previous post next post  

Recoiless Rifles.


Calliope asked some good questions, so here's some answers...

The conundrum was this: Getting better projectiles to kill tanks into smaller/lighter guns - preferably that the troops could carry themselves and not require motor transport. Especially light troops, like airborne forces.

What to do, what to do.

Conventional guns are tubes, sealed at one end. Open the sealed end, stick in your cartridge, close the breech, fire. Newton's observation that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction then takes hold. You send a lump of steel in one direction, the barrel wants to go in the other direction, less the impact of various inefficiencies such as friction and heat transfer from propellant to tube, etc. There are just limits to what you can do here. You can improve the performance of a given gun system by using shaped charges instead of solid shot. Of course, that presents a different problem, since shaped charges don't like to be spun. You can re-tube it to a 'squeeze bore' gun where you use special ammunition that swages away going down the bore, which will achieve a greater velocity, at the cost of greater ammunition cost and complexity and tube wear. You can be more efficient than that and put a sleeve, or sabot, around the smaller projectile and fire it from the same bore (the process used on most tank guns today). All of this is fine - except it doesn't make your gun any smaller, and aside from adding a muzzle brake to it, it really doesn't help your recoil any. If just improves performance of the existing system against more resistant targets.

You can use a rocket. Once the shaped charge was developed, that became practical. This time, instead of sealing the tube and pushing out a projectile, you seal the tube and let the gases vent out the open end. Same thing - only this time the projectile sits on the end of the tube and the tube flies with the 'jo. This is the concept used by the bazooka, and it worked, though you suffered some limitations in ammo types, because the state of the art at the time pretty much limited you to shaped charges, which limited the tagets you could attack. And the ammo was expensive.

So, what else can you do? Well, the first recoilless gun (Argghhh! I can't find my copy of Hogg/Batchelor's Artillery!) was developed during the 1700's. Not terribly practical, it would have achieved it's recoil-cancellation by firing the projectile one direction, and an equal weight of shot the other. Difficult to employ tactically, yes? But what if you could use the gases? Meter them out the rear of the piece, so that the thrust from that canceled the thrust from the projectile? And thus the recoilless rifle was born.

The rest is in the extended post.

The 57mm was the first US gun. The Burny gun was the first Brit piece, which took a different approach, of using multiple venturi tubes.

The photo above is the breech of my gun. The black 'sausage shaped' holes are the vents, more technically known as venturis. Making use of the 'venturi effect' these vents are carefully shaped and sized to precisely meter out the gases from burning propellant to produce just the thrust needed to counter recoil. Since the bun requires no other recoil-absorbing mechanism, you can save a lot of weight. And once the principle was proven, it was easy to scale 'em up to bigger calibers.

So, Calliope wanted to know why pre-engraved rifling? That was to ensure uniform, predictable resistance from round to round. Variations in the bronze used for rotating bands, inconsistent seating by loaders under combat pressure could result in teeny-tiny delays in how fast the projectile starts it's trip down the bore. Since the gases aren't suffering those delays, accuracy and range could be effected. You could even have forward recoil. So, the rounds were pre-engraved, and the casings had lugs on them to prevent improper seating of the projectile. The fuzes were shaped so that is was easy for the loader to get the round in the chamber without fiddling, and a tiny twist one way or the other was sufficient to seat the round properly.

The breechblock, which, as John noted, is of the interrupted thread type, only requires a quarter turn to open and close. Because the chamber is vented, the gun can be lightweight overall and the breechblock can be much lighter.

The breechblock supports the end of the cartridge, keeping the base aligned with the firing pin.

Lessee, what have I missed...

How do we get those gases out the vents? Simple. Since the cartridge case does not, unlike in small arms and larger guns, perform any sealing of the breech, we punch it full of holes, so that the gases of combustion boil out of the casing into the breech, moving the projo on it's way, and exhasuting themselves out of the rear. Having lost a trouser leg to the backblast of a 90mm reckless rifle, I can attest you should keep soft and chewy bits out from behind the gun while firing.

1 Trackbacks

TrackBack this entry at http://www.thedonovan.com/cgi-bin/mt41/mt-tb.cgi/2034

Cool Information from King of Fools on May 21, 2004 7:10 PM

If you like either guns or physics, this John of Argghhh!!! post is for you.... Read More

11 Comments

WOW. John, What a great post. I know zilch on guns, but what I've learned from your site. And you show the quality, intelect and true nature of the gun collector. many thanks.
 
