eT od Ol |Glossary of terms __— Lever eq Guideway Recess for Cartridge Guide : =< Venturi Fastning Strap Axis pin Guide Cartridge Guide Tube supporting the Firing Mechanism Foresight Barrel Telescopic Sight Face Pad Venturi Fostening Stop Rubker Bond Venturi Shoulder Pad and Gin'stount Hovsing Front Grip Rear Sight Firing Grip Cacking_ Lever The Carl Gustaf Recoilless anti-tank weapon is a typical weapon of its type and thus the nomenclature used is. applicable to many other weapons. The other type of recoilless anti-tank weapon is shown in the colour centre and reference should be made to its nomenclature. Attention A French Edition of Small Arms in Profile series will shortly be available in France, Panorama Des Armes, is published by Profile Publications Ltd, and is distributedin France by Crépin Leblond, 12 Rue Duguay-Trouin, 75006 Paris. Tel 548 3593 to whom alll Trade and Mail Order enquiries should be sent.LG 43 showing the unusual way in which the barrel dropped down and opened the breech inthe same wayas @ shotgun toallowtheguntobeloaded (RIMCS) Recoilless Anti-Tank Weapons by John Weeks When the first British Mark 1 tanks waddled out ofthe gloom on a September morning in 1916 they started a completely new phase of war —the tank war. But they also started another war, the Anti-Tank war, and ithas been going on ever since. For those first tanks particularly threatened the enemy infantry, and ever since the infantry have been hitting back as hard as they can, using their own specialised weapons, and their own techniques. The first reactions to tanks were along conventional ines, using larger types of rifle calibre weapons, and these will be dealt with ina separate Profile publication. In 1939 such weapons were. still in vogue, although it was beginning to be realised that they did not fulfil all that was required of them, and to carry and fire them was becoming a burden for the man unfortunate enough to be given the job. The principle of these weapons was to punch a hole in the armour of the tank by shooting ahigh velocity bullet containing a hard core, made usually from tungsten or a similar metal. This is still considered the best way to defeat armour, butitrequires plenty of weightin the bullet, and plenty of velocity, both of which automatically demand a heavy gun and on firing giveit plenty of recoil. Itwasn't long before the anti-tank rifles of 1941 found that they could no longer cope. Their bullets literally bounced off the armour of the German Mark Ill's and the British Matildas and were often not even noticed by the crew inside, Carrying these ineffective rifles was a burden, and firing them a matter of great bravery and heroism The next step was to employ small guns, literally scaled down artillery pioces, and these served splendidly, but they were not the equipment of the front-line soldier, they came up towed by vehicles, orcartied on vehicles, and the individual man had 161The simplostform of ecoilless gun, where two identical shells are fired inopposte directions from ‘The Devs recoilless gun, in which a shelis fired in ‘one diection, anda weigh consisting of lead shot 'stiradin the other “Themodsrh jeadlleed Gun pronowred by Krupp shellistied in the forward direction, andis balanced byamass of gas traveling athigh speedo therear aicborne assaulton Crete (RIMS) nothing in his hand with which to fight his greatest bogey, the advancing tank. Some new method of, lightweight gunnery was needed, a method which enabled one or two mento carry in their hands a gun which would knock outa tank or ‘armoured car at more than a hundred yards range, ‘something light, simple and cheap. The Germans found the answer first, though there was no particular reason why they should have done, forit was obvious to all who cared to look. What they did was to use a recoilless gun. The search fora recoilless gun had occupied ‘engineers for centuries, the more so when artillery began to fire further with heavier shells, which it did when smokeless powders were introduced in the last years of the nineteenth century. Apart from such aberrations as elastic breech linings (proposed by a renowned American mountebank) the only solution that was offered was to fire two guns of ‘equal size simultaneously in opposite directions. The recoil of one would cancel the other, Loud laughter on all sides, and the search went on. Howeversilly it may have seemed, the two gun idea was precisely the key to the whole conundrum. Itwas taken up by an American in 1910, a Commander Davis, and his principle was used to make a number of recoilless guns. The Davis method was nothing more than a perfectly logical extension of the two-gun idea. He merely incorporated both guns into one by having a long barrel and placing his breech in the middle. In one direction he fired a shell, inthe other plain slug of the same weight. The propelling powder pushed on each with the same force and the barrel stayed still. The idea of a gun which fired backwards as well as forwards didn't appeal to many military minds atthe time despite Commander Davis improving itso that it only fired fine lead shot out of the back, Gorman LG 40 75mm RCL. Gun, the frst succosstul gun using the prineipleaf a high speed flow of gasto the rear. This is a peture of one of the very few remaining examples, and the carriage is missing. This type of gun was Usedin the 162and that to a short range ; but in World War I the idea was revived and introduced for aeroplane armament. Early aeroplanes were flimsy and could only carry rifle calibre machine guns, which were not effective enough for ground strafing or balloon busting. A shell firing gun offered possibilities, and the Davis was