"According to Swedish defense contractor Saab, the U.S. Army is planning to issue recoilless rifles broadly to regular units for the first time in more than 30 years. The decision reflects the service’s combat experience in Afghanistan.
The ground combat branch had previously made a small purchase of recoilless rifles in 2012, but just for units in Afghanistan. All light infantry units may now receive them.
Recoilless weapons get their name from the fact that they let some of the propelling force escape out of the rear of the weapon as it fires. These counteracting forces reduce recoil normally associated with bigger guns.
These weapons were originally meant to take out tanks. The Army got rid of the vast majority of its recoilless rifles in favor of new anti-tank missiles in the late 1970s.
Fighting in Afghanistan inspired new interest in the weapons. The recoilless rifles give infantry more firepower over longer ranges then they previously had.
Troops had complained that insurgents knew their limits and were using the country’s terrain to their advantage. Militants routinely took up positions behind rocks, trees and buildings, often at ranges of 1,000 meters or more.
Troops requested a new weapon that had the range, power and accuracy to hit hidden fighters. The weapon also needed to be cheap enough that commanders would actually let their soldiers use it.
In early 2011, the Army responded to these demands and sent some Vietnam-era recoilless rifles to Afghanistan. The troops were thrilled with the variety of ammunition available for these weapons, including a shell that scatters thousands of little metal darts called flechettes."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We're on our way out of Afghanistan. Seems too little, too late, but I guess they'll be able to shoot their way out more effectively.
18 comments:
These weapons will be left behind in the rush to pullout of Afghanistan. Count on it.
And they will become weapons used against American forces and interests by al-Qaeda and other interests.
Haz, most likely they'll use them on each other.
Though of a different caliber, 106mm versus 84mm and 90mm, my first assignment in the green machine was to an "Ontos" battalion. They were used in Vietnam but with limited success, mainly due to their susceptibility of becoming mired in muddy terrain.
Recoiless rifles in general are a devasting weapon, especially, as mentioned, with the broad range of different rounds from which to choose.
A line at one of the links from here was interesting, as it highlights a not often thought about factor in small unit combat...
"The level of noise produced by the weapon firing will also play a factor in the counterinsurgency fight."
As by coincidence I had just now finished an old post of Isegoria's" about how Doinkers-lose.
From the sounds of it I'm not so sure we are planning on leaving many, if any, of these weapons behind. I think the reason that this is news is that these weapons are being issued to regular Army units everywhere instead of just those in Afganistan, or to Spec Ops.
Or, lets hope so anyway.
Thanks, X, I completely missed from my own quote that this is intended for Army-wide light infantry units, and not just Afghanistan.
Key words --
to be sent to
Little late, isn't it?
The chain of command sucks.
No problem. And, as well, they have a rather long history of use. Being first invented by "Commander Cleland Davis of the US Navy, just prior to the First World War".
"Little late, isn't it?"
It usually is.
Best. President. Ever.
The Rangers never stopped using them as bunker busters
Does anyone have a link to the effects that CiC Obama's rules of engagement (ROEs) for the Afghan theater had on combat effectiveness, morale, and casualties? Thanks in advance.
We continued using them in Alaska too, throughout the '90s for sure. The LAWs and other electronically guided stuff just proved too fickle in harsh environments. That was another reason we carried them in the Rangers: because we never knew which crappy theater we'd be deployed to next.
ROE's for Obama... you're a dreamer to think that would ever be common knowledge.
Then again, ROE's change with any President. Or, JCS.
There is no coherency in our policies.
We allow everyone but the polity to make such discerning choices.
'They' all know better, you know.
XRay said...
ROE's for Obama... you're a dreamer to think that would ever be common knowledge.
I understand the sensitive nature of ROE's -- and why no soldier would divulge them. The thing is that if they favor the enemy viz., what existed previously, it will eventually get out.
ROE's were very public back in the day, my days. Long gone days. Every soldier should have no dishonor in speaking of them, today.
It's my understanding that recoilless rifles are kind of crap for taking out modern armor, but they'd do just fine for "bunker busting", which is a big part of fighting it out in places like Helmand, where all the buildings are massive thick-walled earthen lumps, and the fields and roads are kind of reminiscent of the bocage.
recoilless rifles have been seeing a fair amount of use in Syria as well. Pretty much anywhere with a desert environment, infantry will want something large-calibre to crack open buildings with something man-portable. Making living quarters livable in this kind of country means building thick, thick rammed-earth walls to retain evening cool through the boiling hot days, and the heat of the day through the freezing nights. Which makes every single well-built peasant hut a potential strong point in times of war.
A friend's Marine son who has two purple hearts and did three tours in Afghanistan told me about the time his squad was pinned down by a M1 Garand bearing Taliban fighter. Their pipsqueak M4's couldn't get him, but he could reach out touch them. After Haji ran out of ammo, he threw down the Garand and disappeared.
Post a Comment