OT- Recoiless Rifle

[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.

[Randy]

Don't forget the Marine Corps' AAAV/EFV. This is hopefully going to be a good vehicle for the Marines, but it is also very expensive. Besides modern weapons being very expensive, they take a long time to develop. Imagine if the WWII equipment took this long to design, develop and produce-they would still be fighting that war. The Army's RAH66 Comanche was at least ten years in development and they only built a few of them before it was canceled. Now I think the Army is going to use a modified AH6.

[pdoktar]

The "9mm BB", is roughly comparable to the .45ACP in stopping power and has better ballistic characters and is easier to carry and fire. Nowadays the culture in american gun magazines and "I used the .45ACP with deadly effect, as my other 9mm Para just glanzed off the enemy"-stories and the fact that SOF uses .45ACP is turning again the favor in the army towards the .45ACP and it�s "massive" stopping power. As the current .223cal assault rifles have the real problems in stopping power, and nothing can be done about it, they�re reflecting this to such personal levels as wanting a pistol that has the stopping power needed, whether the older caliber would be adequate, or even better for as a last-ditch weapon.

Pistols are useless in combat. If any truck driver is fighting off the enemy with his service pistol, he�ll get killed after dispensing his first magazine, whether or not using 9mm or .45ACP. Switching calibers back from 9mm to .45ACP would be pure idiocy.

[Bishop746]

The 9mm is a lethal round in the hands of someone capable of accurate shots into center mass, as do most high velosity rounds. This requires an incredible amount of training and practise time devouted to just the handgun. Police departments and most regular infantry units do not have the money or time to devote to that amount of training to one weapon when there is so much training to do.

The 9mm produces a very narrow crush cavaity; any round that does not hit a vital organ or the head will produce less bleeding and less muscle and tissue damamge. The .45 is not a wonder weapon either, but it allows more "room" so to speak for poor shots because a non-lethal shot will still produce a larger crush cavaity and tissue damage.

"Stopping Power" in most weapons is a myth like the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body. It has a very small grain of truth to it but it persists. I read the opinion of one Army doctor who had spent twenty years studying battle wounds and in his opinion there is no reason for a human being to fall down after being shot by a pistol unless it severes the spinal cord or damamges the brain. He believes people fall as a defense mechanism or by "programming" because thats what we've have seen and heard what happens to people when they are shot.

[SGTGunn]

The common perception that the handgun is a useless weapon in combat has been severly challanged by the operational experiences in Iraq. Since 90% of the fighting in Iraq has been CQB (close quarters battle) in heavily built up terrian, soldiers have been using (and carrying) handguns far more than in past conflicts. Having a handgun to transition to when your primary weapon fails during a CQB situation can be life saving. The problem with 9mm is that due to the absurd restrictions of the Hague Convention US military forces cannot use controlled expansion rounds (i.e. hollow points). There are some fairly effective 9mm controlled expansion loads out there, but the US military is stuck with FMJ ball ammo, which in 9mm has a very poor track record. I suspect the reason for the return to .45 ACP is that the .45 230gr FMJ is probably the most effective non-"hollow point" pistol cartridge available. Which of course, was the very reason the US Army adopted the .45 in the first place - when thier issue .38 Colts repeatedly failed to stop the drug crazed charge of a bolo wielding Moro insurgent.

Adrian

[pdoktar]

Like the .223 couldn�t stop the drug-crazed somali militia in mogadishu 1993..

[pdoktar]

Where will the US get all the needed .45s? Will they be newbuilt, or from some stock of old M1911s? Think what it�ll cost. Unbelievable. Where will they sell the "bad" 9mm Berettas? Waste of money say I.

A F-22 Raptor may be more cost-efficient than converting their pistol caliber. At least they�ll get the best aircraft there is, that is wise geopolitically and scientifically for new air research for both military and commercial uses.

[Basileus]

Getting back to recoilless rifles...

The distinction between rocket launchers and recoilless rifles is that the rocket round carries the propulsion motor with it while the RR propellant is in a cartridge case like a conventional gun round and only the warhead (some rounds have vestigial guidance fins) travels to the target. A recoilless rifle round looks a lot like an artillery shell with a multitude of holes drilled along the length of the propellant case.

The M3 MAAWS replaced the 90mm M67 recoilless rifle in the US Army Rangers. US Army engineers replaced their M67s with Javelin missiles and the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition, also known as SMAW-D (disposable one-shot SMAW).

The problem with recoilless rifles and rocket launchers like the SMAW is the considerable backblast, which precludes their use from within enclosures. Since this is a facet of urban warfare, the US Marine Corps took all their Predator antitank missiles and had their tandem HEAT warheads replaced with HEDP bunker buster warheads, making them SRAW-MPVs. The SRAW-MPV is able to be fired from within enclosures due to a soft launch, and is about the same size as a Dragon missile. The SRAW-MPV warhead has a blast penetrator that can punch man-sized holes in triple-brick walls, and a delayed action grenade that blows up after penetration. A similar warhead is fitted to the new TOW Bunker Buster missile used by Stryker brigades.

Basileus

[Bishop746]

Thank you Basileus. That was a point I was alittle hazy on. Now, forgive me but I have to ask this. If the recoilless rifle is closer to a an artillery round than a rockett than how can this weapon be termed "recoilless". Or am I reading to much into the name.