106mm Recoilles Rifle
- Thread starter Spooks
- Start date
Haggis
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,681
- Points
- 1,140
Spook:
There is still a place for the 106 in modern warfare. It is incredibly rugged and durable, simple to operate and train on. With improved ammunition it's versatile and terribly effective. If the Taliban were to ever attempt up-armouring anything in their Auto-Trader style vehicle inventory, the 106 could scrapyard it from two clicks out.
The problem, as I said earlier, is mobility. Despite Geo's comments on the apparent success of the towed 106 trials, I have little faith in an Iltis's ability to endure the blast of more than a few rounds. (Clearly. the gun was detached from the Iltis before firing.)
There is still a place for the 106 in modern warfare. It is incredibly rugged and durable, simple to operate and train on. With improved ammunition it's versatile and terribly effective. If the Taliban were to ever attempt up-armouring anything in their Auto-Trader style vehicle inventory, the 106 could scrapyard it from two clicks out.
The problem, as I said earlier, is mobility. Despite Geo's comments on the apparent success of the towed 106 trials, I have little faith in an Iltis's ability to endure the blast of more than a few rounds. (Clearly. the gun was detached from the Iltis before firing.)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Spooks,
I don't consider Venezula a western power or major western influence, as the term 'west' denotes this. Tin-pot 3rd world countries as such, mainly live off the dregs and crap we throw away, plus a mixture of Com-bloc garbage also. Noting Venezula as having and using the the old 106 is irrevelent useless information in this respect.
Wes
I don't consider Venezula a western power or major western influence, as the term 'west' denotes this. Tin-pot 3rd world countries as such, mainly live off the dregs and crap we throw away, plus a mixture of Com-bloc garbage also. Noting Venezula as having and using the the old 106 is irrevelent useless information in this respect.
Wes
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Red 6 said:
I will have to disagree somewhat. A gun system provides high rate of fire, backed with the ability to carry lots of relatively cheap munitions (and several different natures as well, so you can deal with lots of different situations). No missile carrying system can do the same, and attempts to do so result in unholy messes like the proposed MMEV.
The recoiless cannon gives the advantages of a gun in a much lighter package which you can carry around in a light vehicle, rather than a tank, so there are many applications, particularly with light, airborne and perhaps SF forces where a recoiless rifle or some alternative recoiless gun system will be a potent force multiplier.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I should have clarified a bit. I agree there's still a place for recoilless systems like the Carl Gustav and the SMAW. But as far as weapons like the Wombat and the 106, they went out of service for a reason. AT missiles provide a lot more versatility.
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
Red 6 said:
AT missiles are special purpose munitions, and are brilliant for taking out a hard target like a tank or a bunker. A cannon provides the ability to switch rounds (i.e. smash a bunker with a HEAT round then follow with an HE or smoke round against the exposed enemy), and a much higher rate of fire. Even a Starstreak takes about 5 seconds to reach it's maximum distance of 6 KM, and it is under operator control the entire way. A TOW takes about 23 seconds to reach out to @ 4 KM, which would give a tank or other gun crew time to fire 2 or 3 rounds.
Guns are complimentary to missiles, the example of the WOMBAT was incomplete; the WOMBAT operated as part of an integrated fire plan with the MILAN anti tank missiles, using its high rate of fire to suppress both enemy APCs or IFVs (if the Russian MRR was equipped with BTR's or BMP's), as well as being able to fire at dismounted troops (the huge 120mm HESH round would be quite effective in creating a huge shock wave and throwing debris like shrapnel when hitting the ground), something you can't do very well with a missile.
There were lots of reasons the weapon went out of service, I suspect a larger reason than any technical arguments over effectiveness was the declining manpower base of western armies over the years, a missile crew is generally smaller than a gun crew, and as manpower ceilings were slashed it was judged more effective to concentrate on the missiles rather than try to maintain both guns and missiles.
Recoiless rifles using the countermass principle do have some pretty big limitations; inefficient use of propellant (4/5 flows out the venturi to balance the recoil of the shell, limiting range and muzzle velocity), and a huge signature when firing. I sometimes think it would be worthwhile to develop a new High/Low pressure gun which reduces many of the problems associated with countermass weapons. This would provide a lightweight cannon which does not need a tank to carry and provide the benefits of a cannon on the battlefield.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
On the issue of a large signature for a recoiless gun, when properly camouflaged and moved around it is a very hard weapon to pinpoint, no smoke trail like the lasting on of an AT missile. Now if the crew is silly and sits on one postion and fire constantly then yes it's going to die a hard death. However likes I stated before moved and concealed well it's a bugger to get rid of.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,370
- Points
- 1,160
Several armies mounted the 106 onto M113's as a cheap and easy MGS. You could make a remote weapon station to handle it and a .50cal ranging MG. Have it able to tilt up so the gun can be loaded from the hatch with minimal exposure of the crew. Would be a quick fix as I believe guns and ammo are still obtainable, but with the arrival of the Leo's not really required. Might be good idea for the ANA though.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
AT missiles can knock out bunkers, punch holes in buildings, bunkers and so forth. So can 105mm/120mm HEAT rounds. The 25mm HEAT round is awful effective against troops in the open. These weapons are already in the inventory. The US Army has been fielding the Javelin, which is an awesome system with a lot of potential. (It's the replacement for the Dragon.) I just don't see a need to add another old weapon back. And deciding to bring a weapon into the inventory isn't as easy as just snapping your fingers. You have to think about how it will fit into the TOE, whether it's an add-on, or a replacement for something else. Do you make new platoons to field it, or mount it on something else? The 106 was heavy, cumbersome and not as versatile as other, more modern weapons that replaced it.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,370
- Points
- 1,160
However a round is a hell of a lot cheaper than a missile and quite a few of those fancy missiles missed their targets in Iraq, mainly because it's to dam expensive to let your troops fire enough of them to get competent with them. The TOW does offer a possibility of a unguided rocket for direct fire that reduces the cost significantly, although I am not sure if they are fielding it. I see also that the Taliban and the ANA are already using the Soviet 57mm RR which I see pictures of guys carrying it on their shoulders.
Like I said, the need for the 106 is redundant now the Leo's are there, but they would have been useful if we couldn't bring the tanks.
Like I said, the need for the 106 is redundant now the Leo's are there, but they would have been useful if we couldn't bring the tanks.
AmmoTech90
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 854
- Points
- 1,010
HESH, ATGW, both good why don't we combine them!
Enter the Malkara missile mounted on the Humber Hornet. An ATGW with a 27kg HESH warhead! The best of both worlds! ;D
D
Enter the Malkara missile mounted on the Humber Hornet. An ATGW with a 27kg HESH warhead! The best of both worlds! ;D
D
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,370
- Points
- 1,160
British Pathe website has some free footage of the Malarka Missile you can download.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Ayup, 84mm & M72, though there are questions on the effectiveness of the M72. Believe they are looking for different ammo to use on the M203 to do away with the M72
Baboon - I look at that Ferret with the 106 and truly must scratch my head on it's usability in sustained fighting. The crew compartment of the Ferret was pert darned small to begin with. Throw in ammo for the GPMG (30 cal browning) not sure where you could store the 106 rounds.... then there is the issue of the gun's sight. the 106s in your picture have conventional sights and spotting rifle which means the gunner would have to ride up high - unsuported....
Don't think it would've worked IMHO
Baboon - I look at that Ferret with the 106 and truly must scratch my head on it's usability in sustained fighting. The crew compartment of the Ferret was pert darned small to begin with. Throw in ammo for the GPMG (30 cal browning) not sure where you could store the 106 rounds.... then there is the issue of the gun's sight. the 106s in your picture have conventional sights and spotting rifle which means the gunner would have to ride up high - unsuported....
Don't think it would've worked IMHO
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
geo said:
Like I said, to my knowledge it was never actually used in action. I think the 106 was meant to be fired from outside the Ferret. These days South Africa's paratroops still have 106s, but towed behind an 8x8 all-terrain vehicle (of Canadian design but built in SA).
http://www.lmt.co.za/product_gecko.htm
Similar threads
