OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

It seems there are some well read people here so I thought I would ask about a weapon that has fasinated me for awhile; the recoiless rifle.

I can find stats online but I was more interested in how it was used.

Was the Recoiless Rifle intended only as a AT weapon? Was it ever effective. Did it fire a rocket like the bazooka or a shell. Could it be used to deliver HE rounds into structures like buildings or bunkers.

Does it have any place in a modern milatary or have shoulder fired weapons made it obsolete. Are they still being used by any major nation or 3rd world armies.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Well there are many classes of recoilless rifle mind you. From shoulder fired to large enough to necessitate a tripod or a vehicular platform. The weapon has always been held as a multi-task weapon, because of its nature as a catridge weapon, that is not preloaded like many infantry rocket weapons today. It can fire HEAT or APERS rounds.

A lot of major world powers, including the United States, employ recoilless rifles still, in varying capacities. In the US case, the Bofors/Carl Gustav M3 has been adopted for use by the SOF community in the US Army.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The Swedish Carl Gustav is still in use in several 'major' armies like Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, USA (as said above, mainly in SOF and Ranger units), and dozens of other nations.
It has become somewhat of an archetype of the shoulder-fired RLR, and can be considered as a tactical equivalent of reloadable rocket launchers like the RPG-7 family, though considerably more versatile.
The latest versions pack all the power of more modern AT weapons, with rounds available including rocket-assisted tandem-HEAT antitank rounds, FAE canisters and APHE bunker busters.

On the other end of the scale you find things like the US M-40 or the late British Wombat, i.e. long-tube, heavy-caliber weapons meant to be mounted on a wheeled carriage, or generally a light vehicle.
These weapons are now mainly used by second- and third-rate armies (from Spain and China to Bolivia and Zimbabwe), as they were the very thing that was replaced by long-range antitank missiles (TOW and HOT) in the NATO armies' battalion support units in the 70s and 80s.
These were used mainly for long-range antitank support of infantry units, and shifting to missiles has traded versatility against anti-armour potency, which made more sense in the heigth of the cold war.

China is still using lots of recoilless rifles due to the large size and overall low proficiency of its army, which means that modern ATGMs are too expensive and reserved for elite units. They even developped a new company/battalion-level support weapon called PF-98 Queen Bee, which can be described as a crossover between a recoilless gun and a reloadable rocket launcher like a SMAW, LRAC-89 or RPG-29, though significantly heavier.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Interesting. I looked up the M3 on the internet, which I had never heard of. The US should have an equivalent to the RPG since it was an effective weapon. Why only Ranger and SOF units, wouldn't infantry platoons be well served by a weapon like this.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

I guess the 'regular' infantry is still much into the cold war inheritance of being suited to fight off armour at close ranges. Hence the squad-level Dragon missile launcher which is deliriously high anti-armour power for the unit size, not even mentionning the pricetag.
That's basically that Dragon that is supposed to be replaced by the Carl Gustav in Ranger units, since they expect to encounter less armor and more various targets, and that's also where it stands or stood in most other armies.

There again, modern developments have shown a major shift in the actual infantry role, and hardware development has started to reflect it, whit e.g. concrete-piercing or FAE variants for the Bofors AT-4 and its US version the M-136. That could give some diversified punch when situation requires.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

I take your point about fighting armor at close range with a very expensive weapon. I'm not saying an infantry squad will never encounter heavy armor on the battlefield but squads should have cheap, reloadable weapons capable of knocking out bunkers, fighting positions and infantry in buildings.

The US military has a terrible track record of spending incredible amounts of money of weapon systems when a cheaper one would be better and more cost effective.

Examples for comment:

Osprey
F23 Raptor
OICW(my personal choice for a weapon that I would like to see scrapped. Have you seen this thing? Looks like a reject from the movie "Aliens")
Growler

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Actually the M3 Ranger Anti-armor/Assault Weapon System (RAAWS)supplimented the M47 Dragon in Ranger Battalions rather than replacing it. The M47 Dragon was a terrible weapon system. It was heavy, difficult to fire, and only had an effective range of 1000 meters - which the missle took a agonizingly slow 11 seconds to travel. That combined with the Dragon's massive launch signiture (i.e. big flash and cloud of white smoke)and smallish warhead, made it very unpopular. It has been replaced with the far more sophistictaed Javelin, which is a fire and forget top-attack missile, with a 2000m range. It has proven to be devestatingly effective in Iraq, against both vehicles and small buildings/bunkers, with a 90%+ hit percentage. I believe both the M3 RAAWS and the Javelin are in use by Ranger units. For bunker busting regular US Army troops have been using the SMAW-D single shot rocket launcher, though I agree that the versatility of the RAAWS/Carl Gustav platform would make it a useful addition to the MTO&E of regular infantry units.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The OICWS was scrapped, as was its immediate replacement the H&K XM8 Rifle. The grenade launcher bit was saved as a seperate weapons, the XM25 and should be field testing soon. It looks like any replacement rifle projects are on hold until the caliber debate (5.56mm vs. 6.8mm vs. 7.62mm) that is going on right now is resolved. The US Special Operations Command has adopted its own new rifle, the FN Mk.16 SCAR-L And Mk.17 SCAR-H in 5.56 x 45mm and 7.62 x 51mm respectivley. There will also be a 7.62 x 39mm variant that takes AK mags. I would not be suprised to see some version of the SCAR become the new US service rifle one the Army finally decideds to get its head out of its fourth point of contact. On an interesting side note, the US Army has announced that it is looking for a replacement of the M9 Berretta 9mm Pistol, and that it must be a .45 ACP! Yay!

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

I looked up that FN SCAR-L weapon online, it reminds me of the FN FNC rifle. FN has an established history of making quality smallarms. I would like to see the US manufacture a licenced version of the FN SCAR here in the states. They've done it before with the 1903 Springfield.

Do you think the M16 and M4 could be phased out for regular infantry and be replaced with the FN SCAR-L?

The 9mm to be replaced by the .45? Hard to believe that a caliber that has proven track record like the .45 could EVER replace the fine NATO approved 9mm BB. Many experts told the military that the 45 did not need to replaced but I think it was more of a political dicision.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

SCAR-L/H first need to actually make in into wide-spread SOF usage. As of right now, SOCOM has apparently balked on some level, because while they agreed to purchase the system, no one has seen it fielded yet.

Also, the SCAR series is manufactured physically in the United States, at FN's plant in this country (in VA I believe). This is why the US market is now seeing the sale of the PS90 carbine and whatever semi-auto F2000 variant was also presented at last years SHOT Show.

The OICW program has been scrapped, the XM8 has been put in indefinite hold pending a new competition for what is now being termed the "Modular Weapon System," and the XM25 is apparently progressing through its development phase. OCSW is also progressing right along. The Future Combat Pistol trials to replace the M9 might even be underway already, as I have not been paying attention to that closely.

As to the caliber debate, I was unaware that there was one. The 6.8x45mm requirement was dropped from both the SCAR competition and the new MWS competition. Developing 5.56x45mm catridges appears to be more cost effective than switching calibers.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The F-22 Raptor issue is more of a warfighting philosophy question than a performance one. To America, saving soldier's lives is the most important part of fighting a war. The fact is, equipping your troops with $200 million worth of techno-crap will save at best few hundred lives, while the same money invested in enhancing hospitols or police nations in a neglected area would save thousands. But investing in stuff to protect soldiers has visible effects; you can see soldiers thanking the Army for saving their lives by giving them Kevlar on the evening news. But non-military spending, although more efficient, doesn't usually give a clear advantage. It's not that it dosen't make a difference; it's simply not obvious.

The point is that America buys $300 million (that's the latest price I've heard) Raptors because its military can afford to. The defence budget keeps going up, so it has to spend money on SOMETHING. Buying 6 F-16s for $50 million each might do the job better, but at a greater cost in lives. So it's all about whether you want to get the job done better, or the job done easier. This is why so many American weapon systems are gold-plated; the Bradley, the $10 million M1A3 (as compared to $2 million M1A1s with basically the same capability), and so on.

As for the Osprey, it's had some good news lately. It's too early to tell whether it will flop, or be another surprise (like the M1 tank, which was also criticised a lot before it entered service).

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The Osprey is the only one of these new programs I always hoped would actually go somewhere. The V-22 actually has the potential to revolutionize the battlefield and add a new dimension to mobility of US forces.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Don't forget the Marine Corps' AAAV/EFV. This is hopefully going to be a good vehicle for the Marines, but it is also very expensive. Besides modern weapons being very expensive, they take a long time to develop. Imagine if the WWII equipment took this long to design, develop and produce-they would still be fighting that war. The Army's RAH66 Comanche was at least ten years in development and they only built a few of them before it was canceled. Now I think the Army is going to use a modified AH6.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The "9mm BB", is roughly comparable to the .45ACP in stopping power and has better ballistic characters and is easier to carry and fire. Nowadays the culture in american gun magazines and "I used the .45ACP with deadly effect, as my other 9mm Para just glanzed off the enemy"-stories and the fact that SOF uses .45ACP is turning again the favor in the army towards the .45ACP and it´s "massive" stopping power. As the current .223cal assault rifles have the real problems in stopping power, and nothing can be done about it, they´re reflecting this to such personal levels as wanting a pistol that has the stopping power needed, whether the older caliber would be adequate, or even better for as a last-ditch weapon.

Pistols are useless in combat. If any truck driver is fighting off the enemy with his service pistol, he´ll get killed after dispensing his first magazine, whether or not using 9mm or .45ACP. Switching calibers back from 9mm to .45ACP would be pure idiocy.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The 9mm is a lethal round in the hands of someone capable of accurate shots into center mass, as do most high velosity rounds. This requires an incredible amount of training and practise time devouted to just the handgun. Police departments and most regular infantry units do not have the money or time to devote to that amount of training to one weapon when there is so much training to do.

The 9mm produces a very narrow crush cavaity; any round that does not hit a vital organ or the head will produce less bleeding and less muscle and tissue damamge. The .45 is not a wonder weapon either, but it allows more "room" so to speak for poor shots because a non-lethal shot will still produce a larger crush cavaity and tissue damage.

"Stopping Power" in most weapons is a myth like the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body. It has a very small grain of truth to it but it persists. I read the opinion of one Army doctor who had spent twenty years studying battle wounds and in his opinion there is no reason for a human being to fall down after being shot by a pistol unless it severes the spinal cord or damamges the brain. He believes people fall as a defense mechanism or by "programming" because thats what we've have seen and heard what happens to people when they are shot.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The common perception that the handgun is a useless weapon in combat has been severly challanged by the operational experiences in Iraq. Since 90% of the fighting in Iraq has been CQB (close quarters battle) in heavily built up terrian, soldiers have been using (and carrying) handguns far more than in past conflicts. Having a handgun to transition to when your primary weapon fails during a CQB situation can be life saving. The problem with 9mm is that due to the absurd restrictions of the Hague Convention US military forces cannot use controlled expansion rounds (i.e. hollow points). There are some fairly effective 9mm controlled expansion loads out there, but the US military is stuck with FMJ ball ammo, which in 9mm has a very poor track record. I suspect the reason for the return to .45 ACP is that the .45 230gr FMJ is probably the most effective non-"hollow point" pistol cartridge available. Which of course, was the very reason the US Army adopted the .45 in the first place - when thier issue .38 Colts repeatedly failed to stop the drug crazed charge of a bolo wielding Moro insurgent.

Adrian

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Like the .223 couldn´t stop the drug-crazed somali militia in mogadishu 1993..

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Where will the US get all the needed .45s? Will they be newbuilt, or from some stock of old M1911s? Think what it´ll cost. Unbelievable. Where will they sell the "bad" 9mm Berettas? Waste of money say I.

A F-22 Raptor may be more cost-efficient than converting their pistol caliber. At least they´ll get the best aircraft there is, that is wise geopolitically and scientifically for new air research for both military and commercial uses.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Getting back to recoilless rifles...

The distinction between rocket launchers and recoilless rifles is that the rocket round carries the propulsion motor with it while the RR propellant is in a cartridge case like a conventional gun round and only the warhead (some rounds have vestigial guidance fins) travels to the target. A recoilless rifle round looks a lot like an artillery shell with a multitude of holes drilled along the length of the propellant case.

The M3 MAAWS replaced the 90mm M67 recoilless rifle in the US Army Rangers. US Army engineers replaced their M67s with Javelin missiles and the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition, also known as SMAW-D (disposable one-shot SMAW).

The problem with recoilless rifles and rocket launchers like the SMAW is the considerable backblast, which precludes their use from within enclosures. Since this is a facet of urban warfare, the US Marine Corps took all their Predator antitank missiles and had their tandem HEAT warheads replaced with HEDP bunker buster warheads, making them SRAW-MPVs. The SRAW-MPV is able to be fired from within enclosures due to a soft launch, and is about the same size as a Dragon missile. The SRAW-MPV warhead has a blast penetrator that can punch man-sized holes in triple-brick walls, and a delayed action grenade that blows up after penetration. A similar warhead is fitted to the new TOW Bunker Buster missile used by Stryker brigades.

Basileus

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Thank you Basileus. That was a point I was alittle hazy on. Now, forgive me but I have to ask this. If the recoilless rifle is closer to a an artillery round than a rockett than how can this weapon be termed "recoilless". Or am I reading to much into the name.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The recoilless round resembles an artillery round in rough appearance only; it functions somewhat differently. The array of holes in the propellant cartridge case vents a good deal of the expanding gases sideways into a curved chamber called the venturi. The gases are compressed by the venturi, increasing its velocity substantially (Bernoulli's principle). As the hyperaccelerated gas proceeds out the back of the weapon, it creates a force equal to the energy of the warhead leaving the front of the weapon (hence the massive backblast, usually much larger than most rocket or missile launchers). This balancing of recoil forces, one facing forward and the other backwards, means the weapon itself doesn't require a heavy mount and recoil mechanism, and many are light enough for a soldier to fire from his shoulder while standing upright. This is where the term "recoilless" comes from, the lack of recoil effects on the weapon and firer.

Basileus

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

After firing the APILAS, loosing consciousness for two seconds from the concussion and my cheek bleeding, I can hardly say that shoulder-fired heavy AT rockets are recoilless.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

Excellent explanation Basileus, well done.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by baggypants

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

dragon's signature
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...0%28USA%29.jpg

Or - "I used to be hidden but now I'm not so sure now" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rant.gif

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

I concur, a rocket launcher is certainly not recoilless (especially a monster like APILAS, what is that, 112mm?). Most of us probably remember the initial Aerial Rocket Artillery tests during the Vietnam era, where a UH-1 helo had like 48 tube-launched rockets on each side (forget the model, it was a simple box array of 6x8 tubes)...when the helo salvo-fired all tubes at once, the forward-flying helo actually flew backwards from the recoil http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

Basileus

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

The XM3/M3 Armament Subsystem for the UH-1 helicopter (which mounted 2 boxes of 24 tubes on either side of the aircraft as mentioned before) also was set up to only fire in pairs, as to prevent the helicopter from being horribly lopsided. The best part of the M3 armed helicopters is that they were organized as artillery for Air Cav units (Airborne Rocket Artillery or ARA), and operated as such, providing very on point artillery fire in support of operations.

Re: OT- Recoiless Rifle
 

That's the one, thanks thatguy96. Another note on rockets, note that stub-rail mounted rockets like HVARs impart very little force on the launcher mechanism, hence they could be mounted in pairs vertically dangling from each other with nothing but a couple thin strips of metal on zero-length launchers under aircraft wings. When tube-launched 5in rockets were used, they required a more substantial mounting point like a regular hardpoint or the full length Sidewinder rails on the sides of the F8 Crusader (one or two tubes per rail). I suspect the tube causes the inertia-defeating force to be constricted in the cylinder, and the friction of this force escaping backwards is imparted on the tube, hence tube-mounted rocket launchers have a recoil kick. In comparison, even substantial recoilless rifles could be mounted on a pintle; the M40 series had a TOW launcher sized mount mainly for firing accuracy in the direct fire role, but look at the relatively flimsy mounting on the M50 Ontos (packing six 106mm reckless rifles on a light airborne vehicle, the end result looks almost cartoonish but suffered no detrimental recoil effects).

Basileus