made in several sizes firing 3, 6, and 12 pounder shells. The barrel was slung below the fuselage and the lead shot counter-charge flew harmlessly back into space. Butit was not made in quantity, and it may never have been used in action and after the war Nothing more was heard of it. The Germans were. sensible enough to see thatif one could fire lead shot backwards one could also fire anything else, such asa mass of gas. Itdidn't matter what it was so long asit had the same momentum as the shell going forwards. Gas is easily made by igniting propellant, it can be made to move quickly—so giving it momentum, and itsoon slows down in the atmosphere so that itis not dangerous at a distance. Very secret experiments in the late 1930's by Krupp showed that the theory was sound, ‘and that by giving the shell four or five times as much propellant as was needed ina conventional gun the system could be made to work for fairly low muzzle velocities. The Krupp weapon dispensed. with the centre breech which had been a distinct weaknesson the Davis. The first guns were designed for close support fire rather than anti-tank use, and a small number went into action in Crete in 1941. They were stubby little things, 75mm in bore and weighing 3201b in contrast to conventional guns of the same calibre which weighed anything up to half a ton or more. The LG 40, asit was called, fired a 10lb hollow charge anti-tank shell, which was probably pretty effective, but there are no authentic accounts of it having been used against Allied tanks. Only afew hundred guns were made, but they were the genuine forerunners of the thousands that have followed, and they had all the features that are stillto be found to day in similar guns, The barrel on the LG 40 was short because it was, ‘meant as an airborne weapon, and length was critical in the containers used to parachute weapons in the German airborne forces. Ideally a long barrel is required to use all the propulsive force of the powder, therefore the LG 40 differed from the ideal in this respect. Ithad a large chamber in order to accommodate the large cartridge case, and this case hada plastic base which blew out ata set pressure, disintegrating into tiny fragments that were harmless ata few yards range. A definite pressure was allowed to build up so that the propellant would ignite properly. All propellant burns faster under pressure, and one of the tasks of the designer of recoilless ammunition is to strike a happy balance between blow out pressure on the base and burning rate in the propellant. Behind the LG 40 breech was the venturi (a conical hole). The base of the case blew out through this hole and the gas followed it, expanding rapidly as it went and pushing against the walls to give some small forward effort in addition to the momentum reaction. All of thisis, still found today in recoilless anti-tank guns. Like the LG 40 the modern ones need only light carriages and small wheels, as the weight is low that they have to support and there is no recoil to be absorbed in the tral But the LG 40 was still not a man-carried infantry anti-tank gun, forall its virtues. However, ithad German 75mm LG 43 RCL Gun, the lighter nd improved version of the LG 40. This gun had no wheeled carriage, and wasfired fromitstriped mounting (RAICS) 163The elfectiverange wasabout 100yards (AMCS) thatwo: thebroech (RSAF Enfield) shownthe way, and when combined with one other great innovation of World War 2it proved the answer. The second invention or it might be proper to say re-discovery, for nothing is entirely new, was the hollow charge. This was used in the LG-40 as we have seen, but it came intoits proper place with the infantry weapons. Britain used the first hollow charge projectiles for defeating tanks with the Number 68 Grenade in 1939, and itis just possible that the Germans used this as a basis for ‘their new weapon. The great advantage of the hollow charge missile was thatit could arrive atthe target at whatever speed it iked. With the solid bullet of the anti-tank rifle, thicker armour meant that the bullet had to go at higher speed, and weigh more, but the hollow charge projectile used its explosive to bore the hole. and speed meant nothing tot, Allit required was thatit arrived nose frst, and preferably at right angles to the armour, the Laws of Detonation did the rest. Naturally there 164 The Goran PANZERFAUST one-man recoilless gun of 1842-43, The bomb or warhead remained outside the gun, and thestem of the projectile ited into the barre which was also the casing for carrying the complete round ‘The Burney 20mm experimental reeolless gun of erly World War 2. Ths, the fst Burney gun, serthe pattern forthe rest, and urs are clearly vsibi leading aff from the sides of were certain drawbacks: the explosive had to be of ccertain diameter and shape orits performance was affected but neither of these was difficult to obtain in the power needed to defeat World War 2 tanks, and at last it began to look as though the tank had metits match. The Germans went to work on an infantry recoilless gun probably using the experience gained from the LG 40, and the result was the PANZERFAUST, a light, handy one-man weapon, with enough punch to blow ahole in the armour of any tank then on the battlefield, Once again the Germans scored a notable First, and set the pattern for others to follow for many years. The Panzerfaust \wasa simple tube about thirty inches long, with a projectile fitted in it ready to fire. The projectile was a low-velocity bomb, stabilised by fins. Itfitted inside the tube or barrel, and the fins wrapped around the lang stem. The warhead contained a hollow charge, and because it was too'3-46in