42 replies to this topic

[Dutchygamer]

I've been looking for some nice weapon ideas for my mod, and I've come across the weapon system called 'recoilless rifles'. Simple said, it are guns with some stuff in the back to keep the recoil to a minimum. They are used to fire the more heavier calibre shells (ranging from 30mm until 120mm), and are mostly used by infantry or by the lighter vehicles (APC's in example). They are the opposite of rocket launchers, even though they have the same purpose: they can damage or destroy vehicles.

Now I've been looking into games and mods to see how they are used. I've noticed something odd: in some games/mods they don't have recoil (which is the correct way I think), but in other games/mods they do have recoil.

As I want to make the weapons realistic in my mod, I want to make this clear: do recoilless rifles have recoil (that can be noticed ingame) or not?

Spoiler

Also, I didn't know if this should be in Warfare Technology of in the Modding area, so I put it here. If it's wrong, can any of the mods/admins move it?

[Waris]

This is how a recoilless gun (or recoilless rifle if a rifled barrel is used instead) works:



As I never see one in action IRL I can only imagine it has little to no recoil.

EDIT: Excerpt from Wikipedia [citation needed]

Quote

Despite the name, it is rare for the forces to completely balance, and real world recoilless rifles do recoil noticeably (with varying degrees of severity).

Edited by Waris, 02 May 2009 - 09:42.

[Sgt. Rho]

they do recoil, but only to a minimum.

[Dutchygamer]

Short said, they do have recoil

[Razven]

Newton and physics would said they have recoil, everything has a recoil. It's just to how much of an extent would the recoil would amount to.

But in-game wise, depending on what you're trying to make in game, if it's something like Generals wise, the recoil isn't all that great as they can be mounted on a technical. (Did you know? After the teeny weeny MG, the 1st Salvage on the Technical is actually supposed to be a recoil-less rifle of some sort.)

I assume you have my MSN, feel free to talk about it there if you want a instant answer or you could leave a question here, I'm sure the military buffs on FS would have plenty to talk about.

[Dutchygamer]

Well, I actually have my answer now, so thanks guys for the quick response. I already changed the models so they do recoil now.

[TehKiller]

Not sure about today terminology of recoilless rifles but back in WW2 they were basically large as MG's with AT capabilities (AP rounds) and recoilled like hell (though without the recoil suppressors its recoil would be considerably larger)

[CommanderJB]

There is a fine line between a recoilless rifle and a rocket launcher; the difference, as far as I understand it, basically lies in the fact that recoilless rifle rounds discard their cartridge and rockets do not. Recoilless weapons typically have a large calibre but a low muzzle velocity, which made them good for tank-busting back in the day where an inch or two of steel plate would simply rupture under the force of an artillery-shell sized blast, but against modern armour they're effectively worse than useless as it's all about kinetic energy these days.
As for heavy recoil in World War II, not really. Recoilless rifles will always have a little because although the great majority of the thrust is redirected out the back of the weapon a little will still be absorbed or reflected in the process; it's just that the recoil is so low compared to a normal artillery tube of the same calibre that for all intents and purposes it can be considered such. But what I think you're thinking of is the anti-tank rifles that they used in the opening months of the war, which were basically way oversized sniper rifles (up to 20mm in some cases) firing armour-piercing rounds, which, as you can imagine, gave one hell of a kick. The earliest light Panzers were IIRC able to be penetrated by heavy Russian MGs, but neither weapon remained effective for long, and even the dedicated AT rifle had a short career, no matter what Battlefield 2142 says. They used recoilless rifles in WWII as well, and in fact these were some of the most popular AT weapons. They were particularly in vogue in the 1950s, but with laminates, composites and ERA, you don't see them around much if at all any more in any self-respecting army. Which is why the Carl Gustavs in the Australian Army make me sad.

[DerKrieger]

As the diagram shows, recoilless rifles/shoulder-fired rocket/missile launchers tend to have negligible recoil due to being open in the back of the barrel, thus allowing gases to escape when fired.

[Destiny]

I think recoil-LESS (Word less, get it? If not you could call it Lessrecoil Rifle, which sounds stupid) seems to be the key in Recoilless rifles.

[Kris]

Recoiless Rifle:





From the looks of it, it varies really, New Recoiless rifles do tend to have little to no recoil at all while old models have a massive kick.

