Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recoilless Rifles Versus Unguided Rockets For Infantry, Armored Infantry And Cavalry Units


Recommended Posts

Guest Jason L

High-Low pressure systems are actually one of the few "hybrid" launchers in that the projectile is actually a rocket, but pressurization of the barrel and subsequent expansion are what critically determine their performance. That is to say the fact that the projectiles are technically rockets is largely semantic since they are accelerated by an expansion process within the barrel.

 

Puppchen is unambiguously a rocket launcher, the breech conferring relatively little ballistic advantage for the weight of the system. 40 m/s extra muzzle vel for half the propellant but a 200+ lb system vs a 24 lb system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I never quite understood the doctrinal employment of AT4 as a disposable bang-bang-thrower.

It is big, bulky and heavy enough at 6.5kg to be the domain of specialist support troops, unlike something like a 66mm M72 which is light enough for riflemen to carry at section level, yet disposable, meaning all that weight gives you one shot, versus multiple shots for the 8.5kg CG-84.

 

Seems like a equivalent effort but for a one shot capability.

 

I just don't get where the value is, even though it is cheaper per tube, it wouldn't take many shots to negate the savings.

Edited by Archie Pellagio
Link to post
Share on other sites

The AT4 has a bigger HEAT warhead than the M72 law which was not much use against the red armour hordes in the Fulda gap. Kind of a one-shot Carl-Gustaf RR. But with less hassle of loading the RR and storing the ammunition crates. It is a simple ready to use tube that is its own storage packaging.

 

Today the AT4 is the tool at hand, but as the enemies of the last 1½ decades have not employed much tank... It is a bit the wrong tool at the moment. I think there are bunker buster war heads avaible? But dunno if anyone procured these.

Edited by Panzermann
Link to post
Share on other sites

The AT4 has a bigger HEAT warhead than the M72 law which was not much use against the red armour hordes in the Fulda gap. Kind of a one-shot Carl-Gustaf RR. But with less hassle of loading the RR and storing the ammunition crates. It is a simple ready to use tube that is its own storage packaging.

 

Today the AT4 is the tool at hand, but as the enemies of the last 1½ decades have not employed much tank... It is a bit the wrong tool at the moment. I think there are bunker buster war heads avaible? But dunno if anyone procured these.

 

I'm not comparing the AT4 and M72, rather the AT4 and CG84.

The 66's are a different kettle of fish, light weight and easy to employ at section level.

 

The AT4 and 84mm CG are specialist weapons.

If you're going to carry something that big, it makes little sense to me to have it as a one shot weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And we set the range on fire in muddy winter weather. Twice.

That is SOP...always happening when should be possible to happen...

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm saying that firing a rocket-looking projectile from a gun does not make the weapon a rocket launcher.

 

 

Disagree: it is not 'rocket looking', it is a rocket; that's what makes the puppchen a rocket launcher.

 

I'm not even sure by what you mean by 'rocket looking'. Neither fin stabilization nor the classic 'rocket shape' are defining characteristics of a rocket (Nebelwerfer rounds had neither, Rochling shells arguably had both).

 

I'm inclined to think that a weapon cannot be a rocket launcher unless its projectiles utilize the rocket principle and the weapon is recoilless.

 

Would e.g. the Rheinmetall L44 tank gun become a rocket launcher if its cartridge case base plate was cut off and the weapon was fired using a primer fitted to the breech block?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is SOP...always happening when should be possible to happen...

 

I told the Rheinmetall guy in charge of the event "no shooting is complete without a range fire." To which he replied "right, or you've done something wrong".

Link to post
Share on other sites

As AT weapon it had pretty poor showing in ex-Yugo despite all hype. No better penetration then lighweight LAWs, with "no backblast" feature being of limited benefit even in urban environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not comparing the AT4 and M72, rather the AT4 and CG84.

The 66's are a different kettle of fish, light weight and easy to employ at section level.

 

The AT4 and 84mm CG are specialist weapons.

If you're going to carry something that big, it makes little sense to me to have it as a one shot weapon.

The advantage of one shot disposable weapons is, that they can be closed and sealed from the environment. An AT4 tube can be taken for a swim, dragged through mud, strapped to the outside of a vehicle and it is still going to function, because it is its own protection from the elements. You can forget about the enclosed weapon until you need to deploy it.

 

If you want weight efficiency a re usable RR like the Carl-Gustaf is of course better in comparison after only a few shots. But it is necessarily an open system and not enclosed, because somehow the reloads have to be put into the chamber. If reloads can get in so can dirt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's actually pretty simple: if the projectile is launched via a rocket motor it's a rocket launcher, if the projectile is launched via expansion of gas from a propellant charge, it's a gun.

 

Guns can shoot rockets and there is no confusion, the issue is that rocket launchers and recoiless rifles sorta look the same in the sense that they are both tube things that shoot stuff out one end and fire smoke comes out the other.

 

The operating principle is totally different though. Rocket launchers are basically just tubes because the rocket is a reaction engine and the stuff shooting out the back is what's making it move. The tube in the crudest sense is just storage and aim assist.

 

For a recoiless gun you have hold transient pressure inside the tube so that the projectile gets moving, either via nozzle flow restriction, counter mass, whatever. So once you think about it in that case there is no confusion, although backcronyms for RPG aren't helping anyway.

then there was this:

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/raketenwerfer-43-puppchen.html

 

 

"The launcher fires from a closed breech which is operated by a handle on top of the breech ring. Opening of the breech cocks the hammer which is held in firing position by a sear. When the projectile has been inserted and the breech closed, a squeeze of the right handle depresses the sear, releasing the hammer. A safety device fitted to the left of the firing pin in the center of the breechblock must be turned to F position before the launcher can be fired. An additional safety feature prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin unless the breech is fully closed. The small shock of recoil developed by the rocket gases against the closed breech is transmitted directly to the spade.

