Recoil-less Guns

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,568
ATGM are slow moving projectile and have slow rate of fire, They are expensive compare to RCL round which have higher rate of fire which is required for pounding enemy fortifications and due to its high velocity their is little reaction time enemy has to defend itself compare to ATGM in mid flight ..

Crew training for ATGM is complicated compare to RCL, It offer lesser training and cost and effective then ATGM in some parameters, Specially where massive firepower is required at daily basis 'attrition' warfare ..


For sake of discussion, what does 106 mm RCL system provide?

It cannot penetrate modern armour. It does not offer protection to troops.

A soldier could dismount from a vehicle and fire a 84 mm weapon. As my.picture shows, reloading the rifle needs dismounting and vehicle to be stationary.

Moreover, you have ATGMs who can do the job which RCL can, potentially better though expensive.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,568

Published on Sep 14, 2013
Shooting Carl Gustav 84mm Recoil-less rifle with armor piercing and HE grenades.
 

Bornubus

Chodi Bhakt & BJPig Hunter
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
7,495
Likes
16,958
Hmm..It reminded me of this weapon system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Ontos
Remembered more as an anti personnel or Anti structure rather than anti tank especially during the Vietnam war.


During battle of Hue city when all the available firepower including Airstrikes of US failed to destroy the Viet stronghold. This weapon was brought in.
 

Vorschlaghammer

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
315
Likes
493
Country flag
Since RCLs have gone down in anti armor effectiveness, is it possible for example to obtain a few PG-29V rounds for the RPG-29 and reverse engineer them for our 106mm RCL ? The RPG already has a bore of 105mm, and it managed to penetrate glacis plate of Challenger-2 during iraq war.
 

Raj Malhotra

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
670
Likes
962
Country flag
Each RCL round would cost only USD 1000 compared to USD 50,000 to 200,000 for guided ATGM round, hence can be issued & used cheaply & extensively.
 

Johny_Baba

अज्ञानी
Senior Member
Joined
May 21, 2016
Messages
1,229
Likes
3,175
Country flag
US Marines Considering Changing Anti-Tank Rifle After 33 Years
Source: http://worlddefenceforum.blogspot.in/2017/11/us-marines-considering-changing-anti.html

By John Smith - November 10, 2017

The US Marine Corps has announced that they will likely be upgrading their anti-tank rifles from the Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW,) in use since 1984, to the Swedish-made Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle - a major leap in both range and firepower.

The Carl Gustaf is already in use by the US Army, particularly Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Army Rangers. The US military designates the Carl Gustaf as the M3 Multi-role Anti-armor Anti-tank Weapon System (MAAWS).
But the Marines want in, and intend to more than double a planned Army purchase of 1,100 Carl Gustafs slated for 2023. The Carl Gustaf will be used by Marine infantry squads, while the SMAW will be retained for use by combat engineers.
"Right now, we have a registered capability gap for multiple-effects rocket fire," Chris Woodburn, deputy for the Marine Corps' Maneuver Branch, told Military.com. "So the Army and SOCOM have the MAAWS, and we are looking to get the resourcing we need to pursue the next iteration of MAAWS."


The newest version of the Carl Gustaf, which is produced by Saab Bofors Dynamics, has numerous advantages over the SMAW. It fires a slightly larger projectile at twice the rate of the SMAW, and has about twice as large an effective range.
The Carl Gustaf also has a wider variety of projectiles: in addition to an anti-tank and a dual purpose round, it can also fire anti-personnel rounds as well as smoke and illumination rounds. This comes at the drawback of a 2.5 pound increase in weight, but overall the Carl Gustaf is the superior weapon.
"That's one of the things we'll have to look at is, are there bunker-busting munitions available for the MAAWS," said Woodburn. "If we were going to look at replacing [the SMAW], we would have to do that comparison."
But not everyone is sold on the Carl Gustaf. Marine Chief Warrant Officer Christian Wade said that the Carl Gustaf's testing data is dated, as are the US military's requirements for an anti-tank rifle — which explicitly mention that such a weapon must be able to destroy a Soviet earth-and-timber bunker.
"We have not yet done a side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of the Carl Gustaf and the SMAW," he told Military.com. "You would have to take that 'Requirements' document and figure out exactly what they mean by a 'Soviet earth-and-timber bunker.' You have so many different choices, and we'd need to figure out which round is the apples-to-apples comparison of SMAW."
SMAW manufacturer Nammo Talley, a Norwegian-Finnish company that produces missiles and small arms, argue that the SMAW still outperforms the Carl Gustaf as a bunker buster. "We also produce several other variants of SMAW ammunition at our facilities in the U.S. which provide the warfighter performance against other targets, such as vehicles and buildings, that is comparable to Carl Gustaf," said Chad Parkhill, executive vice president of Nammo's Shoulder-Fired Systems business unit.

"Most importantly, the SMAW weapon system provides this advantage while weighing significantly less."
The Carl Gustaf is in use by the militaries of 40 nations worldwide, including Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, the UAE and the UK.

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

And we've been using it since very long.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top