Recoilless Gun ammunition, 1945-46, From elttoright ‘these are, cartridge case alive HE Wallbuster round, racticeround, poo! shat fortasting banels (Author) large to fit inside the tube, itremained outside, atthe muzzle. This gave the weapon the outline of some monstrous deformed toffee apple, and also. made its handling a matter of some delicacy. There was a crude flip-up sight, the firer aligning it with the front of the bomb to take aim, and a simple trigger lever fired the propelling charge contained in the stem of the bomb. It was not an easy weapon to hold and aim, and the man who did so needed a cool head. The explosion was close to the firer’s body, the flight of the bomb was short, curving, and occasionally erratic, and there was no guarantee that the muzzle blast would not blow some pieces back into the firer’s face. Butit worked, and it was cheap and easy to produce. It was also the very first completely packaged throw-away round of ammunition. The Panzerfaust was not only its own gun, it was the shell as well, and the gun. was not reloaded, it was thrown down and left, Later on in the War reloadable versions were made and the gunner carried a tube and several rounds, but these were more sophisticated. The originals. 3:45in Recoilless Gun on ipod mounting (Author) 165'3:45in RCL Gun on two-wheeled trundier, a not particularly suecesstul rolley intended to permittwo mento move the gun and ammunition across country without undue effortandloss of ime (Author) were basic in the extreme. The range of all versions was a litle more than one hundred yards, and less than that was desirable if the shot was at a moving target Whatever were the disadvantages of the Panzerfaust, and there were enough of them, itdid give the German infantry soldier the ability to knock out a tank with a small light one-man weapon, and thatwas precisely whatit had been made to do, Despite several attempts, the Allies never actually succeeded in making a similar anti-tank weapon that fulfilled the same purpose, Theirs all came out needing a two-man crew, and were bulky and often heavy. The British followed the spigot mortar principle to build the Projector Infantry Anti Tank, or PIAT. This owed something in its ancestry to the Blacker Bombard of Lieutenant Colonel Blacker’s, fertile mind, The Blacker Bombard was a terrifying device which came out in 1940, and hurled a 201 bomb to 450 yards against tanks. However, at that range it was inaccurate to a degree, and below 200 yards was recommended for best results. The bomb was not hollow charge, but was simply filled with plastic explosive and relied on sheer power tc defeat the tank. It was quite effective, although never used in action, and the idea was taken upfor the PIAT, though with certain differences. The PIAT was much smaller, weighing 32Ibs without ammunition, and the bomb had a hollow charge warhead which was quite good, ‘Two men were needed to produce useful fire, asit was hard for one man to both load and fire, and the recoil onfiring became a barrack room legend that went therounds of the army and inevitably grew with telling. It wasn'tas bad as the gruesome stories maintained, but there was aknack to holding and firing it, and failure to do it properly led to bruises 166 and also to the spigot notre-cocking. This was serious because the PIAT could not be fired until re-cocked, and cocking by hand was a difficult athletic feat only slightly less awkward and painful than firing, The PIAT was, as will have been gathered, anything butarecoilless weapon, and although it lasted the War out, it was obvious that it ‘was not the answer that was needed. In Britain the recoilless principle was well known, enough from the Davis guns of World War 1, but nothing had been done to develop these weapons and all research had to start pretty well from the beginning with the pressures of war forcing the pace all of the time. One man believed in the principle, the inventor Sir Dennis Burney. He was a man of enormous talents and wide interests, and he turned his mind to recoilless guns early in the war. He soon found that the best counter-balance to the shell was to use a mass of 985, in the same way as had Krupp, and his first gun was a large bore shot gun fitted with a special breech and a pipe to conduct the gas clear of the firer’s shoulder. From this he went to a 20mmcannon specifically intended to be a light anti-tank gun. Although it was a success as a gun, the War Office decided that something heavier was needed, and Burney duly produced it. Before describing his next series, itmay be well to pause and examine the systems that he used, because they were somewhat different from those applied by the Germans. Burney decided against the idea of blowing outa plastic disc in the base of the cartridge case. He tried it, but found difficultiesin making the ammunition, and instead he took a normal case and drilled holes in its sides all the way up from top to bottom. Inside this case he placed a sheet of thin brass, so that the holes were covered up, but theycould easily be opened up by light gas pressure inside the case, This allowed him to have a normal base to the cartridge, anda normal primerin the middle oft. These were important considerations because they allowed the ammunition to be made by existing machinery with very little alteration to the tooling, Burney arranged his venturis around the chamber, and had to put channels and passages in the chamber walls to allow the gasto reach the venturis once it had blown out the sheet brass, This was a complication in the making of the gun, which compensated to some extent for the simpler ammunition, but it did leave a normal breech and firing