Ammunition used with the rocket launcher is a modified version of the 8.8 cm rocket projectile, having a percussion primer instead of the electric type. The rocket is fitted with a base plate with a protruding rim to seat the round in the tube. The base plate and primer are the only parts of the round which are extracted after firing."

 

---------------------------

 

ie a rocket launcher that used a closed breech to keep the propellant gases pushing the projectile up the barrel and not venting from the breech.

 

Even had a sealing base plate..

In similar vein, some Sout American country operates a wheeled AFV that fired 80 mm rockets out of what looked like smoke grenade launchers on steroids. Forgot what vehicle or country that was, but am pretty sure it was mentioned on This Grate Sight some time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In similar vein, some Sout American country operates a wheeled AFV that fired 80 mm rockets out of what looked like smoke grenade launchers on steroids. Forgot what vehicle or country that was, but am pretty sure it was mentioned on This Grate Sight some time ago.

 

 

This one? http://www.jedsite.info/afv-papa/papa/puma-ch_series/puma-raketenwerfer/pumarakintro.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In similar vein, some Sout American country operates a wheeled AFV that fired 80 mm rockets out of what looked like smoke grenade launchers on steroids. Forgot what vehicle or country that was, but am pretty sure it was mentioned on This Grate Sight some time ago.

 

This one? http://www.jedsite.info/afv-papa/papa/puma-ch_series/puma-raketenwerfer/pumarakintro.html

No, there were like 4 on the turret and it looked somewhat rednecked to the turret. Also, the launchers were really kinda overblown smoke nade launchers, i.e. no soft launch. Lastly, the one I mean was 8x8, if memory aint failing me - BTR of some generation? Thanks, anyway :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not comparing the AT4 and M72, rather the AT4 and CG84.

The 66's are a different kettle of fish, light weight and easy to employ at section level.

 

The AT4 and 84mm CG are specialist weapons.

If you're going to carry something that big, it makes little sense to me to have it as a one shot weapon.

The advantage of one shot disposable weapons is, that they can be closed and sealed from the environment. An AT4 tube can be taken for a swim, dragged through mud, strapped to the outside of a vehicle and it is still going to function, because it is its own protection from the elements. You can forget about the enclosed weapon until you need to deploy it.

 

If you want weight efficiency a re usable RR like the Carl-Gustaf is of course better in comparison after only a few shots. But it is necessarily an open system and not enclosed, because somehow the reloads have to be put into the chamber. If reloads can get in so can dirt.

 

 

Furthermore the AT4-approach allows makes it easier to fire a sufficient number of projectiles in a short timeframe.

Important when you want to cut down the time from first shot to disengament to 10 seconds of less.

 

A Swedish rifle-squad back in the day, might carry 6xAT4 (6,7kg each) and 1xCG (14kg each) with 2xHEAT (~3kg each) and 2xSmoke (~3kg each).

One APC/ICV/tank on average was deemed to require 6 shots to take out (50% would miss, and a kill would require an average of 3 hits),

so during an ambush the rifle-squad would fire all six AT4’s at once (or in two salvos of 3),

and then the CG could follow up with Smoke or HEAT as needed, before the rifle-squad pulled back.

 

If possible mines would abviously also be employed.

Often simply to get the opponent to stop or to slow down try to get off the road

(exposing the rear, and sometimes the bottom and top armour while doing so)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden the CG has a reputation for being a very accurate weapon and that is attributed to the fact it´s rifled. Is it correct that the CG is very accurate? Is it more or less accurate than its competitors (rifled/non-rifled)?

 

Edit:spelling

Edited by wendist
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not comparing the AT4 and M72, rather the AT4 and CG84.

The 66's are a different kettle of fish, light weight and easy to employ at section level.

 

The AT4 and 84mm CG are specialist weapons.

If you're going to carry something that big, it makes little sense to me to have it as a one shot weapon.

The advantage of one shot disposable weapons is, that they can be closed and sealed from the environment. An AT4 tube can be taken for a swim, dragged through mud, strapped to the outside of a vehicle and it is still going to function, because it is its own protection from the elements. You can forget about the enclosed weapon until you need to deploy it.

 

If you want weight efficiency a re usable RR like the Carl-Gustaf is of course better in comparison after only a few shots. But it is necessarily an open system and not enclosed, because somehow the reloads have to be put into the chamber. If reloads can get in so can dirt.

 

 

Furthermore the AT4-approach allows makes it easier to fire a sufficient number of projectiles in a short timeframe.

Important when you want to cut down the time from first shot to disengament to 10 seconds of less.

 

A Swedish rifle-squad back in the day, might carry 6xAT4 (6,7kg each) and 1xCG (14kg each) with 2xHEAT (~3kg each) and 2xSmoke (~3kg each).

One APC/ICV/tank on average was deemed to require 6 shots to take out (50% would miss, and a kill would require an average of 3 hits),

so during an ambush the rifle-squad would fire all six AT4’s at once (or in two salvos of 3),

and then the CG could follow up with Smoke or HEAT as needed, before the rifle-squad pulled back.

 

If possible mines would abviously also be employed.

Often simply to get the opponent to stop or to slow down try to get off the road

(exposing the rear, and sometimes the bottom and top armour while doing so)

 

 

Excellent!

Thats what I was after. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden the CG has a reputation for being a very accurate weapon and that is attributed to the fact it´s rifled. Is it correct that the CG is very accurate? Is it more or less accurate than its competitors (rifled/non-rifled)?

 

Edit:spelling

I always found it was, the little bipod helped and apparently the new sighting system is quite good to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...