OT- Recoiless Rifle

[thatguy96]

Well there are many classes of recoilless rifle mind you. From shoulder fired to large enough to necessitate a tripod or a vehicular platform. The weapon has always been held as a multi-task weapon, because of its nature as a catridge weapon, that is not preloaded like many infantry rocket weapons today. It can fire HEAT or APERS rounds.

A lot of major world powers, including the United States, employ recoilless rifles still, in varying capacities. In the US case, the Bofors/Carl Gustav M3 has been adopted for use by the SOF community in the US Army.

[PlasmaKrab]

The Swedish Carl Gustav is still in use in several 'major' armies like Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, USA (as said above, mainly in SOF and Ranger units), and dozens of other nations.
It has become somewhat of an archetype of the shoulder-fired RLR, and can be considered as a tactical equivalent of reloadable rocket launchers like the RPG-7 family, though considerably more versatile.
The latest versions pack all the power of more modern AT weapons, with rounds available including rocket-assisted tandem-HEAT antitank rounds, FAE canisters and APHE bunker busters.

On the other end of the scale you find things like the US M-40 or the late British Wombat, i.e. long-tube, heavy-caliber weapons meant to be mounted on a wheeled carriage, or generally a light vehicle.
These weapons are now mainly used by second- and third-rate armies (from Spain and China to Bolivia and Zimbabwe), as they were the very thing that was replaced by long-range antitank missiles (TOW and HOT) in the NATO armies' battalion support units in the 70s and 80s.
These were used mainly for long-range antitank support of infantry units, and shifting to missiles has traded versatility against anti-armour potency, which made more sense in the heigth of the cold war.

China is still using lots of recoilless rifles due to the large size and overall low proficiency of its army, which means that modern ATGMs are too expensive and reserved for elite units. They even developped a new company/battalion-level support weapon called PF-98 Queen Bee, which can be described as a crossover between a recoilless gun and a reloadable rocket launcher like a SMAW, LRAC-89 or RPG-29, though significantly heavier.

[Bishop746]

Interesting. I looked up the M3 on the internet, which I had never heard of. The US should have an equivalent to the RPG since it was an effective weapon. Why only Ranger and SOF units, wouldn't infantry platoons be well served by a weapon like this.

[PlasmaKrab]

I guess the 'regular' infantry is still much into the cold war inheritance of being suited to fight off armour at close ranges. Hence the squad-level Dragon missile launcher which is deliriously high anti-armour power for the unit size, not even mentionning the pricetag.
That's basically that Dragon that is supposed to be replaced by the Carl Gustav in Ranger units, since they expect to encounter less armor and more various targets, and that's also where it stands or stood in most other armies.

There again, modern developments have shown a major shift in the actual infantry role, and hardware development has started to reflect it, whit e.g. concrete-piercing or FAE variants for the Bofors AT-4 and its US version the M-136. That could give some diversified punch when situation requires.

[Bishop746]

I take your point about fighting armor at close range with a very expensive weapon. I'm not saying an infantry squad will never encounter heavy armor on the battlefield but squads should have cheap, reloadable weapons capable of knocking out bunkers, fighting positions and infantry in buildings.

The US military has a terrible track record of spending incredible amounts of money of weapon systems when a cheaper one would be better and more cost effective.

Examples for comment:

Osprey
F23 Raptor
OICW(my personal choice for a weapon that I would like to see scrapped. Have you seen this thing? Looks like a reject from the movie "Aliens")
Growler

[SGTGunn]

The OICWS was scrapped, as was its immediate replacement the H&K XM8 Rifle. The grenade launcher bit was saved as a seperate weapons, the XM25 and should be field testing soon. It looks like any replacement rifle projects are on hold until the caliber debate (5.56mm vs. 6.8mm vs. 7.62mm) that is going on right now is resolved. The US Special Operations Command has adopted its own new rifle, the FN Mk.16 SCAR-L And Mk.17 SCAR-H in 5.56 x 45mm and 7.62 x 51mm respectivley. There will also be a 7.62 x 39mm variant that takes AK mags. I would not be suprised to see some version of the SCAR become the new US service rifle one the Army finally decideds to get its head out of its fourth point of contact. On an interesting side note, the US Army has announced that it is looking for a replacement of the M9 Berretta 9mm Pistol, and that it must be a .45 ACP! Yay!

[Bishop746]

I looked up that FN SCAR-L weapon online, it reminds me of the FN FNC rifle. FN has an established history of making quality smallarms. I would like to see the US manufacture a licenced version of the FN SCAR here in the states. They've done it before with the 1903 Springfield.

Do you think the M16 and M4 could be phased out for regular infantry and be replaced with the FN SCAR-L?

The 9mm to be replaced by the .45? Hard to believe that a caliber that has proven track record like the .45 could EVER replace the fine NATO approved 9mm BB. Many experts told the military that the 45 did not need to replaced but I think it was more of a political dicision.

[Mustang]

Bishop746 said:
The US military has a terrible track record of spending incredible amounts of money of weapon systems when a cheaper one would be better and more cost effective.

Examples for comment:

Osprey
F23 Raptor

The F-22 Raptor issue is more of a warfighting philosophy question than a performance one. To America, saving soldier's lives is the most important part of fighting a war. The fact is, equipping your troops with $200 million worth of techno-crap will save at best few hundred lives, while the same money invested in enhancing hospitols or police nations in a neglected area would save thousands. But investing in stuff to protect soldiers has visible effects; you can see soldiers thanking the Army for saving their lives by giving them Kevlar on the evening news. But non-military spending, although more efficient, doesn't usually give a clear advantage. It's not that it dosen't make a difference; it's simply not obvious.

The point is that America buys $300 million (that's the latest price I've heard) Raptors because its military can afford to. The defence budget keeps going up, so it has to spend money on SOMETHING. Buying 6 F-16s for $50 million each might do the job better, but at a greater cost in lives. So it's all about whether you want to get the job done better, or the job done easier. This is why so many American weapon systems are gold-plated; the Bradley, the $10 million M1A3 (as compared to $2 million M1A1s with basically the same capability), and so on.

As for the Osprey, it's had some good news lately. It's too early to tell whether it will flop, or be another surprise (like the M1 tank, which was also criticised a lot before it entered service).

[thatguy96]

The Osprey is the only one of these new programs I always hoped would actually go somewhere. The V-22 actually has the potential to revolutionize the battlefield and add a new dimension to mobility of US forces.

[SGTGunn]

Actually the M3 Ranger Anti-armor/Assault Weapon System (RAAWS)supplimented the M47 Dragon in Ranger Battalions rather than replacing it. The M47 Dragon was a terrible weapon system. It was heavy, difficult to fire, and only had an effective range of 1000 meters - which the missle took a agonizingly slow 11 seconds to travel. That combined with the Dragon's massive launch signiture (i.e. big flash and cloud of white smoke)and smallish warhead, made it very unpopular. It has been replaced with the far more sophistictaed Javelin, which is a fire and forget top-attack missile, with a 2000m range. It has proven to be devestatingly effective in Iraq, against both vehicles and small buildings/bunkers, with a 90%+ hit percentage. I believe both the M3 RAAWS and the Javelin are in use by Ranger units. For bunker busting regular US Army troops have been using the SMAW-D single shot rocket launcher, though I agree that the versatility of the RAAWS/Carl Gustav platform would make it a useful addition to the MTO&E of regular infantry units.