OT- Recoiless Rifle

[pdoktar]

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.

[Basileus]

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

[Bishop746]

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.

[Basileus]

Bishop746 said:
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.

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

[pdoktar]

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..

[Bishop746]

Excellent explanation Basileus, well done.

[baggypants]

Post deleted by baggypants

[Basileus]

pdoktar said:
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..

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

Basileus

[thatguy96]

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.