[Razven]

Well, in the modern era, recoiless rifles could still be good against infantry behind cover or light-trucks but not much else.

[tank50us]

they can also be used to break a hole in light-to-medium sized fortifications (according to the army manual) depending on the caliber and type of round used. the SMAW for example now has a special rocket which can make a small building disappear! However, if you are a good shot, these weapons can also be used against armored vehicles, and with these new Active Protection Systems coming out, Recoiless Rifles might make a comeback since there would be almost nothing for most detection systems to even take note of when the round is fired. Although they'll likely do nothing more then blacken the paint on an MBT, I certainly wouldn't want to be in a Bradley or BMP when one of those suckers hit the right mark.

[CommanderJB]

tank50us, on 9 May 2009, 14:36, said:

they can also be used to break a hole in light-to-medium sized fortifications (according to the army manual) depending on the caliber and type of round used. the SMAW for example now has a special rocket which can make a small building disappear!

Ah yes, the marvellously-named 'NE' or 'novel explosive' rocket. I'm sure those being crushed by the pressure wave will appreciate the novelty alright...

tank50us, on 9 May 2009, 14:36, said:

However, if you are a good shot, these weapons can also be used against armored vehicles, and with these new Active Protection Systems coming out, Recoiless Rifles might make a comeback since there would be almost nothing for most detection systems to even take note of when the round is fired.

Modern active defence systems don't use a point-of-launch tracking system for obvious reasons (they'd be useless against targets in buildings, for example). Instead, everything from the original Drozd to Arena to Trophy use active millimetre-wave radar systems which will lock on to and automatically launch a projectile to defeat a target of a designated size that's been identified as travelling in a set speed range and on course for the tank. As such they'll still be perfectly able to counter a recoilless gun round, and I suspect that you'd need something like an RPG-29 to defeat the armour on a modern IFV like the Puma.

[SquigPie]

"Gauss Rifles" and "Rail Rifles" are the beds bids i have.

A gauss rifle functions by having a bullet within an electromagnetic ring, the bullet hovers in the exact middle of the ring, and thus doesn't actually touch the rifle. In front of the ring is more rings, the bullet is fired by turning of the first ring and turning on the next, then turning of that ring to and turning the next one on etc. all ofcourse within an eyblinks time. This accelerates the bullet into a ridicules speed, making the gun soundless, RECOILLESS, never overheats, doesn't get weared out, and makes a simple bullet about as devestating as a HE missile.

Ofcourse, its still experimental, it takes a miniature nuke-plant to drive it, plus alot of other major problems.

My dreamgun without a doubt.

A rail Rifle is bassically the same, except it the bullet is mounted on a pair of rails.

Edited by SquigPie, 14 May 2009 - 12:12.

[Dutchygamer]

I know Gauss Rifles and Railguns, but I mean the realistic ones I already took an idea from a mod on how to make them

[SquigPie]

They are very realistic, theres just alot of problems that needs to be resolved before they become functional.

But about functional recoilless guns....I have no idea

[Razven]

Well, to drive the discussion back on topic, I remember hearing a bunch of Marines testing several weapons, a "Get to know what the enemy is holding so you'd know what to expect" kind of lesson. They said RPGs currently used are not accurate and tend to generally fly everywhere, a true hit is more likely a lucky shot at all while the Carl Gustavs they had hit the target (a van) with every aimed shot.

But that's only with the RPG-7, I'm sure more modern RPGs are rather accurate.

[WNxMastrefubu]

how many rpg's are there if there up to rpg-7?

[TehKiller]

@TPAM: ha?

@TPATPAM: RPG-7's aint that innacurate. The only problem is that for a light AT weapon they are quite heavy so its actually hard to keep stability while firing

on a side note: I dont know much about the Carl Gustav but since seeing the terminology SRAW on it does it mean its a wire guided weapon?

Edited by TehKiller, 14 May 2009 - 21:40.

[WNxMastrefubu]

TehKiller, on 14 May 2009, 17:39, said:

@TPAM: ha?

@TPATPAM: RPG-7's aint that innacurate. The only problem is that for a light AT weapon they are quite heavy so its actually hard to keep stability while firing

not ha, i dnt know much about rpg's

[CommanderJB]

Razven, on 15 May 2009, 5:49, said:

Well, to drive the discussion back on topic, I remember hearing a bunch of Marines testing several weapons, a "Get to know what the enemy is holding so you'd know what to expect" kind of lesson. They said RPGs currently used are not accurate and tend to generally fly everywhere, a true hit is more likely a lucky shot at all while the Carl Gustavs they had hit the target (a van) with every aimed shot.

