|
|
Post by greenbeanie on Dec 14, 2017 10:13:47 GMT
I was wondering that now thanks to Scott's books, that Stove Pipes (bazookas) have now been added to the infantry TOE's (Table of Establishment for my non military friends) and that the last book hinted at bigger rockets and possible barrage weapons (Katusha's) that would the light weight Recoilless rifle might be soon in coming? It is interesting the just before WW2 and not ever seeing the US made bazooka, the Russians and Germans had 75mm recoilless rifles as part of their Airborne TOE's for both light weight artillery and anti-tank guns. Speaking of the bazooka, during WW2 the US used the 2.45 inch rocket launcher. The US sent many to the Russians as part of Lend Lease and they were captured by the Germans in large patches. The German came out with a better version (Panzerschreck) that was 8.8cm (3.5 inch). After the war the US copied the German version and improved the bazooka as the 3.5 inch rocket launcher. So, makes me wonder if larger rockets will find their way into the development of the 75mm, 90mm and 106mm recoilless rifles. Well Scott, did I peak you interest into possible recoilless rifles in your book 4? Think of it, for they are light weight enough to be mounted on auto's (Ford Model T's) and are great ambush weapons. Sorry for the history lesson my friends, but your thoughts on the subject?
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Dec 14, 2017 12:50:38 GMT
There is no fundamental reason why recoilless rifles would not be introduced as forces begin see the benefits of the stovepipe. Technology development typically accelerates in wartime. One would expect an even quicker pace when species survival is at stake.
There is also no fundamental reason why even larger caliber rocket launchers could not be fielded. The image of a flivver-mounted 155mm recoiless is certainly intriguing.
It may take Mr Washburn a little while to incorporated these into his timeline. The stovepipes will have to work out well to stimulate the technical development.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on Dec 14, 2017 17:38:57 GMT
Actually, rockets make a considerable leap forward in the upcoming Texas Front book.  Have to give some thought to recoilless rifles. Perhaps I'll have some other country, like France or Japan be the pioneer for those. |
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 16, 2017 16:51:07 GMT
Recoilless Rifles were originally developed for use on aircraft. They were replaced by rockets for this purpose, and later by missiles (guided rockets)
The combining of a rocket motor and a shaped charge works very well. Stovepipes in various forms will be a great addition to the game. In game terms, there is little difference.
Possibly, the next time the Martians "Circle the wagons" for an anti aircraft defence, the attack craft will launch 8 3" rockets each and give Martin another unpleasant surprize.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbeanie on Dec 17, 2017 1:19:08 GMT
Remember ( for you military history buffs) the US M50 Ontos? A small armored vehicle that had six (6) 106mm recoilless rifles mounted on the sides and top used by the USMC in Nam? Think about a Mark 2 Steam tank Ontos!
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Dec 17, 2017 13:36:48 GMT
The only real problem was that you had to go outside to reload after you fired your six. Obviously, the recipient would take a pretty dim view of that whole procedure!
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbeanie on Dec 17, 2017 14:16:38 GMT
That is why the Mark 2 still has the bow mounted 4 inch gun. That fires while the quick reload. I think even a tripod would be blasted by a 6 gun barrage of 106mm rockets shot off at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 17, 2017 16:00:06 GMT
Place a "calliope" arrangement on a MkII. Six 4-inch recoilless rifles. They fire in volley. The whole arrangement "tilts" with the muzzles pointed straight up. The breeches lower into the hull of the tank and are re-loaded. Lather, rinse, repeat. The tank's original gun and machine gun are still available, should the Martians be rude enough to try to interrupt the reloading.
Range:24
Power: +3
Also: Recoilless rifles might very well be the right tool to give to civilians/militia/guerrillas who operate behind Martian lines. they are much lighter than conventional guns, and somewhat simpler to operate.
The Apache and Comanche would use them to good effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbeanie on Dec 17, 2017 22:41:11 GMT
They are great ambush weapons also. Mainly as tank killers but now "Marvin Killers">
|
|
|
|
Post by greenbeanie on Dec 18, 2017 14:46:34 GMT
Another side note. Cavalry units could take a 75mm recoilless rifle on two pack horses. One for the gun & tripod and one for the ammo. The pack horses are more maneuverable than a M1897 75mm gun being towed by either a truck or horse drawn limber and the recoilless packs a bigger punch than the M1897 75mm gun. So now your Cavalry will be able to take artillery with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 23, 2017 16:49:21 GMT
It might be possible to make a 105mm Recoilless Rifle light enough to be carried on a pair of Pack Horses (also.) 75mm RRs were used as "man-portable" anti-tank guns, and would doubtless make a good mule-portable weapon that would be able to go anywhere a mule could go. That's just about anywhere.
It might be possible to mount a 75mm RR on an airboat. That is a scary thought. An Airboat can traverse swamps. Towed on a trailer they can get to any lake. This means that any body of water big enough to support an airboat is now able to become a firebase.
An airboat can almost float on a heavy dew or a thick fog.
RRs have a shorter range than regular guns, and they are not as effective as barrage weapons. As portable, light-weight weapons that can beat Tripods, they are a good choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxholder on Dec 24, 2017 21:09:31 GMT
For barrage work, numbers count. So "not as effective" can be overcome by sheer volume of fire.
"Quantity has a quality of its own." attributed to J Stalin. Enough guppies can eat a shark.
Plus the quick reload vs conventional artilllery is a benefit, especially when precision targeting is not required.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on Dec 25, 2017 15:09:15 GMT
I think RRs have a bit slower reload time than conventional artillery, but, because the RR is lighter and cheaper, it is possible to use multiple tubes. The key to RRs, from a fluff point of view, is that they are more guns available.
In game terms, RRs will be individually better on anti-tripod, less effective in barrage, but overall less expensive in points.
|
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on Jan 18, 2018 17:37:31 GMT
Please see my TO&Es and OOBs for various infantry weapons. The Texas front uses RR a lot on the back of US Armored cars for example.
|
|