mechanism. (The Germans had trouble with their breech arrangements throughout the war.) But, the Burney chambers wore fairly quickly. The gas blew out sideways from the case and had to be turned through 90° to go backwards. Hot, fast moving gas soon erodes metal, and wear was a constant concern for these guns. However, they worked well enough, and careful design of the venturis produced almost complete recoillessness. This fact enabled Burney to push on and meet the War Office demands for a man carried anti-tank gun oflarge calibre. The first was a 3:45in shoulder gun, oddly enough the same calibre as the 25 pounder field piece. Itweighed 75Ib empty. and the shell added another 161b to that, so the man who put it on his shoulder ‘was no weakling. The few pictures that remain of, this gun show that the firing position was a bit strained in any case, and the trigger and forward hand grip could have been put further back with advantage to the firer. There were four venturis, or jets and the chamber pressure ose to one and a half tons atits peak, very much lower than was normal with conventional guns of the same size. ‘The muzzle velocity was correspondingly low, just over 550ft per second, which must have meantthat the firer could pretty well have followed the flight of the shell to the targetif he had sufficiently recovered from the effects of a pound of cordite going off next to his ear. The required range ‘was 300 yards against tanks, and there was an HE shell for other uses which went to twice the distance. The anti-tank shell was interesting because it used a new principle in the attack of armour plate. Instead of the penetrating effect of the hollow charge round, the 3:45in returned to a version of that used by the Blacker Bombard in 1940. The shell had a thin outer wall and the explosive wes containedin a flexible wire bag inside On hitting the target the shell spread out, in a manner vulgarly described as ‘cow-patting’, anda fraction of e second later the fuse sett off. The effect of this was more of a concussion then a penetration and it was so severe thatit could incapacitate the crew without ever making ahole in the plate atall, Thisis known asa ‘squash head’ shell. However, despite its novelties and many advantages, the 3-45in never finished its tests and was finally abandoned a few years after the end of the War, when other and more exciting designs were inthe wind Atthe same time as the 3:45in came nto being, Burney produced another and heavier model. This was the 3-7in, again an emotive choice of calibre, for the 3-7 was the successful heavy AA gun of the British Army throughout the War, and enormous numbers of it saw service all over the world. The 3-7in Recoilless Burney gun was intended as a light anti-tank gun at battalion level, Itwould thus have replaced the six-pounder and the 17 pounder, both of which were comparatively large and heavy items for infantry to take with them. The 3-7 RCL (the military abbreviation for recoilless) Gun was far lighter than either of these, for it weighed only 222Ib without its two-wheeled carriage, and 377Ib with it. Nothing like this had ever been offered to the British Infantry before, and they were enthusiastic to have it. The shell was 23ib altogether, of which lb was explosive, designed to operate in the same way as the 3:45, Burney called these shells 'Wallbusters’, and meant them for the attack of concrete fortifications just as much as the armour plate of tanks. He reasoned that the defences of the West Wall along the coast of France were just as menacing to infantry as were the tanks lurking behind them, and of course he was right. Unfortunately his guns never had a chance to prove themselves as the war ended before they had been made sufficiently robust to stay in one piece fects of fring two 3:45in shells ata sheet of armour tc, This view isthe reverse side, and shows how lumpsof thepiateareknocked aff bythenstosion Caution)Firing the 3-48in from the shoulder. Note the strained way in which the frer has to reach forward forthe tigger and front hand grip ‘The gun weighed 75 pounds, and the shell an extve 11 pounds. It was thus no easy task to piekit up and am i, and itis, questionable whetherit would have been successful inthe shoulder-fired ale. This photo shows thejetsvoryCloary (Author)The Tin Bur +y RCL, a contemporary of the 3:45in, The design and outin battalion aun. The barrel swung round untilthe muzzle was over the tral. and it was towed inthis position, making the gun in issimilar,butthis gun was larger and meant to be @ ‘nest two wheoled tale, unlikethe conventional way oftowing field guns (Author) for very long, and before the problems of venturi erosion had been solved. Probably Burney suffered from the priorities of wartime production which denied him the high class metals he needed for his weapons. He designed several RCL artillery pieces which were not entirely trouble-free, and these may have led to some official coolness towards the RCL principle, but whatever the cause, the 3:45 and 3.7 were dropped with almostimproper haste in 1945. and the whole subject went back to the drawing board. The result of a fresh look at the problem was the 120mm Battalion Anti Tank Gun (BAT) which entered service in 1953. It was derived from another Burney design of 1948, this time of 4-6in calibre, but by 1953 there had been some significant changes. ‘The BAT abandoned the idea of multiple venturis leading off from the sides of the chamber and went back to the original German method of having a hole in the breech and the base of the round with a plastic bursting disc to give ignition pressure. ‘The design of this breech was very similarin many ways to that of the German LG 40, and it had the same prominent single venturi sticking out behind. The propellant in the BAT was ignited by electricity, the current passing through an insulated band in the side of the case, which was an improvement of the LG 40's percussion cap. In other respects, the BAT was fairly conventional. Its dimensions were massive and it turned the scales at 2200b, which was an improvement on the 17 pounder which itreplaced, but still not particularly ight or easy to pull about. One trouble was the fact thatit required a larger towing vehicle than the jeep, itwas difficult to manhandle, and itrequited the services of aman with a range finder to be certain that the first shot would be on target. This need for accurate range-taking is normal with all RCL guns. because their muzzle velocity is so low that the shell follows a curving path in the sky, and can easily missf itis not launched at the proper angle. Later on this difficulty was overcome to some extent by fitting a Bren Light Machine Gun onto the barrel and using itto fire spotting rounds. Tracer was used, and when it was hitting the target the 120mm shell was fired. The principle isfine if the tracer goes along the same path asthe 120mm, Ifitdoesn’t, andit didn’t with :303, then the gunner hhas to make mental corrections before firing, and to some extent this negates the whole exercise. Butit was better than blind guessing, and it was soon improved out of all recognition by using a special ‘American spotting rifle made for the job with ammunition matched to the flight of the 120, soif the spotter hit the 120 was bound to also. The proper spotting rifle came in with the next model of BAT the late 50's. With the BAT the British Army adopted an unusual naming system, ‘unusual for them thatis, in that instead of the different models being called Marks 1,2, 3 and so on, they were given different names derived from thoir acronyms. The second BAT was lightened and made more mobile, soit was known as the Mobile BAT, ‘or MOBAT. It could now be towed by a Landrover, although it still had the heavy sliding breech of the original BAT and a sturdy carriage to carry everything. twas a much better gun, andit survived for many years in service all over the World, although foreign nations were wary of buying these strange looking drainpipes with their enormous backblast and tertfying fring noise, Intime MOBAT was overtaken by WOMBAT, which wasreally a completely new design owing little to the previous models except that it used the same ammunition. In WOMBAT the barrel was made much thinner and lighter and the carriage was reduced to a tiny skeleton with miniscule ‘wheels on a narrow axle. The gun was no longer towed behind o truck, it was carried in the truck and was pulled up a couple of ramps to getit there. This was a hugeimprovementin mobility, and the ‘gun could also be handled by its crew much more easily. The breech too was changed, and becamea simple swinging collar hinged tothe bareel and carrying the thin steel venturi. This was perfectly adequate, and most of the metal in the back ends of 169PRIMER HOUSING FIRING MECHANISM COCKING LEVER (in —~ si The lan Aone-shot disposable personal anti-tank weapon. The weapon is shown in cut-away form, notice the breakable joint between the shell and the combustion chamber. This breaks at a pre-determined pressure allowing the shell to move forward balanced by the | __ pressure of the gas flow to the rear. Thus making the weapon recoilless. MUZZLE COVER Courtesy of FérsvaretsFabnksverk © ProfilePublications Limited ( COMBUSTION CHAMBER with PROPELLANT RADIAL SUPPORTS IGNITION TRANSMISS4— rear sicHT BARREL. FRONT SIGHT ition ‘safe’) ~~ OULDER PIECE TRIGGER CARRYING SLING —py FOLDING. PIEZOELECTRIC FUZE EXPLODER + CHARGE _ DISTANCE TUBE z FIN STABILIZING TUBE LINER SHELL BODY HIGH EXPLOSIVE ANTI TANK (HEAT) SHELL ON LINE BREAKABLE JOINTthe earlier BATs had been so much extra ballast. The crew’s protection shield was abandoned, and ‘the gunner controlled the traverse by using his hand and shoulder, there being no lock or mechanical, gearing. The WOMBAT is still in service, and will no doubt continue to be for many years yet. It only weighs 600Ibs, less than the weight of the barrel alone of the original BAT, and the shell thatit fires weighs 28ibs, or just under 5% of the total weight, Few other guns do as well in the World at the ‘moment and the destructive effect of the shell is enormous. The BAT story is really the end of the British RCL family so far. Turning now to the US Army, they tao were impressed by the LG 40 and actually went so far as to more or less copy it and build a small range of recoilless field guns from it. The designs used existing shells in the same way that the Germans had done, thus saving changesin ammunition production—a different approach from Burney who designed his guns and their associated ammunition asa whole. This field gun experimenting started another and parallel line of research into RCL anti- tank guns, which was using the same general One ofthe ist British 120mm BAT ACL Guns. This photo shows gun with trailhooked up tothe breech ready for towing, Another unusual ture of the BAT was that t was towed by the muzzle, and towing eye ls quite prominent on the barrel (author, ‘120mm BAT in adug-in gun position, with loader inserting aroundinto the breech. Note the sie of the certidge case and its length. Theloader is running the round along a trough on top ofthe vent ond this trough guidesthe found into the open breech. Fresh rounds are stacked behind the loader, and the gunner, protected by the shield, looks trough the sight _ (Wer Oifice Photo)120mm WOMBAT fring at night. This dramatic picture shows clearly the proportion of flash and explosion which travels in each direction on fiing. The figure of the loader can be seen on the near side ofthe gun with his hands over his vars, and the line of the tracer trom the bin spotting rile is visible running tough the muzzle flash The gun ls painted in a disruptive camouflage: scheme which givesitan odd appearance (Author) ‘UBeTrmm ACLonta ground noantwhheccewatesond mmanilondlipayed (US Army infony Maseuny) layoutas the Burney guns. The shell case was perforated with holes, although they were smaller holes than in England, and the venturis or jets did not have the same careful outline and gas ports as in the Burneys, the whole layout of the breech end looked much simpler, yet just as much research had gone intoits shape. The first of these guns was the 57mm, which still exists in large numbers around, the world and in the US Armouries, forit forms part of the equipment of the Reserve Forces of the US. Large quantities were ordered in 1945 and used in the Pacific Campaign, chiefly as infantry support ‘guns because the Japanese tanks were few and far between. A range of ammunition was prepared for the gun which made it more flexible and better adapted to the role of general support, andin addition to Hollow Charge anti-tank shell there was and still is HE, White Phosphorous Smoke, and canister. The latter for use against infantry at close range when there was a danger of the position being overrun, The 57mm wasn't particularly light, itturned the scales at 44lb 6oz with its bipod but it could be fired perfectly well without it, the barrel resting on the firer's shoulder in the same way as the 3:45in was meantto do, The breech block is perforated to let the gas stream out of the back, and it locks by an interrupted thread. This formed the pattern for all the following US RCL guns, which differ from the 57mm in size and detail only. peculiarity of the early guns was that the driving 17357mm RC. Gun onitstripod mount with accessoriesandammunition (US Army Infantry Museum) band onthe shell was grooved to meet the barrel grooves. Thus in loading, the loader had to ‘feel’ for the grooves, and match them up before slamming the shell home. The idea was to reduce the initial pressureon the base of the shell and getit started up the bore sooner than if ithad to squeeze the copper into the lands and grooves. It didn’t seem to offer much advantage, and was dropped after some years. The §7mm was followed by the 75mm which was equally successful and also saw some limited war service. Both the 57 and the 75 have suffered the indignity of being captured by Asian Irregular Forces and used against their former owners as well ‘as being copied and made in limited quantities in backyard workshops, The 75 weighs 114lb end is ‘more thana little heavy for infantry use in the forward venches. It was followed in the Post War years by the 90mm, still a very active weapon in the US Army. The 90 combined a bigger punch from its shell, with less weight in the gun. It achieved the lower weight by simplifying the barrel assembly and breech to the bare minimum, and the weightis only 5b, more than enough for ane man to carry, butstill vary little for the size of the gun and that effect it offers. The range of this weapon isin excess of 300 yards against tanks, and at the distance tis both accurate and effective. A bigger brother of the 90 was developed asa 174 battalion weapon, to be carried on a jeep and served by a crew of three. Thisiis the 106mm, ‘well known gun in Europe where most of the Armed Forces of NATO have been equipped with it atone time or anotherin the last 15 years. The 106 isa direct descendantof agun evolved in 1945 which was to have been a scaled up version of the 57, but which lay dormant for some years and re-appeared in time for the end of the Korean War ‘asa 105mm, This was notsatisfactory for several reasons, and it was improved, but as there were already somein service, it was decided to call the improved gun a 106, rather than a 105 Mark 2, or some equally confusing title. The 106mm RC therefore not 106 at all, but 105mm and it does fact fire the same ammunition as its predecessor, the 105. The 105 is now dead and gone and forgotten by everyone, but the 106 soldiers on all over the World, and an excellent gun itis. It follows closely the layout of the 57, the venturi systemis the same simple arrangement, and it weighs only 4861 with its mount. Ithas only one wheel, which makes itvirtually immovable once off its jeep, but it can be taken down into two parts and carried by its crew for distances of up to a couple of hundred yards Itcarries a ‘Sin spotting rifle, which is the same as the one now mounted on the WOMBATS of the British Army and it fires a highly effective series of shells out to more than 1000 yards.Two photographs illustrating the effect ofthe backblast rom the 108mm RCL Gun, taken in each case looking back over the breech of the gun. The top photo shows an aay of plywood tergets aid out in tan behind the gun, The lower photo was taken immediately alter fing one ‘ound, and shows the extent ‘ofthe backblast (Author) ‘Sweden has always been a technically advanced country, and the study of recoilless guns started in small way in 1940 with two men, a civilian engineer called Hugo Abramson anda military artillery officer by the name of Harald Jentzen Their combined work was to resultin the highly successful and well known 84mm CARL GUSTAV Recoilless Rifle, which is now standard equipment among several NATO nations including the British. The first gun was a 20mm using a scrap barrel donated by BOFORS and ignited by a fuse. This worked well