But that's only with the RPG-7, I'm sure more modern RPGs are rather accurate.

The Taliban would disagree, who used them to consistently down a large number of hovering Russian helicopters in Afghanistan and are no slouch in ambushing armoured patrols with them today. The Chechens also made heavy use of the weapons, where they were devastatingly effective at immobilising Russian forces in the streets of Grozny (they would target the top or tracks of the lead and trailing tank in each formation, thereby trapping the entire formation where they would be massacred by a further barrage of RPGs from both sides at high and low angles). They're not the world's most precise weapon I'll agree but if you point them in a direction experience shows that whatever you point them at has a decent chance of going up in flames if you have a bit of experience.

WNxMastrefubu, on 15 May 2009, 5:51, said:

how many rpg's are there if there up to rpg-7?

They're actually up to RPG-32.

WNxMastrefubu, on 15 May 2009, 7:40, said:

TehKiller, on 14 May 2009, 17:39, said:

@TPAM: ha?

@TPATPAM: RPG-7's aint that innacurate. The only problem is that for a light AT weapon they are quite heavy so its actually hard to keep stability while firing

not ha, i dnt know much about rpg's

Not a stupid question actually. The only deployed RPG-series weapon before the RPG-7 was actually the RPG-2, a late WWII weapon that was more or less a copy of the German Panzerfaust. Since then they have also deployed:

• The RPG-16, essentially a heavier RPG-7 which was used extensively in Afghanistan,
  
• The RPG-18, which is a single-shot disposable weapon that is effectively an analogue of the M72 LAW
  
• The RPG-22, a larger version of the RPG-18
  
• The RPG-26, a bigger still RPG-22,
  
• The RPG-27, an even bigger RPG-26 with a tandem warhead,
  
• The RPG-29, an enormous weapon that's reloadable like a RPG-7 but ten times meaner, which fires a warhead that is one of the most powerful threats to an armoured vehicle in an urban environment or in another situation of limited mobility and abundant enemy cover that exists today...
  
• And the RPG-30/2, a brand-new design which is disposable like the LAW/RPG-18/22/26/27 but in the case of the RPG-32 has a novel new precursor rocket (a small dart-like thing fired from a secondary tube just before the main one; it's designed to defeat anti-missile defences and ERA by 'taking the hit' and allowing the actual grenade to slip right past).

The RPG-29 has proven capable of penetrating the lower front armour of a Challenger 2 in Iraq (the driver unfortunately lost some of his toes) and has seriously damaged an Abrams and may have been involved in Lebanon in 2006, where Hezbollah inflicted heavy casualties on Israeli tanks (though this is most widely attributed to an ATGM, the AT-14, instead) and is actually significantly more powerful than the RPG-30 or 32. It's also a massive and unwieldy weapon, but the Russian Army have adopted it for its sheer power.
None of them, however, are recoilless rifles.

TehKiller, on 15 May 2009, 7:39, said:

on a side note: I dont know much about the Carl Gustav but since seeing the terminology SRAW on it does it mean its a wire guided weapon?

No, the Carl Gustav is unguided, though it uses rifling and a higher spin to achieve a decent ballistic accuracy. I'm also unsure where you got the SRAW designation from; that actually refers to the 'Short Range Attack Weapon' FGM-172 Predator, a completely different and much more modern rocket launcher notably seen in the Tom Cruise remake of War of the Worlds.

Edit: List-ised for easier reading.

Edited by CommanderJB, 15 May 2009 - 03:18.

[Waris]

You weren't joking when you said the RPG-29 is MASSIVE. I just found out:

[The_Hunter]

that's infact the very RPG boris uses in ROTR

[Razven]

Well, I think there's a shift in quality of weapons along the line of what me and JB are thinking about, while JB is thinking about the more quality-issue weapons and extreme urban combat, the 'testing' of the RPG-7 was done at 150 yards or so and with confiscated weapons in Iraq, which probably meant the rounds are losing a fin, dented and probably dug up recently from a palm grove. Although still 'safe', it was definitely not in a comparable league to the more modern equipment coalition forces use, not in firepower or accuracy.