Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4896
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby phavoc » Fri Sep 25, 2015 2:06 am

Since we were talking about RPG rounds, here's a demo of an RPG vs. 16inches of bulletproof glass.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/rpg-vs-16- ... 20111.html
-Daniel-
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 2317
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby -Daniel- » Fri Sep 25, 2015 2:14 am

phavoc wrote:Since we were talking about RPG rounds, here's a demo of an RPG vs. 16inches of bulletproof glass.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/rpg-vs-16- ... 20111.html
That is a great video. Love the shot when the glass was burning it was so hot.
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7972
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby Condottiere » Fri Sep 25, 2015 3:50 pm

Basically, it's what you expect to encounter for which you'd equip yourself with.

If there are only going to be a few occasions where that sort of support fire-power is necessary, than a throwaway is probably the better choice.

In terms of gaming the system, you'd have to study the specs between the options, and how much it would cost you to schlep and operate them.
Somebody
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby Somebody » Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:50 pm

Condottiere wrote:I'm quite sure that high tech ATGWs will exist, since they have some advantages over a straight line beam weapon.

A PIAT will have to be used at suicidally short ranges, but no signature, and the troops could be stealthed, and earmarked to take out battle suited opponents.

A recoilless cannon will have a low muzzle velocity, but the shell could have a second stage that will allow it to accelerate to hypervelocity. Could also be gyro-stabilized so that when the rocket ignites, it follows the intended route.
No signature can be done with "conventional" RPG systems like the Armbrust. Even the Panzerfaust-3 is low signature and modern ATGM systems have a "cold launch" system that reduces the detection chance.

RR with a booster stage actually exist (SPG-9 is a widly used BöFei system, a variant is mounted on the BMP-1). Granted not hypervelocity.

The problems with adding specialist gear to RR grenades are price, complexity and space. Either you reduce the explosive load or you get a larger round that needs a bigger charge and reduces portability / increase ammo weight. And once your weight approaches that of conventional guns the RR is both to heavy AND less efficient due to backblast etc.

And as your price approaches that of ATGM rounds those get more and more interesting as well since for certain jobs they weight less. I.e a MILAN ATGM has better anti-armor capabilities than a 106mm RR but weights less than 50kg (the RR is above 200) and each round weights less than 20 (RR rounds between 5 and 10kg). As the Brits proofed - the old bird is a nice bunker buster as well.

Complexity is another element. The more gear you add the bigger the need for computer controll in the round since it must be self-guiding. And that means you can get round only at TL7+ instead of TL6. A problem for merc forces that often operate away from high tech supply lines.
Somebody
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby Somebody » Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:55 pm

wbnc wrote:
Condottiere wrote:I'm quite sure that high tech ATGWs will exist, since they have some advantages over a straight line beam weapon.

A PIAT will have to be used at suicidally short ranges, but no signature, and the troops could be stealthed, and earmarked to take out battle suited opponents.

A recoilless cannon will have a low muzzle velocity, but the shell could have a second stage that will allow it to accelerate to hypervelocity. Could also be gyro-stabilized so that when the rocket ignites, it follows the intended route.
A basic spigot mortar is better for a short range lobbing of HE and frag into positions than precision fire. But if you loaded a smart round with a motor of some kind into it.fired it upward then let the seeker warhead pick it's own target...ouch....add in an explosively formed projectile style warhead and then you get "ow, ouch, oh my god why!!!"

The self propelled round idea is what a lot of modern shoulder fired launchers use, and initial powder charge to get the round out of the tube, then the rocket kicks in and boosts to high speed.

The problem with a rocket is that if the motor is still firing when the round leaves the tube the ground crew get a face full of rocket exhaust...which means most rocket propelled rounds have to burn completely in the tube, or ignite after reaching a safe distance from the firing crew....so most Rocket systems are actually hybrids of recoiless rifles, and rocket launchers.
Mortar fired guided shells where actually developed but not introduced in service for the 81mm and 120mm mortars (Merlin/British and Stryx/Swedish). The rounds came "to late for the cold war" but otherwise worked.

As for "rocket still burning": You could also go the Panzerschreck Route and add a visor / require the gunner to wear a filterless NBC mask (the germans used both approaches). Some early generation ATGM also used a remote firing position so there where some meters between missileer and missile.
wbnc
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1552
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 7:57 pm

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby wbnc » Sat Sep 26, 2015 3:05 am

Somebody wrote:
wbnc wrote:
Condottiere wrote:I'm quite sure that high tech ATGWs will exist, since they have some advantages over a straight line beam weapon.

A PIAT will have to be used at suicidally short ranges, but no signature, and the troops could be stealthed, and earmarked to take out battle suited opponents.

A recoilless cannon will have a low muzzle velocity, but the shell could have a second stage that will allow it to accelerate to hypervelocity. Could also be gyro-stabilized so that when the rocket ignites, it follows the intended route.
A basic spigot mortar is better for a short range lobbing of HE and frag into positions than precision fire. But if you loaded a smart round with a motor of some kind into it.fired it upward then let the seeker warhead pick it's own target...ouch....add in an explosively formed projectile style warhead and then you get "ow, ouch, oh my god why!!!"

The self propelled round idea is what a lot of modern shoulder fired launchers use, and initial powder charge to get the round out of the tube, then the rocket kicks in and boosts to high speed.

The problem with a rocket is that if the motor is still firing when the round leaves the tube the ground crew get a face full of rocket exhaust...which means most rocket propelled rounds have to burn completely in the tube, or ignite after reaching a safe distance from the firing crew....so most Rocket systems are actually hybrids of recoiless rifles, and rocket launchers.
Mortar fired guided shells where actually developed but not introduced in service for the 81mm and 120mm mortars (Merlin/British and Stryx/Swedish). The rounds came "to late for the cold war" but otherwise worked.

As for "rocket still burning": You could also go the Panzerschreck Route and add a visor / require the gunner to wear a filterless NBC mask (the germans used both approaches). Some early generation ATGM also used a remote firing position so there where some meters between missileer and missile.
Its a bit tricky to get the exact balance right with a man portable artillery weapon :D The Panzershrek, and panzerfaust were lethal little monsters, using two different designs. One a pure rocket, the other a recoiless disposable launcher.

The pattern seems to be universal now, a toss away for general issue, with more powerful weapons issued to specialized heavy weapons teams. with varying degrees of sucess..
Condottiere
Warlord Mongoose
Posts: 7972
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:23 pm

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby Condottiere » Sat Sep 26, 2015 7:57 am

There's still the stick grenade or potato masher, for all those characters with way above normal dexterity and/or strength.
Somebody
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 1359
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby Somebody » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:57 am

Some armies have a "neither and both" approach. The Panzerfaust-3 is a re-usable launcher/sight and a clip on "prepacked" launch tube. The tube is discarded after firing. Having used the previous system that had a two part rocket and a "triggering cartridge" (Anzündpatrone) fed by a 5 round magazin (manual repeater) that is a clear improvement in ease of handling (and cleaning)

As for grenades - that is what a GraPi (HK69) is for :) Who needs to throw the stuff when you can launch it. Unlike the M79 this was never the "primary weapon" but rather an add on carried by a normal rifleman yet easily handed over to another guy without attaching/detaching to the rifle etc.
dragoner
Duck-Billed Mongoose
Posts: 1715
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:37 pm
Location: Indiana, US

Re: Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

Postby dragoner » Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:19 pm

Somebody wrote:The problems with adding specialist gear to RR grenades are price, complexity and space. Either you reduce the explosive load or you get a larger round that needs a bigger charge and reduces portability / increase ammo weight. And once your weight approaches that of conventional guns the RR is both to heavy AND less efficient due to backblast etc..
This is it here, more can be done with larger munitions, and as the old saying goes "recoilless rifles, aren't", the larger versions can't be fired off their tripod, unlike a man portable missile. Which brings up some very unpleasant RR characteristics, such as the back blast will give away your position with the RR over the missile, also it is harder to shoot and scoot, because your tube and tripod are heavy. With TOW types (Sagger, Milan, HOT, etc.) you can run the controls back to your foxhole and set up the launcher in brush, a distance away from you. Plus the one guy, one missile deal is easier to train for, as it isn't a CSW, and its flexibility is greater. The reasoning behind the resurgence of the RR is mission specific.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests