How do these work? I remember seeing pictures of them mounted on Jeeps etc. Are they still being used? If not, why not? Was the US the only country that used them? Were they rocket propelled?
Thanks for the education on RPG's.
peter.

My personal favorite was the U.S. Marine Corps "Ontos". It was a German Wiesel light APC with six, (yes, I said six) 106mm recoilless rifles mounted on the outside, pointing forward. I imagine you could stand to shoot them that way.

BTW, my barber at home was an Forward Observer for a 75mm recoilless battery in Korea. I'm wondering what he would "observe" as as far as I know, the recoilless rifle was a direct fire weapon system.

Amazingly, as in any army weapon system, there are grizzled vets out there who demean the current stuff and wax eloquent about the "good old days" with the recoilless rifle.

The last US Army unit with the recoilless rifle was the 75th Ranger Battalion, and they had manpack 75mm. Of course the ammo is freaking huge, so while you could manpack the tube, humping all the ammo was an (insert bad word here)!

Nearly every nation had and used a recoilless rifle. Basically divided up into US and Soviet equipment, like anything else.

I have fired both the 105mm jeep mounted and the 90mm man portable. I would not call them recoiless the back blast is something to be feared and will move you or the jeep around.I don't remember the Rangers carrying a 75mm but they did carry the 90mm.The 105 used a 50 cal spotter round to tell if you we on target.

I was first trained on the 106 RR and later on the T.O.W.

The ammo on the RR is very distinctive visually as it has a perforated case. As 1894 said, the majority of the gas is directed out the rear to counter the ejecta mass.

These things were no fun to shoot, IMO. Rattled everything you own!!!

BTW, I never longed for the old stuff once the Marines changed over to the T.O.W.

Tim

Recoiless rifles were an early answer (late WWII) to giving the infantry a decent, man-portable, anti-armor weapon. A recoiless rifle uses what looks like a conventional (for the time) cannon shell except the case is perforated to allow the gases to escape. When the round is fired the expanding gases are restricted enough to force the projectile forward but they vent out the rear thereby eliminating the recoil.

Modern infantry anti-armor weapons (LAAW, AT-4, SMAW, Dragon, Javelin, TOW) are closer to the WWII bazooka or Panzerschreck. In the case of the LAAW, AT-4, and SMAW the propellant is burned BEFORE the round leaves the muzzle and the round is "fire and forget". The SMAW has a rubber seal on the rear of the encased rocket to force some of the energy into increasing the range of the rocket, the downside is it significantly increases both the backblast signature and danger areas.

The Dragon and TOW are both missles in that a small booster charge gets the round far enough out that the blast from the motor won't hurt the crew then the flight motor takes over. The round is guided to the target by the gunner, the gunner keeps his sights on the target and the computer in the sight sends signals to the missle. A Dragon can be heard popping as it goes downrange, the more it pops the more it is being adjusted. I am not too familiar with the Javelin, our Anti-Armor Platoon at the Bn level just got them this past summer.

In terms of Light Infantry Company use the biggest advantage the recoiless rifle has is simplicity; very little can go wrong. The downside is weight compared to the firepower given. An At-4 or SMAW/AT is much more powerful. Recoiless rifles are still used in the Western US for avalanche patrols, they are used like a flat trajectory mortar to induce controlled avalanches.

120mm, most any direct fire weapon can be used in the indirect mode. We have firing charts for the M240G for long-range indirect fire and the training standards have been updated. It's just really hard to find a range that this can be done on, as well as some of the equipment to do it right. BTW, good luck and stay safe.

Bob

[ 10-02-2003, 05:21: Message edited by: Gunny Bob ]

Hello;
The biggest disadvantage with these things is the amount of propellant required compared to a conventional artillery piece. then there is the backblast. Besides safety problems, it makes it impossible to conceal the piece for long. Also, the propellant gasses tend to erode the exhaust venturis, which leads to over-compensation of recoil. The concept originally appeared during WW1 with the Davis Gun, an aerial weapon that fired a lead shot counterweight to offset the recoil. The Germans developed a neat little toy like version, they used during the invasion of Crete. Unfortuneately [for them], shortages of propellant led them to abandon the idea.
Grizz

Mauser are working on an interesting range of recoilless automatic cannon in 30mm and 35mm calibres. They use a combustible case, so no ejection problems, and mosty of them are front-feeding revolvers. The first recipient is likely to be the German version of the Eurocopter Tiger attack helo, but the gun has also been tested on a light AFV. The more powerful of the two 30mm versions develops more muzzle energy tha the 30mm GAU-8/A in the A-10 'Tankbuster'aircraft, so it's going some!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

I'm no grunt, just a computer geek. But I got to try out the Javelin trainer (full size and full weight) at a trade show once. I feel sorry for the guys that had to hump the Dragon around. The Javelin trainer left blood marks under the skin on my shoulder where the wrinkles in my shirt were.

[ 10-02-2003, 18:58: Message edited by: enbloc ]

As an aside, I once sat through a lecture by Gerald? Bull at Iowa State University school of engineering, where he revealed his stored recoil 105mm gun. It would store the recoil from the prior round fired in a rube goldberg hydraulic/spring mechanism, and expend that energy in the opposite direction of recoil, allowing just enough recoil to restore the energy consumed.

Resulted in a purported 1/3 gain in range. Don't know how that math worked, entirely, but the dude knew his stuff.

I'm going to put this up one more time - the lower round in the photo is for a recoiless rifle. I'm not 100% sure but I believe it was Czech in origin and I think it was 57mm. I could be wrong on both counts.
As I stated in the post on the RPG, the recoiless rifle was bad news. Everything said about the signature blast, hard to conceal, etc, etc, while true doesn't help very much if you are ambushed by a couple of these things.
A favorite tactic was to open up on a boat with small arms fire, knowing full good and well the boat would attempt to move away from the in-coming fire. Across the river or around the bend, anywhere a "Choke=point" could be found, there you could look for a couple of recoiless rifles to take you under fire. A couple of cans of 50 cal from "Ma Duece" was the most effective counter battery against the recoiless.
Great couple of post going here.
Regards,

The United States created a recoilless rifle which was arguably the most powerful Infantry-based weapons system ever devised. Nothing today even comes close:



Known as the Davy Crockett or M-388 system, it consisted of an M29 launcher and Mk-54 warhead, configured for both 10 & 20 ton yields:



400 produced, all retired by 1971. Although "retired" might mean sitting in a room in Amarillo....

Holy Crap,

infantry using nukes?!

I never knew such a device was ever deployed, I thought artillary launched tactical was as small as they got.

How much truth is there in the "suitcase" nukes we have heard of, small enough to be carried around by one man? what yeild?

Trapdoor,
I've been a FiST Leader for the past 5 years in the Marine Reserves. Have you ever seen a real (perhaps subdued) version of that patch, and if so where can I get one?

Bob

Hello Low Teck
Soldier of Fortune did an article a few years ago on a couple of American nuclear demolitions. I don't have a clue as to the yield, but these were essentially man packed weapons assembled on site and set off with a timer, I believe. There were two versions, one U-235 based and one Plutonium. The author supposedly trained on a secret base on Okinawa in using these things
Grizz

The launcher tube looks a little anemic to my eyes on that baby nuke. Maybe it's just for morale (they might not fire it when ordered if you just walked up and detonated it in place.) I also was under the impression that baby nukes were still in the 1/2 KT range, not in the ton range.

The reassuring thing about ICBM's - half way around is as far from ground zero as you can possibly get.

At Ft. Waiwright AK in the mid-1960's, we had a Davy Crockett platoon in the 171st Infantry Brigade (Mech.) However, we had NO recoilless rifles. This was because, in addition to the tremedous backblast they gave, in very cold weather the projo left a very visible vapor trail from the point of impact all the way back to the gun! Made it damn hard to hide the piece!! Of course, the Davy Crockett had this same problem, but I don't recall if one of these was ever fired (with inert rounds, of course!!) up there!

The Davy Crockett was removed from the hands of troops when some President (Nixon??) all of a sudden realized "My God! You mean we have Battalion Commanders out there who have control of nuclear weapons??"

[ 10-04-2003, 19:52: Message edited by: eldeguello ]

eldeguello, I'm trying to remember, maybe you can help. I believe I read somewhere, (help required from this point, information/memory suspect) that the Davy Crockett was the only weapon in the US arsenal with a blast radius larger than it's delivery range. AKA, the troops better fire it from beside a bunker and get inside before it goes off! Either that or they better plan on not being around much longer.
Am I correct here, of did I read some garbage?

Let me know, if you could.
Thanks,
Rick

Double post - Hate that!

[ 10-07-2003, 20:51: Message edited by: Rick Koehler ]

Gunny Bob,

Sorry, I haven't seen any FIST patches... I would love to have a patch myself, and maybe a few decals for the vehicles!

Haven't been around the King of Battle for a few years now.... I surely miss putting Steel Rain on targets.

Wish I could help...

I don't care how slow the A-10 is, when they orbit your position (now matter how good your cammo is), you tend to feel the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

And they're the good guys.

And then again, maybe that's why they are so good. I happen to like them and really, really appreciate their presence.

Regards,

Eric

Rick-The CEV (Combat Engineer Vehicle) throws a large chunk of plastic explosive out of a "very" short barrel, with a range of 900 m. The blast effects of this little pill are listed in the manual as 1100 m. The crew has to button up and get ready to bounce around a little to shoot the thing. I picked up a little piece of shrapnel in my pectoral from one of these, used on a roadblock from about 1500m away, so I will attest to its huge blast radius.

Nearly anything that launches White Phosphorus has a "negative overlap" on blast radius to range. No matter what the book says.

120, IIRC, CEV is used by field engineers for digging tank firing positions, etc. Now, I'm a computer draftsman by trade, and can attest to some of the "less intelligent" things I have see proposed by "engineers". That gun on the CEV takes the cake.

Too many engineers, too little common sense.

Be careful over there, 120. We want you back alive, and all the others too.

Rick

Tony,

Believe me, my soldiers heart goes out to those familie's that lost their son's in "Desert Storm' as a result of an A-10. However, the Air Force, in their infinate wisdom, in that engagement, laid out the ROE for their pilots that they would not get closer than five (yes, that's 5) miles to a potential target. To minimize the possibility of getting hit I believe.

I don't know about you, but I can't see shit at five miles, even with the best of optical devices. How's a pilot supposed to see something?

Bloody Air Force Generals need to take their heads out of their rear ends I think. And they think the f-16 will be better.

We small guys call people like that morons.

Regards, best wishes, and condolences.

Eric

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project024.html

What I know about Russian suitcase nukes, about 30 was made and 17 they have, the rest is stollen nobody know where. Just funny, isn't it ?

Jiri
if these nukes are in the hands of people who are not afaid to use them, then the question is what are they waiting for? I have to believe that if UBL had access to a small nuke it would have been used already. Strangly I'm more afaid of somebody that waits to use them, then somebody that is forced to use them.......

History has shown that if the technology exists, then you cannot contain it forever, the cat out of the bag sort of thing, so they are out there, God help us.

low-tech,

you are right to be skeptical.

The original "suitcase nuke" was really an artillery nuke stuffed into a very large suitcase. All for show.

The Russians went to the US with tales of "suitcase nukes that were found and destroyed, all except for a few that could easily be located with the help of some american dollars (hint hint). After turning up nothing, the Russians started talking about even more suitcase nukes that were supposedly lost, and could be located with even more US dollars (hint hint).

For the most part, these warheads would have been too heavy to carry except on a dolly, would have deteriorated by now, and the arming system would have degraded.

The Israelis had some nuclear artillery shells and anti-tank mines, but supposedly destroyed these once better guidance and delivery systems became available. The material may have been recycled, and probably was.

There are technical hurdles to a superpower using clandestine nukes like the "suitcase nuke". There is no failsafe. Delivery is man-portable. They are slow moving and fairly detectable. Their yield is small, and not militarily effective, being more or less an infrastructure weapon. They have a limited lifespan. Without shielding, they are deadly to the carrier, and with shielding they become vehicular. If lost or stolen, they could be used against the previous owner.

Like you said, if OBL had one, it probably would have been used (assuming it worked). On the other hand, Qaddafy still has a billion dollar bounty for anyone who can supply a working nuke, and that would buy a whole lot of C4 and PLO fashion accessories, but Libya still hasn't joined the mile-deep club. Pakistan has its own program, with its own uranium deposits, and reserves nearby in Afghanistan, so that threat is way more relavent.

[ 10-30-2003, 20:57: Message edited by: low_tech ]

On the original topic of recoiless rifles. The US Army still uses a version in the Rangers and Special Ops called RAAWS (Ranger Anti Armor Weapon System) Basically a shortened 84mm Carl Gustav so it is more portable. Pretty impressive when used by a well trained team. I think the Army is looking at wider use in other units for urban warefare, an application where it is very effective.

[ 10-26-2003, 03:11: Message edited by: AKJD ]