Gun on the Shark?

[slug88]

What does railgun technology have to do with recoilless rifles?

[RedTiger]

You know what would be a tactical advantage? Attaching a recoilless rifle of a rediculously oversized caliber round that can shoot treads off of tanks 10km away. This wont be too far off now that they are perfecting the rail gun technology.

 

A rail gun would still have recoil. One of the major problems to overcome is to not have the rail gun destroy itself. The magnetic rails are the most at risk, obviously.

[hitman]

Any projectile firing mechanism can have minimized recoil---your not going to prevent recoil in any type of weapon, period. The Barret M82A1 is a supposed recoilless rifle, and it kicks like a horse. Besides, Im not just talking railguns, Im referring about any large caliber recoilless rifles. A working rail gun would be a perfect solution. All guns destroy their barrels over time too...maintenance is just one side effect.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4231461.html

Edited August 29, 2008 by hitman_214th

[slug88]

But why are you saying that a rail gun would be a perfect solution? It would actually have more recoil than any weapon of similar caliber designated as a recoilless rifle.

 

A projectile is accelerated down a railgun via an electromagnetic force. This same force pushes against the railgun in the opposite direction, which is where you get the recoil. So, neglecting air resistance, the bad guy absorbs as much kinetic energy when he gets hit by the projectile as you do by firing the projectile. The only difference is that he has to absorb that energy almost all at once, while you have as much time as it takes for the projectile to leave the barrel.

Edited August 29, 2008 by slug88

[hitman]

You get THAT with any weapon. The only reason why you would have more recoil is because of the extremely greater velocities of the round. Like I said earlier: you cant eliminate recoil, but you can control it. M1-A1 has a recoilless rifle, T-80UD has a recoilless rifle...the only big guns I havent seen that dont have shock absorbers are on heavy ship guns. Theres no possible way to absorb that much shock at once. What is the main thing here that causes recoil? Depending on how tight the tolerances are between the barrel and the round (static friction) and how big that bang is. I dont see hypervelocity shells causing as much recoil as a weapon with similar performances. You can control how much power a rail gun uses to control the speed of the round. It doesnt have to travel at mach 8 to be effective.

Edited August 29, 2008 by hitman_214th

[slug88]

Err, unless I am grievously misinformed, neither the M1A1 nor the T-80, nor any main battle tank, uses recoilless rifles as a main armament. A recoilless rifle is not far removed from an RPG, with the main difference really being the round fired, rather than the "gun" itself.

 

Hence, any railgun will have a dramatically higher recoil than a recoilless rifle firing the same round at the same velocity.

 

Also, the main thing that causes recoil in a conventional gun is most definately the force of the exploding gas pushing back against the gun. The friction between round and barrel would actually work to reduce recoil, since the round would want to drag the gun in the opposite direction of the recoil.

 

To clarify, it doesn't matter how you launch the shell, whether it's through a railgun, a conventional cannon, or a rocket motor, there is always exactly the same amount of recoil. The only difference is what absorbs that recoil. In the case of a rocket, the recoil is felt by the air, or anyone standing directly behind the motor. Otherwise, it's absorbed by the gun itself.

[AlphaOneSix]

Recoilless weapons are weapons that have a means to vent gases out of the back of the weapon in order to significantly reduce or eliminate the recoil effect (or more specifically, to reduce or eliminate the ability of that force to push the weapon to the rear, the force is still there). Main guns on tanks are not recoilless, they just have the means to absorb the recoil. Having a means to absorb recoil does not make a weapon "recoilless". Also, the Barrett M82 is not recoilless, at all. It does have a method to absorb recoil, however, and part of that absorption is in the form of the body of the person firing the weapon.

Edited August 29, 2008 by AlphaOneSix

[Peyoteros]

well, I'm done with this thread... I'm here to declare this thread officially closed! :P

[CAT_101st]

:poster_offtopic::poster_offtopic:

 

:D

[Yellonet]

The Ka-50 does have recoilless (almost) weapons, they're called rockets.

[Dvst]

Well to be honest I don't think the premise of the question lacks conciderence of the big picture design choice.

 

Large caliber autocannons are a good weapon of choice against soft or medium targets for all platforms, be it helicopters or IFVs.

For the KA-50, beeing a gunship without WSO and with a unique aerodynamic concept, a fully turret based gun sollution is a non-possibility.

Even if it utilized a highly sophisticated FCS to automaticaly slave the gun on sensor highlighted targets, fully calculating balistics, you would still end up with big impact on weight, drag and accuracy.

The M230 is concidered an area weapon for a reason.

Even then, the pilot still has to controll the sensors themself, as he does presently with the Shkval.

The procedure would not differ much from the relativly complex launch of a Vikhr.

The "fixed" cannon actually is a lot quicker and more intuitive to use for a single pilot, especialy in unlike situations you took as an example ( who would take on any sudden appearence of a surface thread by trying to get a cannon solution anyway?), where the simple reticle gives you a very good option to quickly engage targets.

And as seen in the producer's notes; the BS is able to engage from long range with the help of the aircraft's sensors used to confirm and paint the target aswell.

 

The decision to give the BS a more or less fixed, long barreled 30mm is simply based on practical reality and good experience with similar concepts on the Mi 24 family.

Don't make the mistake to compare it to the Apache, Hind or Tiger.

Those have been designed for (or evolved to ) a broader aspect of war.

The KA-50 is not a multyrole platform for asymetric warfare including FAC, Reccon etc.

It's a force amassment tool to deliver punch to a point.

