>people really believe rocket launchers don't have recoil.

Was there a point to this thread?

>>32406029
I guess it could be a "stupid shit people think about weapons" thread but it's mostly me just venting.

>Posts a picture of a weapon without recoil

>Whines about recoil

>>32405997
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwkTeKtOhnQ
Latter of video is absolute truth

>>32406084
Why do you think I said "picture semi related?"

So why do rocket launchers have recoil

>>32406171
Physics n' shit

>>32406171
The same reason a gun has recoil.

>>32406192
But doesn't that largely depend on where the exhaust gas is directed, in guns and rocket launchers.

File: recoilless rifle.webm (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

Post more recoilless rifles.

>>32406087
I seen people arguing about it in a YouTube comment section about modeling actually.

File: 105RR 1.jpg (35KB, 479x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 479x300px

Besides the Carl Gustav, what are some other noteworthy recoilless rifles?

>>32406171
>>32406192
>>32406177

no actually physics dont account for recoil in a launcher

> rocket is in tube
> rocket shoots explosive backblast to push it forward
> backblast does not push on tube since it goes straight out the rear, instead it pushes on rocket which is not pushing on the tube either
> rocket leaves tube, backblast has left the back of the tube

Nothing has actually pushed on the tube itself, it might encounter some vibration but why exactly is it Pushing Back on the Tube?

The action-reaction is entirely isolated to the Rocket/Blast Gases, the tube just happens to be where the rocket is sitting when it goes off. It could be sitting on a table and achieve the same effect if it were ignited.

>>32406513
>>> backblast does not push on tube since it goes straight out the rear, instead it pushes on rocket which is not pushing on the tube either
Considering that the rocket's nozzle is well within the tube i can assume some force is exerted by the gas on the tube by means of friction

>>32406490
M40, SPG-9

>>32406530
This is what I was thinking too since launchers don't have the rocket sitting all the way towards the back and travel through the whole tube.

>>32406530
>>32406615

must be alot of fucking friction, but then again im expecting the launcher would be kicked Forward as the fuselage of the rocket grinds against the tube as its going forward

(so, shoot rocket, launcher tries to jump forward out of your hands - negative recoil)

Additionally the nozzle cone on the back of the launcher in some models, used for shaping the backblast, is a Forward Surface that the blast can push on similar to a muzzle brake - even more force is being directed Forward on the tube.

> launcher should be pushed forward as a result of firing

>Recoilless rifle
>Has recoil
>not a rifle
Carl Gustaf that cheeky cunt

>>32405997
I fired several AT-4's in Trashcanistan. Of course there's a backblast. I never considered it significant however.

That's for the man firing it, do not be the one standing behind it.

>>32405997

Well, first of all, thats not a rocket launcher.

>>32405997
I've actually shot a carl before and there is a tiny amount of pushback but not recoil most of what you feel is overpressure and you feel it a lot more if your the loader as opposed to the shooter. That over pressure is the reason you're only supposed to shoot three in a day

>>32406793
Same guy here. You can also get rocket assisted rounds for it to have a greater range

So rocket launchers have more "recoil" than recoilless rifles?

>>32406751
But it is a longarm with a rifled barrel. How is it not a rifle?

>>32406793
I have too. We were told 6 rounds not 3. It's definitely hazardous to overuse, there are stories of dudes training in Afghanistan who fired off 30+ and were bleeding from the nose or punch drunk.

>>32406100
... because you're retarded.

>>32408226
Maybe you might be right but I think there is a difference between how many you can shoot and how many you can instruct in a training environment. But when I was in Afghanistan in 2009 my squad leader shot 11TOWs in one battle and was in a hospital for two weeks after cause aperently the over pressure caused him to hermmorrage all over the place.

>>32406239
impressive

>>32406490
RPG-7.

>>32406239
but equal and opposite reactions... is this how em drive works?

>>32409567
>RPG-7
It is a rocket launcher. System very different from recoilless rifle.

Also their exist RPO-A Shmel which combines both principles in single weapon.

And RPO PDM-A «Shmel-M» which may be called "hybrid recoilless rifle - rocket launcher with dynamicaly extended barrel."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw4dZnrdSfY

>>32405997
Never shot a CG but I shot a few At-4s and SMAW rockets. The closest you get to 'recoil' is probably just the 12.9 lb rocket leaving the launcher or the over pressure. All the bullshit goes out the back which is why you have that 90M by 60° fan you avoid. (Or 60m by 90°) Thinking there's recoil is a great way to plant a rocket 20m in front of you

>>32409887

No, the thing that flies OUT of it usually has a rocket attached to it. That means the ammo is GENERALLY rocket assisted.

The launcher itself is a recoilless. If it was a pure rocket launcher it wouldn't A: have the expansion chamber that it does or B: need to be as fucking heavily built as it is.

>>32406793

Shoot 3 in a day

Wish we could apply this principle to the motherfuckers that spam the CG in BC2

>>32409969
>No, the thing that flies OUT of it usually has a rocket attached to it.
RPG-7 has rocket attached to flying round. Carl Gustav doesn't

>>32410060

>RPG-7 has rocket attached

Not all RPG-7 ammo has a rocket motor (Ex. OG-7. Rocket motor removed for more boom.) Though all are fin stabilized.

ALL RPG-7 ammo gets out of the launcher by the giant fucking booster charge you attach to the assend of the warhead. The rocket motor (if it is even present) won't even ignite until it is already out of the launcher and downrange.

>Carl Gustav doesn't

Except that yes, they do fucking make RAP ammo for the CG series.

>>32410243
>OG-7. Rocket motor removed for more boom.
But it does have launch rocket motor, only second stage was removed.

> The rocket motor (if it is even present) won't even ignite until it is already out of the launcher and downrange.
RPG-7 two stage ammo like you colon PG-7V has 2 rocket motors one completely burns out in the RPG-7 barrel, another starts in-flight and burn downrange

>they do fucking make RAP ammo for the CG series.
well minus that stage. Launching stage of CG is not a rocket attached to flying thing but gun.

It may be confusing becusae both RPG-7 and CG have barrel and seemingly work the same: rocket is flying forwards smoke flies back. but actualy they sue completely different principles of operation. One is rocket another is recoiles gun.

And RPO-A Shmel is just pure insanity.

File: Punjenja-grupno.jpg (17KB, 631x197px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 631x197px

>>32410480

>But it does have launch rocket motor, only second stage was removed.

Oh I see. Gr8b8m8.

Pic related rocket motors. Apparently.

>>32411083
Rocket motor has pressure vehicle and nuzzle. Bag doesn't.

>>32406239
What are some modern recoilless rifles. And why arent they more prevalent?

>>32411315

The only nozzle and actual containment vessel the RPG7s booster charge has...is the launcher.