and the inventors had progressed sufficiently far to havea suitable model for a demonstration to the Swedish Defence Minister by the following year. This gun was still 20mm, butit now had a percussion firing mechanism and a proper breech, There was asingle venturi, and the design required continual work during the next four years, culminating in the first 84mm CARL. GUSTAV in 1946. This was adopted by the Swedish ‘Army in 1949, and further improvements have been made although the weapon now sold and used is still very similar to that of 1949 in all general Three-quarter rear viaw of US 75mm RCL Gun on an oarly wheeled mou. The bre h can be easily distinguished, and the simple ‘method of opening tis well nown. An empty cartridge case illustrates the way in which the case was perforated (US Army Infantry Museurn) 178‘picture of an unusual experiment. A French CHERRAULT US 105mm RCL Gun mounted on ajeep. The gun hasavery (ic) light armoured tracked vahice fitted with 108mm RCL short overhang behing the breech, and because the contre of Gun undergoing inspection in Britain. The front ofthe vehicles ‘gravity sin rontof the elevating gear. two balancing springs tothe leftof the picture, and the crew drove itlying down. The fsrerequired. These aresticking up above the barrel and justin _engine wasin the box-like structure at theback. Judging rom frontof the sight. The fring lanyard isalso visible, eunning this photograph, tha racks, were made of rubber, and much of down the side of the barrel from the forward sighting the suspension used this medium. Itnever entered telescope (Author) service (Author) The US 105mm RCL Gun. This picture brings out the visual differences betwean this and the 105mm gun. Note that the balancing springs ae no longer needed. The broech is different, the carriage is extremely light, and a spotting ifleis tattied nop ofthe barel (Author)Particulars. This is a remarkable record for a small county, and it speaks volumes for the two original inventors who started off the project with such small beginnings. The ammunition has been, improved, and itis much more effective now than 20 years ago and there is a development in hand to increase the effective range of the system out to 700 metres using a range finding and lead computing sight so that crossing targets can be engaged atall speeds and angles. As well as being a formidable anti-tank weapon the CARL GUSTAV fires a range of other types of shell, including one of the best illuminating rounds made anywhere in Europe in a comparable calibre, This illuminating round can be fired to 2000 metres, and on bursting gives a light over half a million candle power for almost half a minute, Possibly the CARL GUSTAV is becoming surpassed these days by the smaller guided missiles and its weight of 32! is no longer considered to be an adequate price to pay for a range of 500 metres against tanks, but itis a sound design, backed up by superb engineering and excellent ammunition, and it deserves to remain in service. A feature of the CARL GUSTAV not found on other similar guns is the indexing of the ammunition into the breech. The single central venturi requires that the cartridge isignited from the side, and thisis done by a percussion cap in the side of the base of the round. To ensure that this cap comes opposite the hammer when in the breech, each case has a piece milled ‘posed picture of Bish troops dling with @ 106mmon a US jeep. The gunners sitting on one of the ipod lags taking 2 sight, ang he's actually facing atright angles othe forget, ooking into an angiad telescope, and nat trying to lay his head slongside the barrel, which is much more uncomfortable, and ddamaging tothe ears on firing, Ammunition carried on floor, underneath the tipod legs (Author) Aare photograph of a 108mm gun mounted on a Universah Cari. This picture is not dated, butt must have been taken in the early 1980's, since the cari went out of service at almost tho same time asthe guneamein (Author) ‘The Swedish 84mm RCL Gun, CARL GUSTAV held by a Swedish soldier inthe firing position (FORSVARETS FABAIKSVERK)AMINIMAN anti-tank weapon. The projectiles contained in the fibro-glass bar ‘and ater fing the barelis discarded'and notreicaded, The entre waspon only ‘weighs 6315, andres ashellweighing 19Ib (Author) The light anti-tank weapon MINIMAN-—a member ofthe new generation of modern armaments. Developed and manufactured by FV, the National Defence Industri, Eskilstuna, Sweden out of its rim. This notch registers with a tapering lug on the breech lip, and centres the case in exactly the right position. It requires the loader to keep a cool head and in the dark he has to feel for the notchand the lug, butit more than pays off in simplicity in the mechanism and reliability in muddy and difficult conditions. Another of the products of the same Swedish factory isa truly one-man weapon—the MINIMAN. MINIMAN isa throw-away version of CARL GUSTAV, and might almost be likened to a modern Panzerfaust. It differs greatly in design of course, 178 but the idea is almost the same. Itis an ingenious weapon and like the CARL GUSTAV itisa recoilless un. The projectile is held into the barrel by a breakable metal link which fractures when the pressure reaches a certain level, and allows it to. move forward. Small fins are blown out of the base of the shell atthe muzzle, but the main stabilising effect does not rely on fins, it utilises a principle of drag stabilisation as does the CARL GUSTAV. There isnotsufficient space in this Profile to explain the full theory, but if the reader will accept the barest, outline, what happensis that air is pushed outSoviet 82mm RCL Gun on tripod mounting. The breech is