Recoilless Rifles superior to throw-away ATG?

[phavoc]

Found an interesting article about the Carl Gustaf that is being issued to regular army troops and not just special forces.

The standard AT4 ATG round has a range of about 300meters and it's really just an upgraded LAW. The Carl Gustaf has a range of 1,700m, and can fire programmable rounds and has superior optics and pretty much everything else. Both are of Swedish design. The only advantage the AT4 has is weight, which is about 8lbs lighter than a full Carl Gustaf system.

It's nice to see recoilless get their due again. I thought they got tossed aside pretty quick for the disposable rockets. I was never a big fan of the LAW. I preferred my rockets in the 220mm range anyways...

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/01/27/Army-expands-use-of-recoilless-rifle/UPI-72791327676147/?st_rec=72791327676147

 

[Condottiere]

I got interested in recoilless cannons when I read Falkenberg's Legion.

They're cheap and effective, if you aren't facing tanks.

 

[Reynard]

The AT4's advantages over the Gustaf, as well as weight, are cost, the confined space ability being usable and safe to fire in enclosed spaces and take less training to use. All very fine for general issue. The Gustaf becomes more of a specialty weapon.

 

[wbnc]

First time I ever saw a recoiless rifle was in pictures of my dad when he was in the army..His unit was armored recon, way back in the day. They had a Willys Jeep with a 107mm recoiless rifle on the back of it..A flipping jeep with a gn bigger than all but the biggest tank gun of the day

Recoiless( technically very low recoil ) rifles are powerful weapons. The Carl Gustaf is just one system that uses the principle. The Gustaf is compact, well made, and well designed. Since the soldier retains the entire weapon after firing, it can be fitted with better sights and other improvements over a toss away AT-4 launcher.

The Gustaf also has a rifled barrel, which makes it a LOT more accurate than most rocket propelled weapons. Fin stabilized weapons are decently accurate but not in the same degree as a spin stabilized round

 

[phavoc]

First time I ever saw a recoiless rifle was in pictures of my dad when he was in the army..His unit was armored recon, way back in the day. They had a Willys Jeep with a 107mm recoiless rifle on the back of it..A flipping jeep with a gn bigger than all but the biggest tank gun of the day

Recoiless( technically very low recoil ) rifles are powerful weapons. The Carl Gustaf is just one system that uses the principle. The Gustaf is compact, well made, and well designed. Since the soldier retains the entire weapon after firing, it can be fitted with better sights and other improvements over a toss away AT-4 launcher.

The Gustaf also has a rifled barrel, which makes it a LOT more accurate than most rocket propelled weapons. Fin stabilized weapons are decently accurate but not in the same degree as a spin stabilized round

I remember those same images, especially from like Korea. It seemed so funny, but the did a great job.

The Germans and their Nebelwerfer were superior to the copies the Russians made. The Russians, being themselves, took the idea but went with basic smoothbores instead of the rifling the kraut's used. Germans had better range and accuracy, but Russians made up for it with volume and less maintenance (always a good thing in any Russian army!).

On a rocket-for-rocket basis the AT4 does have an advantage in weight, but the reload only weight about 10lbs, so if you had say five rounds of each the Gustaf would come out on top. Though if you needed a smaller backblast area, well, there's no way to get around that one. So the AT4 definitely wins.

And cost vs. performance, that's a perennial argument that nobody can win. Just ask the defense industry.. cost should NEVER be an issue for arming the troops (cough-Sgt. York-cough-cost overruns-cough)

 

[Condottiere]

It would be for a mercenary force.

I think I calculated once that the best bang for the buck was to equip the troops with an automatic rifle, and like the F-35, using variants for every conceivable niche.

 

[Epicenter]

It's important to remember the Carl Gustav RR become highly competitive in terms of mass after a redesign and modernization of the system slashed the weight of it from ~16kg to ~10kg by replacing the former steel construction using composites and aluminum.

They're not necessarily superior though.

The throw-away ATG has the advantage of being ... throw away. It's simple to use, you always know there's a shaped-charge warhead in there as well. You hump it about and break it out when there's a situation it might be useful and can augment a soldier's kit. You can make the argument that perhaps the AT4 perhaps is too expensive or too heavy for what it does though.

The recoiless rifle is much more flexible and overall more effective. However, this effectiveness comes at a price - you need to train your soldiers to use to it and with a weapon like the Carl Gustav, the more training and practice you give them on the weapon, the more effective it becomes. It's more like a support weapon than something your average infantryman carries.

So yes, as pointed out above, a RR is the perfect weapon for mercenaries - professional soldiers for hire who are hired for their skills. And the RR rewards skill much more than throw-away AT rocket.

Interesting, while the Soviets/Russians traditionally keep around cheaper and more reasonably effective weapons, they had a similar system (in fact I'd say it's better than the Carl Gustav) the RPG-29 ... which they have since phased out.

 

[dragoner]

The Germans and their Nebelwerfer were superior to the copies the Russians made. The Russians, being themselves, took the idea but went with basic smoothbores instead of the rifling the kraut's used. Germans had better range and accuracy, but Russians made up for it with volume and less maintenance (always a good thing in any Russian army!).

