Multi-barreled tank?

You guys left out the armoured tracked vehicle with six recoiless guns attachted to it. Can't think of the name just now, but it was a small vehicle for extra fire-power.
 
Ted said:
You guys left out the armoured tracked vehicle with six recoiless guns attachted to it. Can't think of the name just now, but it was a small vehicle for extra fire-power.
Click to expand...


M50 Ontos, armed with six M4QA1C 106mm Recoiless Rifles

m50_ontos_03.jpg
 
The barrels look like rocket launcher and not MBT main guns. I'd swear I've seen this tank before, but I don't remember anything about it. I suppose its an interesting and even useful idea, as long as it actually works.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
The barrels look like rocket launcher and not MBT main guns. I'd swear I've seen this tank before, but I don't remember anything about it. I suppose its an interesting and even useful idea, as long as it actually works.
Click to expand...

The main guns are Recoiless Rifles.
 
I think they're like a cannon, but instead of the recoil going into the whole contraption, the rear end opens so the blast comes out causing the recoil to be almost non-existent.

I'm not sure if this is correct, because I once read something classifying the Panzerfaust 3 as a recoilless rifle, even though it is clearly a rocket launcher.
 
103716.jpg

Rather an effective weapon the old M50. It was capable of clearing 400m of jungle with a single blast of beehive rounds. Plus it had 3 .50 cals. 2 coax mounted and one pivot mounted.

I think I have a good idea what they are, but just in case I don't, why don't you tell me all about recoiless rifles
Click to expand...

For those who don't know:
The first effective recoilless rifles (RCL) were developed during World War II as a lightweight form of anti-tank weaponry. They are capable of firing artillery-type shells at a range and velocity comparable to that of a normal light cannon, although they are typically used to fire larger shells at lower velocities and ranges. The near complete lack of recoil allows some versions to be shoulder-fired, but the majority are mounted on light tripods, and are easily man portable.

The recoilless rifle functions very much like a conventional gun. The projectile and propellant are supplied as a single round and loaded into the breech. However at firing instead of all the propellant blast driving the projectile forward a large portion is directed backwards in the opposite direction. See classical mechanics for an overview of the physics of this. Since recoil has been mostly removed, a lot of the weighty and complex gun carriage and recoil dampening mechanism can be dispensed with. It is rare for the momentum to completely balance, and real world recoilless rifles do recoil noticeably.

Unlike a rocket launcher, which fires fin-stabilized rockets from a smooth bore, recoilless rifle rounds resemble conventional artillery shells. They generally have a rifling band preformed to engage the rifled launch tube, spin-stabilizing the projectile, hence the term "rifle". The "case" area of the shell can be perforated to vent the propellant gases which are then directed to the rear, or the base of the shell disintegrates.
 
zander_0633 said:
haha, yeah so wad are they?
Click to expand...
<<-- And this is why I asked for the explanation, LOL.

BTW, seems this guy was not able to reload from within. That's a pretty big disadvantage. The obvious advantage of what they had with the Ontos: Lots of firepower in a singble barage, and all of that in an armored vehicle that can be more easily air dropped and transported. I think its a design that the DOD ought to have run with more. It has a lot of potential. It would add a good amount of weight and size, but what about an autoloader system or somesuch?
 
Last edited:
zander_0633 said:
Well, so this tank going to die in the middle of a firefight!
Click to expand...

It did. Problem with the Ontos was the disadvantage of having to have the loader get out and reload as godofthunder pointed out, and another problem was the once you fired the weapon all six rifles fired, one at the other.
 
Mohmar Deathstrike said:
I think they're like a cannon, but instead of the recoil going into the whole contraption, the rear end opens so the blast comes out causing the recoil to be almost non-existent.

I'm not sure if this is correct, because I once read something classifying the Panzerfaust 3 as a recoilless rifle, even though it is clearly a rocket launcher.
Click to expand...
The German Panzerfaust was a crude recoilless gun.
An explosive charge threw the warhead at the target, the blast from the charge going out the rear of a hollow tube held by the firer.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
<<-- And this is why I asked for the explanation, LOL.

. The obvious advantage of what they had with the Ontos: Lots of firepower in a singble barage, and all of that in an armored vehicle that can be more easily air dropped and transported. I think its a design that the DOD ought to have run with more. It has a lot of potential. It would add a good amount of weight and size, but what about an autoloader system or somesuch?
Click to expand...
There are a couple of major problems with recoilless weapons.
Back-blast, highly dangerous to anybody near the rear of the weapon. It also made the firer highly visible.
Recoilless weapons are also less powerful than normal guns, the only ammo suitable for anti-tank use is HEAT rounds.
 
redcoat said:
The German Panzerfaust was a crude recoilless gun.
An explosive charge threw the warhead at the target, the blast from the charge going out the rear of a hollow tube held by the firer.
Click to expand...

The Panzerfaust from WW2 was a hybrid recoilless gun and rocket launcher I think: The process you described was assisted by a rocket engine in the warhead.

The contemporary Panzerfaust 3 may operate on a slightly different principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top