Or better spoken: Because of some drawbacks of the single seat approach ( like the cannon and sensor suit ) the BS does not perform as good as those in some areas.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Dvst

[Esac_mirmidon]

In fact the Hind started his operational career with a rotary cannon in front and then evolutioned to a fix two barrel cannon in the "right" ( sorry) side with more punch than the original six barreled one.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Esac_mirmidon

[hitman]

Err, unless I am grievously misinformed, neither the M1A1 nor the T-80, nor any main battle tank, uses recoilless rifles as a main armament.

The thing that makes it a recoilless rifle is the shock absorber located downstream of the barrel. It absorbs most of the recoil, therefore makes it a recoilless rifle.

[Yellonet]

The thing that makes it a recoilless rifle is the shock absorber located downstream of the barrel. It absorbs most of the recoil, therefore makes it a recoilless rifle.

No, that's not the definition of a recoilless rifle. You said it yourself - the gun absorbes the recoil - so how can it be recoilless? :huh:

[Namenlos Ein]

Something like this, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-107

 

But this solution not for tanks, sorry.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Namenlos Ein

[Yellonet]

Something like this, I think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-107

 

But this solution not for tanks, sorry.

No. Like this.

[hitman]

No, that's not the definition of a recoilless rifle. You said it yourself - the gun absorbes the recoil - so how can it be recoilless? :huh:

Yes, the gun does absorb the recoil. So does the shock absorber mounted ON the gun. Hence recoilless rifle. Anything you can shoot has recoil, from crossbows to pellet guns, theres recoil. An M82 IS a recoilless rifle. If you can see the barrel push backwards into the reciever, that is a recoilless design. That is the shock absorber.

[sobek]

hitman, the absorber you talk about is in fact no absorber. it just stores the kinetic energy until the bullet has left the barrel, then it transfers it to the person holding the gun. it is in fact a semi-automatic design, not a recoilless.

[AlphaOneSix]

The thing that makes it a recoilless rifle is the shock absorber located downstream of the barrel. It absorbs most of the recoil, therefore makes it a recoilless rifle.

 

Like Yellonet says, if the weapon absorbs the recoil, it's not recoilless. In order to be recoilless, you must vent gases in the opposite direction that the projectile is being fired in such a manner that the forces equalize and the weapon itself absorbs no (or very little) recoil.

[Namenlos Ein]

No. Like this.

Thank you. Of course I know what the recoilless rifles is.

http://namdrivers.com/i/Ontos1.jpg

 

Strange hybrid:

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn56-e.htm

 

to hitman_214th

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

[hitman]

 

to hitman_214th

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil

I know what recoil is. Give me SOME credit.

[Yellonet]

Yes, the gun does absorb the recoil. So does the shock absorber mounted ON the gun. Hence recoilless rifle. Anything you can shoot has recoil, from crossbows to pellet guns, theres recoil. An M82 IS a recoilless rifle. If you can see the barrel push backwards into the reciever, that is a recoilless design. That is the shock absorber.

*sigh* You got it wrong man. If you see the weapon moving it is subjected to recoil, hence it is in fact not recoilless. Recoilless rifles are another kind of design, recoilless doesn't mean less recoil but no recoil, although some recoil is still felt. Just search wikipedia for recoilless rifle :)

 

There are different types of weapons that can be called recoilless, but regular guns and rifles that use damping are not among them.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Yellonet

[hitman]

Like Yellonet says, if the weapon absorbs the recoil, it's not recoilless. In order to be recoilless, you must vent gases in the opposite direction that the projectile is being fired in such a manner that the forces equalize and the weapon itself absorbs no (or very little) recoil.

Ive always considered a rifle a type of weapon that fires a rifled round. I can see how rockets would have no recoil, but how can they be considered rifle rounds? I see what everyone is saying, but you can hardly call a rocket launcher a type of rifle.

 

*sigh* You got it wrong man. If you see the weapon moving it is subjected to recoil, hence it is in fact not recoilless. Recoilless doesn't mean less recoil but (virtually)no recoil. Just search wikipedia for recoilless rifle :)

I saw your post, chill....if you call a rocket launcher a recoilless rifle, then by definition, a rifle is any weapon that fires any type of projectile. To me, a rifle is something that shoots a rifled round (twisted grooved barrel) or smoothbore round (no barrel grooves) downrange, propelled by a sudden expansion of gasses (cartridge or propellant bags). A rocket launcher you just put on your shoulder, fire, drop the canister (not a rifle) and get the hell outta dodge.

Edited August 29, 2008 by hitman_214th

[GGTharos]

I always thought it referred to the amount of recoil transferred to the shooter or whatever support the weapon has - NOT that the weapon itself is recoiless, as such a think does not exist when it comes to projectile weapons.

 

*sigh* You got it wrong man. If you see the weapon moving it is subjected to recoil, hence it is in fact not recoilless. Recoilless doesn't mean less recoil but no recoil, though some recoil is still felt. Just search wikipedia for recoilless rifle :)

 

There are different types of weapons that can be called recoilless, but regular guns and rifles that use damping are not among them.

[hitman]

I always thought it referred to the amount of recoil transferred to the shooter or whatever support the weapon has - NOT that the weapon itself is recoiless, as such a think does not exist when it comes to projectile weapons.

Which is what I expected myself...isnt that why heavy artillary have shock absorbers? It removes a lot of recoil from the blast. Its not just venting the gasses that prevents recoil, you have to have something that absorbs the shock of the round leaving the barrel. Exhaust gasses leave the barrel through the muzzle break, or through the gas tube to eject old brass and push the bolt backwards.