German RR art was called Leichtgeschütz, and used the same warhead as their howitzers, their rocket artillery was all over the place, many of them fired from wooden crates, like the Wurfrahmen. Russians used a lot of German weapons, that the Germans had dropped or taken from them when captured.

RR's have been figured to be mediocre at killing tanks, however, tanks are sort of a past-tense weapon in that just about any country that can make tanks, or modern mbt's, also has nukes. So in the modern battlefield, the RR as an art piece has many more advantages.

 

[wbnc]

The Germans and their Nebelwerfer were superior to the copies the Russians made. The Russians, being themselves, took the idea but went with basic smoothbores instead of the rifling the kraut's used. Germans had better range and accuracy, but Russians made up for it with volume and less maintenance (always a good thing in any Russian army!).

German RR art was called Leichtgeschütz, and used the same warhead as their howitzers, their rocket artillery was all over the place, many of them fired from wooden crates, like the Wurfrahmen. Russians used a lot of German weapons, that the Germans had dropped or taken from them when captured.

RR's have been figured to be mediocre at killing tanks, however, tanks are sort of a past-tense weapon in that just about any country that can make tanks, or modern mbt's, also has nukes. So in the modern battlefield, the RR as an art piece has many more advantages.

The obituary of the MBT has been written many times..and canceled the next tie an army took to the field.

Oddly it seems the AT-$ uses the same system of propulsion that the Carl Gustaf does...

The AT4 may be considered a disposable, low-cost alternative to a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. The AT4 took many of its design features from the Carl Gustav, which operates on the principle of a recoilless weapon, where the forward inertia of the projectile is balanced by the inertia of propellant gases ejecting from the rear of the barrel. But unlike the Carl Gustav, which uses a heavier and more expensive steel tube with rifling,[14] the disposable AT4 design greatly reduces manufacturing costs by using a reinforced smoothbore fiberglass outer tube. In a recoilless weapon, the barrel does not need to contend with the extreme pressures found in traditional guns and can thus be made very lightweight. This fact, combined with the almost complete lack of recoil, means that relatively large projectiles (comparable to those found in mortars and artillery systems) can be utilised, which would otherwise be impossible in a man-portable weapon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

So the recoiless rifle in the guise of the AT-4 is still alive and Kicking. The At-4 is just a one shot toss away version of the same weapon type as the Gustav.

Way to go Reckless Rifles !!!! show those guys that said your dead as a weapon ...edit.... You're not Your...damn you spel check...

 

[Anonymous]

What's not to like about a BIG GUN you can carry and blow sh!t up with?

Seems reasonable that it already exists if not in RL then certainly in Traveller but I look forward to versions with guided warheads so we can do away with the rifled steel tube, drop it back to lightweight and get the CG's accuracy.

I guess I could just go look it up in the CSC...

 

[dragoner]

Notice mortars and artillery are mentioned, which are generally HE, not AT.

...and canceled the next tie an army took to the field.

When was this? IIRC last shootouts were pretty one sided, M1A2's vs Soviet monkey models fielded by the Iraqis, and then the Iraqis have had their entire armor force of Abrams decimated by ISIS recently.

 

[dragoner]

What's not to like about a BIG GUN you can carry and blow sh!t up with?

War is physics and chemistry, more energy you put into an area, the more casualties you cause. HE is more efficient at that, rather than firing little pieces of lead, and the Infantry Gun isn't a new idea either. Esp better for a light infantry force that doesn't have fire support in the way of howitzers, forex the German RR's were in lieu of art for paras.

 

[Anonymous]

Notice mortars and artillery are mentioned, which are generally HE, not AT.

...and canceled the next tie an army took to the field.

When was this? IIRC last shootouts were pretty one sided, M1A2's vs Soviet monkey models fielded by the Iraqis, and then the Iraqis have had their entire armor force of Abrams decimated by ISIS recently.

Careful there, we're gonna open up that much trod thread of combined arms and how poor tactics will lose your battle every time.

 

[Anonymous]

What's not to like about a BIG GUN you can carry and blow sh!t up with?

War is physics and chemistry, more energy you put into an area, the more casualties you cause. HE is more efficient at that, rather than firing little pieces of lead, and the Infantry Gun isn't a new idea either.

AKA speed and violence of action. Hit them harder and faster.

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Bring bigger guns and more explosives...

yada yada yada :mrgreen:

 

[dragoner]

Careful there, we're gonna open up that much trod thread of combined arms and how poor tactics will lose your battle every time.

The rifleman makes the rifle, always has. The reality of modern warfare has been one of asymmetry. When I saw how many Abrams the Iraqis lost, my biggest question was why were they there anyways? Selling someone something they don't need.

What I find actually funny in game, is that characters don't ever form into things like a csw; a good mortar team is devastating, during ww2, both Germans and Russians became good enough to be able to drop grenades into foxholes or open tank hatches.

