Whatever happened to recoiless rifles? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 46 to 49 of 49

Thread: Whatever happened to recoiless rifles?

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by izzytok46 View Post
    12Bravo, I was a combat engineer in the 2nd Armored Division in your time frame. Never saw one outside of a museum.
    I know that the engineer brigade assigned to 1st AD in Germany at that time did have recoilless rifles. Why we had them, I couldn't say. I'm guessing that it had something to do with us being considered 'forward deployed" or that they were in the arms rooms and no one wanted to bother getting rid of them. I don't remember ever taking them to the range in the 3 years that I was in Germany. We did have to inventory and clean them regularly.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,824

    Default

    2nd AD was apparently just activated at Ft Hood shortly before I got there. The units probably never got issued anything like that.
    I was in the 588th engineers and my unit had moved up from Polk the previous year.
    I know we were still sorting through the oddball mix of support vehicles we had. Traded out some 548s and deuces for HEMTTs

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    174

    Default

    We Had HEMTTs and kept our M548s. A few of our AVLBs were still the old M48 chassis. They made us turn in our D7 dozers for the POS M9 Ace. Along with the reckless rifles, we still had our 1911s and M3A1s until 1993. We got to keep the reckless rifles but had to turn in our 1911s and M3a1s for the M9s.

    I did get to play with a recoilless rifle while I was stationed at Ft Devens a couple of times. Along with all kinds of foreign and old US equipment.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Wishing I was in Texas & still trying to get back there...
    Posts
    675

    Default

    In response to the OP; this thread meandered over hill and dale a bit because it was necessary and germane to the discussion. Its not 'getting off topic' to fill in the details of how & why various other weapon systems are & have been superseding RR's and to thus explain their use...because it points out their relative strengths vis a vis a RR vs a TOW or a Carl Gustaf, for instance.
    The Carl is highly valued because it fills the role of a multi-use, hard impact blaster which can take on armor and bunkers in a small, compact, re-usable platform and it can do it all at short or extended ranges. In my view, it - finally! - fills the role of the globally ubiquitous RPG which has so many obvious advantages that everyone, including the US of A (when it comes to utilizing the weapon system in conjunction with our partnered forces) uses it. For decades. And many more to come in the future. (We should have copied and fielded it, too, long, long ago) The LAW and AT4 have advantages but lugging around lots and lots of one-shot tubes is dumb in the extreme...better to carry the Carl, or, better yet-in some ways, the RPG.
    The TOW or Javelin types et al have their own strengths, uses, and applications and in turn, compliment the Carl to make them a nearly complete weapon system (the final leg of the triad is unit organic mortar systems as well as long-range MG fire [which in and of itself has become a lost art which needs to be revived]).
    Therefore, now you have it; the reasons herein for the demise of the RR's and the rise of its follow-on successors.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •