Summing up various arguments as to why Recoiless Rifles would or would
not be useful -
Pluses - Lower cost, lower tech, if it hits, capable of penetrating a
reasonable amount of armor (side, rear or top, probably not front)reusable,
capable of "sustained" fire.
Minuses - Heavy, slow to reload, possible to shoot down or otherwise
negate (stand-off/reactive armor, PD, close-range AP charges used as
anti-missile)
Possible solutions:
Current recoiless rifles are heavy for several reasons:
1) the rounds themselves are pretty hefty - upwards of 5 kilos
2) Penetration is roughly based on warhead diameter, to get decent penetration
you need a wider warhead, which adds to the weight and decreases the
aerodynamic width to length ratio. 3) Targeting systems are often integrated
onto the weapon itself adding more weight 4) the weapons needs to be reusable,
and rapidly so, long cooling off periods are not suitable for sustained combat
use.
Ways to improve the RR -
Ceramic metal composites that can withstand a large amount of heat over
short or even long periods of time - so that firing 10-15 rounds per
minute should not have problems of rounds "cooking-off" in the tube.
Light components will make it more man portable, perhaps under 100 pounds for
a complete unit. Support and most components could be made
from titanium or other high-tech alloy to furtherf reduce weight. (no
need to brace for massive recoil...)
Improvements in shaped-charge technology so you can reduce the diameter
of warhead to achieve "adequate" penetration. I would assume that RR's will be
used mostly against light vehicles and APC's and only against MBT's as a last
resort. The smaller diameter will result in a smaller
round with weight and size saving all-round.
Automatic loading from pre-loaded "magazines" or clips that allow rapid
fire and don't require additional electrical connections to ignite the round
(connections are built into the clip and the rounds are
pre-connected within the clip). Perhaps a 3-round clip loaded from the
top with the empty tubes dropping out the bottom or a side loading path to
allow loading while prone.
Separate or higher tech detachable sights - For instance the operator
merely points the gun in the target's general direction - it looks for a
targeting or rangefinding laser mark in the vicinity and fires. The
rounds themselves are semi-guided and home in on the laser mark. Remote
targeting via camera mounted on the weapon allows the ground profile of the
weapon to be lowered in conjunction with the use of clips, as the gunner does
not have to be behind or near the weapon (loader still suffers though). Also
reduces the exposure of the crew since they only have to reload once every
three rounds instead of every round and could probably do it from a prone
position.
Two-stage hyper-velocity rounds - current rounds fire all their fuel in
a single burst within the gun - perhaps a two stage round - a launch
burst followed by a hyper-velocity or at least higher speed boost when
the round is 50 feet out of the gun.
Final summary: To generate a RR that weighs less than 100 pounds complete and
loaded,
can fire sustained rates of 10-15 rounds per minute with penetration
capabilites to knock out light vehicles and APCs and perhaps an MBT with a
lucky shot. Issues will still be ammo load and portability, but the problem is
similar to that with ATGMs or large IAVR's.
> --- B Lin <lin@rxkinetix.com> wrote:
We should also remember that the origins of the thread were discussing the
merits of Low Velocity Weapons in general. So while I'd be happy to consider
your points below, let's also remember that they address RR's only, and NOt
LVC's. Agreed?
> Pluses - *snip*
Pretty good summation, I'd say.
> Possible solutions:
*snip*
What you're describing displays remarkable similarity in technological level
and performance characteristics to a GMS. If it walks like a duck, and quacks
like a
duck....
> Final summary:
True, although if it's only semi-guided, it should be
more vulnerable to PDS/ADS. If you smarten it up to
avoid PDS/ADS, then just use the GMS rules and call it
what you will as flavor/PSB.
> Binhan Lin wrote:
> Possible solutions:
As opposed to ATGMs, which tend to be in the 15-25 kg range (at least
for
man-portable ones; air-launched monsters like Maverick and Hellfire are
of course much heavier). The RR round uses a much larger proportion of its
total weight on the warhead than the ATGMs do though.
> 2) Penetration is roughly based on warhead diameter, to get decent
Weight yes, width:length ratio no. For a given liner shape (usually a cone
or a kind of trumpet bell-shape) the length of a HEAT warhead is by
necessity very close to proportional to its diameter. If you just increase the
diameter without increasing the length you have to use a flatter cone, and
reduces the penetration:diameter ratio.