oper and therod running forware from it beside the bavalis the firing mechanism "(US Army Infantry Museum) | ‘Aview ofthe breech ofthe Soviet 82mm showing itopen. The fining pin ang its mount arein the middle of the ventur when the found is fired. and the gas lows around it. This mothod sn0 longer avouredin modern designs (US Army Infariry Museum) sideways by a blunt shaped nose and closesin again at the back, This ‘squeezing’ effect holds the tail steady and stabilises the projectile in flight The system is simple and robust and it means that the shell need not be spun, butit suffers from the drawback that it induces a good deal of drag and so the projectile is slowed down sooner than it would, be with a normal ballistically shaped nose cap.For the short ranges over which MINIMAN operates this loss of velocity is not critical. The Swedish Army has large numbers of MINIMAN in its inventory, and every infantryman is trained to useit. Any hostile armoured force rash enough to invade ‘Sweden might soon find itself decimated by these cheap and highly effective litle recoilless guns, Like all good inventions, there is no national patent right on the recoilless principle and they are found in the Eastern Bloc as well as the Western countries. Russia, which is generally the main supplier of the Communist Counties, came later into the RCL field than did the West. The first RCL's appeared after the War, and the one that first came into service was.an 82mm weapon not much dissimilar in outline from whatis now the British WOMBAT. It was heavy and solid, with small steel wheels that can only have run properly on hard. surfaces, and a multi-jet venturi like the US 106mm, This weapon is still in service with the satellite countries, but the Czechoslovaks have taken it and improved itinto the M-59A, which isa solid and, workmanlike gun, albeit it weighs 8451b, whichis ‘on the heavy side for 82mm calibre. The range is now quoted at 1000 metres, an increase of 100% over the original model. Probably the best known, ‘version of the 82mm family is the one called by its Czech manufacturers the TARASNICE’, whichis, allight version for the infantry company and which ‘the British Army met in some numbers in the Suez Campaign of 1986. Tarasnice weighs just over 401b and has two small pressed steel wheels, about the size of dinner plates which can do little for its mobility. The breech isa very basic screw type and itfites a Bib shel! out to 400 or so metres. As its. performance is only marginally worse than the original Soviet 22mm it could be said to be a distinctimprovement on it, but even soitisnot ‘much of agun, and the Czechs are probably glad to see the back of it. Alarger RCL of 107mm was in service for a few years in the Soviet Armies, butit appears now to have gone. Itwas a close kinsman to the American 106mm, and was carried or towed in the same 179Ctech TARASNICE RCL Gun, arathor heavy shoulder-fired weapon which was in service during the 1950's, The folded frame at muzdl Towing bar, and the wheels are removed orfiing (AUthor) A ound of ammunition forthe TARASNICE. The projectile was stabilised by fins while in light, and relied fora hollow Churge warhead to penetrate armour (Author) manner although it had a substantial carriage and of every major army in the World. Ithas been the big wheels. Very little is known about its shell ar its Jeading type of anti-tank weapon in most of the general performance, butithardly seems likely that World. Naw that missiles of one kind or another are itcould havea better than the 106mm, and itis. being used for anti-tank work it might be expeated certain that it was less accurate since it had no that the recoilless guns might fade out, but this is spotting rifle. far from so. Anew one appears almost every yeer, Inthe smaller sizes of anti-tank weaponry the and each becomes a litle more effective with each Soviets have stuck to rackets and rocket launchers, generation, Among the latest are the French with all the attendant troubles that come with these, ACL/APX BO, a neat 80mm equipment weighing though it must be said that they have shown great, 25Ib all up and firing out to 500 metres against engineering skillin producing effective lightweight —_tanks-—and the German Messerschmitt-Bolkow- versions Blohm ARMBRUST 300. This latter one is another The present day position with Recoilless Gunsis disposable, one shot Panzerfaust type weapon that theyare becoming almost more numerous and weighing only 10lb Boz, and defeating tenk armour widely used than ever before, though not ‘at 300 metres, necessatily inthe role of guns pure and simple. The recoilless gun is not the answer to every ‘Some of the new guided anti-tank missiles use a problemas was once thought, butitis along way small launching charge working on the RCL tothe answer to many problems, andit will be principleto start the missile on its flight and getit found inthe equipment of any modern army for clear of t1e launcher before the racket motor lights many years to come yet. A little while ago certain up and gives the boost that gets it up to speed military pundits were bewailing the passing of the Thisis more economical in propellant, andsointhe —_recoilless gun from the battle field, and its weight of the ammunition, and itis convenient replacement by missiles and rockets—but as sometimes to havea short sharp explosion which Oscar Wilde very nearly said, "The reports of its gets everything moving without delay death were greatly exaggerated’ The recoilless gun has come along way ina short time, Within the span of 35 yearsiit has leapt from i being a laboratory curiosity to partof the equipment Small Arms Editor: A. J. R. Cormack 180