 

[dragoner]

What's not to like about a BIG GUN you can carry and blow sh!t up with?

War is physics and chemistry, more energy you put into an area, the more casualties you cause. HE is more efficient at that, rather than firing little pieces of lead, and the Infantry Gun isn't a new idea either.

AKA speed and violence of action. Hit them harder and faster.

Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Bring bigger guns and more explosives...

yada yada yada :mrgreen:

Yep. But best is the grid square remover, it ain't a party until Arty gets there.

 

[Anonymous]

The rifleman makes the rifle, always has. The reality of modern warfare has been one of asymmetry. When I saw how many Abrams the Iraqis lost, my biggest question was why were they there anyways? Selling someone something they don't need.

Warning, very dangerous statement coming up:

If "we" were trying to get them to adopt a way of fighting that "we've" practiced the last century or so then it makes sense to sell them the gear to do that. That it's unlikely they'd ever need to use it in that context is as you say, a financial decision. Someone was laughing all the way to the bank.

What I find actually funny in game, is that characters don't ever form into things like a csw; a good mortar team is devastating, during ww2, both Germans and Russians became good enough to be able to drop grenades into foxholes or open tank hatches.

I'll politely disagree with your use of the word funny. It's cos most players have not got a clue about which tactics/tools to use for the job at hand and want to play swashbuckling in space. This is all well and good, whatever floats your boat. I find it mildly annoying. HAHAHAHA. I also find it annoying that when I start a character tooling up for the job at hand, the ref raises an eyebrow at the size of the armoury. "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck"

Anyway, I am ranting again and I've only had one cup of coffee, must attend to that shortage...

:mrgreen:

 

[dragoner]

The rifleman makes the rifle, always has. The reality of modern warfare has been one of asymmetry. When I saw how many Abrams the Iraqis lost, my biggest question was why were they there anyways? Selling someone something they don't need.

Warning, very dangerous statement coming up:

If "we" were trying to get them to adopt a way of fighting that "we've" practiced the last century or so then it makes sense to sell them the gear to do that. That it's unlikely they'd ever need to use it in that context is as you say, a financial decision. Someone was laughing all the way to the bank.

The banks laughing too. But we love tanks in the same way our ancestors loved castles. But nothing will replace boots in the future, unless it's some sort of crazy Elysium/Chappie robots.

What I find actually funny in game, is that characters don't ever form into things like a csw; a good mortar team is devastating, during ww2, both Germans and Russians became good enough to be able to drop grenades into foxholes or open tank hatches.

I'll politely disagree with your use of the word funny. It's cos most players have not got a clue about which tactics/tools to use for the job at hand and want to play swashbuckling in space. This is all well and good, whatever floats your boat. I find it mildly annoying. HAHAHAHA. I also find it annoying that when I start a character tooling up for the job at hand, the ref raises an eyebrow at the size of the armoury. "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck"

Anyway, I am ranting again and I've only had one cup of coffee, must attend to that shortage...

:mrgreen:

I've let out enough rope, just to see how far the players will go, maybe a fault of mine, wanting to see want is over the next hill. Last time it was the players who put the kibosh on it, even though I took the hit.

We'll see though, I just joined a merc game in google groups, made a nice FO.

 

[wbnc]

Notice mortars and artillery are mentioned, which are generally HE, not AT.

...and canceled the next tie an army took to the field.

When was this? IIRC last shootouts were pretty one sided, M1A2's vs Soviet monkey models fielded by the Iraqis, and then the Iraqis have had their entire armor force of Abrams decimated by ISIS recently.

Just an aside...
The interviews, and actual conversations I had with guys who were in those one sided shootouts were pretty complimentary of the Iraqi Republican guard as a fighting unit and the t-72 as a tank. The guard was good, they were just out classed by the M-1...

The Tankers I talked two at my brothers basic training, and later when he was deployed never had much bad to say about the fighting ability of a republican guard...they were just not in the same league as US equipment wise.


As for the cycles of death and rebirth of weapons systems...

I think my point would be better expressed as, on several occasions weapon systems have been temporarily looked on as obsolete....until something forced the reintroduction of older concept in a new form...

the old style recoilless rifle was not up to handling the competition of newer rocket based systems, it was too heavy, too clumsy, and too difficult to employ ..so it went the way of the musket...but the principle went into newer systems like the TOW and RPG which use a an initial recoiless rifle style charger to pop the projectile out of the tube, then rockets take over..and the AT-4 came along as a toss away version of the system...

 

[dragoner]

I didn't hear much good about the Iraqis in 2003, which is the last time there has been any sort of shootout, not parity, however.

...but the principle went into newer systems like the TOW and RPG...

The RR was originally a HE delivery system, the TOW and RPG began as AT systems, but the battle has moved from big battles to asymmetrical skirmishes. Armor only involved on one side, generally to the detriment to the armored force due to IED's, the new name for mines, since mines are illegal now. The Russians too stopped the Blitzkrieg with billion mines, so I know what is old is new again. Hell, a pilum and m4 basically wound in the same way.