.

I believe the Russians were the first to start using a smoothbore tank gun, with fin-stabilized rounds, but again these guns are aimed for the most part, and they have a fairly flat trajectory.

I guess like an RR you could raise the barrel and "lob" shells to a target with a tank gun, but why would you do that when you have all sorts of supporting indirect fire weapons available.

The shoulder fired weapon known as a "rifle" obviously takes its meaning from the fact the barrel is "rifled", two terms that can be applied differently, but can be confusing nonetheless.

Thanks again for the detailed response.

[JasonC]

"you could raise the barrel and "lob" shells to a target, but why would you do that when you have all sorts of supporting indirect fire weapons"

Because the enemy won't hit you back, for one. And as to why the Germans wanted RRs for this, they wanted to air land the things in gliders. Remember, the Germans invented parachute warfare at the begining of WW II. It was in its infancy.

So was the recoilless principle, which offered dramatic reductions in weight for the same caliber of weapon. Because there is no breech, no heavy barrel to contain the force of the propellant explosion, no recoil-return mechanism, no heavy carriage to stably hold all of the above.

So for a few hundred pounds instead of a few tons, you could have a light artillery piece. At that weight, you could land them and their ammo in gliders. You could manhandle them on the ground, at least over short distances, or tow them around with the lightest vehicles. Letting parachute infantry fight as the ordinary infantry fought, with close fire support by infantry guns (for direct fire) and called fire support by larger field howitzers.

When they gave up on large scale air landings, the only other use they saw for the same principle - ease of transport of light artillery - was in mountain operations. Where again ordinary prime movers were unavailable. The alternate was a much heavier mountain gun that was disassembled to be moved, and laboriously put back together in each new position.

The corresponding weapon in US paratroop operations was the light "pack" howitzer, in 75mm or 105mm caliber...

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

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

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

Spin reduces the effect of the HEAT principle.

Does that mean shaped-charge shells fired from our CM tanks or towed guns are less effective than warhead size would indicate? Or are they fin-stabilized? </font>

[MikeyD]

It was found that 105mm rifled guns firing APDS with a teflon driving band (to eliminate spin) was more accurate than the true 120mm smooth-bore weapons. Just enough spin was retained from traveling down the rifled tube to improve accuracy.

Why, you ask, whould spinning improve accuracy? Imagine the round has a slight flaw (to a fin or something) that would tend to make it pull off-line in flight. Non-spun rounds would pull off in one direction, while spun rounds would tend to 'corkscrew' to the taget in an increasing dispersion cone. That's why the T-62 tank's 115m gun has rifling for part of it's tube length.

[ February 25, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]