Recoilless Rifles

[PlasmaKrab]

Depends on what you are talking about exactly. Tactical range is dealt with by both range and accuracy. So if the new RA-HEAT ammo goes up to 700m, you can rocket-assist as much as you like, that alone won't make it more accurate.

Besides, even now the CG is used in Germany to launch light flares (night sighting for Milan without TI). It is reported for ranges up to 2000m (Milan range).
In the game you have the same range for CGs firing HE rounds. Since this is a separate weapon I had assumed it was used in indirect fire, which is senseless for antitank.

But maybe the basic range of most CG versions can be brought up to maybe 1km or so, even if that would be a great blunder for AI and beginners, i.e. they'd fire much earlier for no result and give themselves away.

[Pergite]

PlasmaKrab said:
Depends on what you are talking about exactly. Tactical range is dealt with by both range and accuracy. So if the new RA-HEAT ammo goes up to 700m, you can rocket-assist as much as you like, that alone won't make it more accurate.

The RA ammo has a higher velocity which means a better trajectory. You dont have to lead moving target as much and the wind wont be such a big factor. All this will increase the accuracy.

Besides, even now the CG is used in Germany to launch light flares (night sighting for Milan without TI). It is reported for ranges up to 2000m (Milan range).
In the game you have the same range for CGs firing HE rounds. Since this is a separate weapon I had assumed it was used in indirect fire, which is senseless for antitank.

The CG can be used in many roles, but SPMBT cant make differences in ranges for the weapon depending on ammo. It would then be the same thing for tanks that fire SABOT and HEAT but I guess they have averaged the range somehow.

The Ilum round for CG is gigantic and since you dont have to hit anything, I guess you can fire it quite far, but 2000 sounds a bit extreme. This because it deploys a parachute at some alitutude.

But maybe the basic range of most CG versions can be brought up to maybe 1km or so, even if that would be a great blunder for AI and beginners, i.e. they'd fire much earlier for no result and give themselves away.

Yes it would be difficult to handle. I is hard to hit anything at those ranges so I think its better to just increase the range slightly from what its now. But maybe its worth doing some testing to see what works best.

[PlasmaKrab]

The RA ammo has a higher velocity which means a better trajectory. You dont have to lead moving target as much and the wind wont be such a big factor. All this will increase the accuracy.

You're right. RA will go faster then have a better target alignement. But that only work at the same range. If you increase range, you increase flight time, and the effect if zeroed back. YOu have better accuracy at the same range, but proportionnal accuracy stays the same.

Besides, from what I have read on the Saab site you posted, all CG HEAT ammo (both 551 and 751) are RA, though HEDP isn't. So are there older HEAT shells with no propulsion?

The CG can be used in many roles, but SPMBT cant make differences in ranges for the weapon depending on ammo. It would then be the same thing for tanks that fire SABOT and HEAT but I guess they have averaged the range somehow.

Mmh no, alas there is only overall and sabot range. And for someting as the CG I fear the sabot range value will count as minimum range. What I meant is that if you can lob a HE round 2km away (check the Saab site about the Illum ammo), you can in all earnest lob a HEAT as well, even though it won't be any use. That would mean doubling the range and halving the accuracy, more or less.

However, that would mean that units would systematically fire at max range, even if they have no chance of hitting. Same as they do with AAMG against aircrafts, only they have less CG ammo

[Pergite]

[quote]
PlasmaKrab said:

Besides, from what I have read on the Saab site you posted, all CG HEAT ammo (both 551 and 751) are RA, though HEDP isn't. So are there older HEAT shells with no propulsion?

Exactly, the older ammuniton dont have any rockets, only the big uncomfortable punch out of the barrel.

[Backis]

Pergite said:


My point is that the CG systems values in general maybe should be upgraded because it today packs a whole lot more power than back in 1948.

Standard round in Sweden is the slpsgr m/75 HEAT round capable of ~400-420mm RHA.

There are better rounds available, including tandem warhead (as Plasma wrote) CS launch types capable of penetrating ~500mm RHA, and even a supercalibre frontloaded type that supposedly penetrates around 750mm.

Don't think there is a round capable of effectively engaging modern MBT frontally though.

The CG excels at "non-AT" work though, with its timefuzed airburst HEDP, breeching and flechette/shotgun rounds. This is its main role today I think.

All that's missing is a FAE round.

[PlasmaKrab]

Hey, it really excels!

Remember that Royal Marines een managed to take out a frigate with one single CG!

Well, not obviously 'take out', they merely had the ship to retreat out of the Grytviken harbour, but that's already fine for one 84mm shoulder-held RLR!*

I admit it is not AT work though

What is this slpsgr m/75 in designer reference? If it is m/75 as in 1975, I guess this is none of the rounds SAAB advertises for...
Now, what about future FAE rounds, or flechette? or auto-guided top-attack!!

*I know there are Brits out here who are bound to comment on that anecdote, particularly if it is false

[Mobhack]

PlasmaKrab said:
Hey, it really excels!

Remember that Royal Marines een managed to take out a frigate with one single CG!

Well, not obviously 'take out', they merely had the ship to retreat out of the Grytviken harbour, but that's already fine for one 84mm shoulder-held RLR!*

I admit it is not AT work though

What is this slpsgr m/75 in designer reference? If it is m/75 as in 1975, I guess this is none of the rounds SAAB advertises for...
Now, what about future FAE rounds, or flechette? or auto-guided top-attack!!

*I know there are Brits out here who are bound to comment on that anecdote, particularly if it is false

She got close enough to be hit by some "sixty-Six" rounds as well:

http://www.naval-history.net/F14sgeorgia.htm

http://www.navynews.co.uk/falklands/...8202040301.asp

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Fa...h-Georgia.html

Cheers
Andy