> 3) Targeting systems are often integrated onto the weapon itself
Targetting systems for RRs and similar weapons are almost invariably
detachable nowadays (ie. NOT integrated onto the weapon itself in the strict
sense of the word; you can let someone else carry them and only snap
them on when you prepare to fire) - unless you count the basic iron
sights of course, but they don't weigh more than a few grams.
> 4) the weapons needs to be reusable, and rapidly so, long cooling off
I've never heard about any RRs where overheating was a problem. The reload
time is enough for the first few shots, and after that you'll need to get
moving PDQ anyway to avoid the return fire.
> Automatic loading from pre-loaded "magazines" or clips that allow
These increase the weight of either the (unloaded) weapon itself, or the
rounds, or both. OK for vehicle-mounted weapons, but dubious if you want
something man-portable... also, when you're lying prone trying to be
invisible, having a big ammo dropper on the top of your weapon does your
signature no good at all. Yes, I know that GZG makes three-round
launchers;
to me they look rather impractical :-/
> Separate or higher tech detachable sights - For instance the operator
In that case the round is effectively an ATGM, with all the extra costs and
weights that entails. The laser mark is also very easy for the target to
detect, allowing it to initiate counter-measures much sooner.
> Two-stage hyper-velocity rounds
...are definitely ATGMs with a full guidance and manoeuvring package, since a
booster engine that powerful will wreck the accuracy of unguided rounds.
'Course, when you already have a full guidance and manoeuvring package
together with this extremely powerful booster engine, you don't need an RR
to launch it from - a plastic launch tube and a low-power launch rocket
will do just as nicely... and you've just described LOSAT :-/
> - current rounds fire all their fuel in a single burst within the gun
There are plenty of two-stage RR rounds available - eg. every single one
fired from an RPG-7, or the modern Carl Gustaf HEAT rounds (551 and
751).
The speed increases provided by their in-trajectory engines are
relatively
moderate though, due to the accuracy problems mentioned above - it's
biggest in the RPG-7 (some of its grenade types are boosted from about
100
m/s to about 300 m/s), but the accuracy suffers accordingly.
(Yes, the RPG-7 launcher is technically an RR with a caliber of 40 mm.
The grenades themselves have booster rocket engines however, which is why the
weapon is called "RPG" - Rocket Propelled *Grenade*. FWIW our AT-4 is of
course also an RR and its grenades don't have *any* rocket engines *anywhere*,
in spite of the various US armed forces who insist on calling
it a "rocket launcher" :-/ )
Later,
> Weight yes, width:length ratio no. For a given liner shape (usually a
Supposedly using gold for the liner can increase penetration without
increasing diameter or length. Problem is gold is too expensive and much
heaver then copper. It might be possible for material scientists to come up
with a better material then copper but much less expensive then gold (and
maybe even lighter too)...
> There are plenty of two-stage RR rounds available - eg. every single
Basebleed rounds is way to retian velocity without decreasing accuracy. You
reduce drag by using a pyrotechnic to fill the cavity behind the projectile.
It's used by the South African 155mm ammunition to bost its range. For thoses
who don't know, if you increase the velocity of a projectile after it leaves
the barrel for unguided projectiles, that increase in velocity will magnify
the aiming error.
> (Yes, the RPG-7 launcher is technically an RR with a caliber of 40 mm.
The
> grenades themselves have booster rocket engines however, which is why
Why am I not surprised...
> Imre Szabo wrote:
> >Weight yes, width:length ratio no. For a given liner shape (usually a
You can do lots of things with the liner material to increase penetration
without increasing the diameter, but most of them - including using
gold,
I'm afraid - don't improve the performance very much compared to today's
best in-production warheads even theoretically, much less in lab
experiments :-( (And as for putting them into mass production, well...)
> >There are plenty of two-stage RR rounds available - eg. every single
Irrelevant for this particular part of the discussion, I'm afraid. In the
above section we're talking about the problems with INCREASING the velocity
from whatever the RR can provide (a few hundred m/S, in the case of a
shoulder-launched weapon) to fast enough that a PDS can't stop it (1500
m/s
or more - preferrably a lot more!), without losing any accuracy in the
process.
Basebleed units are utterly unable to do that - all they do is to reduce
the drag on the round (and thus its *de*celeration) to a minimum by
eliminating the wake in the air behind it. If you want a hyper-velocity
basebleed round, it needs to be hypervelocity by the time it leaves the
muzzle.
Regards,