How about the Davis recoilless gun, 1905-1912? Scoll down to "Davis Gun" here for a mention: http://www.serve.com/mahood/nellis/ttr/ttrbook.htm "The Davis Gun (from an HP 0/400 site) This was a form of recoilless weapon, invented by Cdr Cleland Davis of the US Navy. When fired, the shell propulsion from the muzzle was intended to be 'compensated' by a discharge of lead shot from the rear of the gun's barrel (in essence the same principle as the more familiar 'Bazooka' anti-tank weapon of World War II). Ordered for trials by the British Admiraity's Air Department in early 1915, the Davis gun was extensively tested over the following two years and in July 1917 was fitted experimentally to several Handley Page 0/100s at Manston." And a mention on Page 9 here: http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART01.PDF You're doing this deliberately, aren't you? By the way, on this(office) computer (Windows etc) your "make a link here" doesn't work as advertised. Cheers JMH
 
Fascinating post John. I had no idea. Its amazing how inventive firearms manufacturers have been over the years.
 
There was one other problem with recoiless projectiles if I remember correctly and that was the gases vented out the back were extremely hot. I seem to recall my father telling me about recoiless rounds being fired at Chinese tanks and lighting the brush on fire behind them. It also made firing them prone, when not on a tripod impossible as your legs got blistered and blasted.
 
MunDane: It's not a problem, it's a feature. If you were to participate in the live fire drill of a Civil War Napoleon 12lbr, you would learn that the gun crew "stands away from the gun" prior to firing: the gun, in the absence of a recoil system, will moved back some 10ft or more, very quickly ( John can provide details). A shoulder-fired recoilless like the 57mm above is fired safely when fired as taught. My experience is with the 84mm Carl Gustav; the firing position was generally prone, with the body aligned 45deg away from the bore axis (do not spread your right leg). The loader would be lying 90deg to the bore axis facing the rear section of the gun (the venturi). Both would be positioned outside of the blast cone of the gun. Further details, ask and I'll try to find illustrations of which I speak. By the way, the rules are no different for firing from a tripod, the positions are analogous. Cheers JMH
 
So if I understand, in addition to spin (which stabilizes the shell in flight), rifled barrels also provide uniform resistance to the load traveling down the barrel. This provides a more constant chamber pressure (from shell to shell) and allows better accuracy through consistency. Yes? If this is so, do rifled barrels have sufficiently higher muzzle velocity (over smoth-bore tubes) to make a sub-sonic/super-sonic difference? The difference between, say, a mortar's "fwump" and a rifle's "crack"? Or is this just due to the powder charge? I have a back-of-the-mind memory that the WWII German 88 was said to have a sound totally different from allied artillery.
 
Homebru - that's a deceptively complex question to answer... Several modern tanks guns have dispensed with rifling - fin stabilizing all the rounds, as it makes the gun more versatile and the ammunition simpler to manufacture (rather than trying to reduce or prevent spin on shape-charge munitions, for example - as well as making them capable of missile launching. As for uniform resistance... kinda - though you have examples of increasing twist rifling out there too. That's all a matter of math, and how far out and flat you want/need the trajectory balanced against the costs of getting there. The discussion regarding the RCLs pertains to recoil, and keeping that uniform by ensuring the projectile is seated the same way, every time, without gymnastics on the part of the loader. To that end, the pre-rifled rotating band, is also a feature on some mortar designs, although for different purposes. Uneven ram on the part of separate loading artillery rounds can introduce significant errors. Rifles and other high velocity weapons really rely on having more powder than they need, within known parameters (that's where the flash comes from) to overcome those issues on loading. But they are using mechanical means (or the firers shoulder) to overcome recoil issues. As for the 88 - all weapons have distinctive sounds, based on bore size, projectile shape, and amount of powder. Whether the round is boat-tailed, rocket-assisted, etc, makes a difference, as do things like muzzle brakes, bore length, etc. The 88's sound was consistent with any medium caliber high-velocity round of that shape from a gun of that length, in a sense.
 
PLease can you help me, or do you know who can help me, with drawings/pictures and outside dimensions of the Davis recoilles guns which were tested during WWI in England? I need these information for a drawing which I am planned to make of the Armstrong-Whitworth triplane airship fighter, only one prototype and not armament. But it proposed that, if it should in production, it should be armament with a Davis recoilles gun. Thank you for your help. With regards, Jan den Das
 
Jan - I don't have any drawings, and couldn't find any pictures in any of my references. I would suggest you contact the people at The Ordnance Society. They have an extensive library, and on their website their publication index shows they covered the Davis guns ammunition in issue 46 of their newsletter. So they, or the author of the piece, may have what you seek.
 
i really appretiate the effort u peple have made.i am an engineering student,working on a project of bomb disposal disrupters.disrupter is a small water cannon.i want to mount that disrupter on a robot ,thats why i want to make my disrupter recoilless. can u give me more details about using ventuti principle in making recoilless disrupters.i'll be gratefull to u.you can email me.
 
i really appretiate effort made by u people.I am an engineering student,working on a project of bomb disposal disrupters.A disrupter is a small water cannon made for improvised explosive devices.I want to mount this disrupter on a robot.Thats whay i want to make it recoilless. i want your help in this regard. i also heard about recoilless techology,what is it.please help me.you can email me on ilyasmailbox@yahoo.com
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.