Striker Recoil

[shafter9 156]

Why does striker have recoil? Rocket launchers don't have recoil; the velocity is gained by the expulsion of exhaust gasses, not be gaseous expansion in a barrel. this makes very little sense.

 

[Ninja 10,468]

You just made me watch a bunch of missile launches and you're right, they have little to no recoil. I thought they might have a little but apparently not, I guess Tanki wasn't meant to be particularly realistic anyhow. :p

[Maf 32,306]

Probably for balance reasons. But I do agree, and I also found that a bit weird when Striker was released.

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

It's barely even noticeable.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

because for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[wolverine848 13,097]

because for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

All the energy is transferred to the missile - so there should be no recoil.

 

Think Recoilless Rifle.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

All the energy is transferred to the missile - so there should be no recoil.

 

Think Recoilless Rifle.

you think all the energy gets transfered and transformed exactly like that? 

[GorgoBlesk 831]

All the energy is transferred to the missile - so there should be no recoil.

 

Think Recoilless Rifle.

There are few vehicles with 106mm recoilless rifle(s) in War Thunder, they are M50 Ontos, Type 60 rikoresu gan, R3 T106 and Fiat 6614, they are very powerful when used correctly.

 

Could a recoilless rifle be added to Tanki?

[wolverine848 13,097]

you think all the energy gets transfered and transformed exactly like that? 

Yes.

 

As long as the pod has escape vents at back for the gases, there is no recoil.  The exhaust shoots out the back as the missile accelerates forward.  Very little energy is transferred to the launcher.

 

"Guns/cannons" have recoil because they are a closed system.

 

Of course this game does not have to be realistic.  But that IS how a missile works.

 

There are few vehicles with 106mm recoilless rifle(s) in War Thunder, they are M50 Ontos, Type 60 rikoresu gan, R3 T106 and Fiat 6614, they are very powerful when used correctly.

 

Could a recoilless rifle be added to Tanki?

I suppose.  But... is it needed? 

 

Smoky auto-cannon has very little impact and pretty much acts like a recoiless rifle.

Unfortunately because it has very little recoil, if a medium hull is stuck on it's side it has to hit self-destruct. :(

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Yes.

 

As long as the pod has escape vents at back for the gases, there is no recoil.  The exhaust shoots out the back as the missile accelerates forward.  Very little energy is transferred to the launcher.

 

"Guns/cannons" have recoil because they are a closed system.

 

Of course this game does not have to be realistic.  But that IS how a missile works.

do you see anything coming out of the vents from striker? 

 

in a real rocket launcher you see them coming out but not on striker

 

and even if there are vents, they can't escape completely without being converted a little. 

 

 

 

you ever fired a missle before? 

[Guest]

Then give freeze and firebird recoil lol

[wolverine848 13,097]

do you see anything coming out of the vents from striker? 

 

in a real rocket launcher you see them coming out but not on striker

 

and even if there are vents, they can't escape completely without being converted a little. 

 

 

 

you ever fired a missle before? 

Who designs a rocket/missile launcher with recoil since it is totally avoidable?  Worst design EVAH.   B)

 

You missed the part where I said it is a game and does not HAVE to be realistic.

 

Sure - fired missiles plenty of times.  Who hasn't?    :rolleyes:

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Who designs a rocket/missile launcher with recoil since it is totally avoidable?  Worst design EVAH.   B)

 

cause letting energy escape from the back isn't suitable for use in compact situations where other people might be behind you? 

 

for exapmle... i used a certain model that was modified from it's original to reduce the backblast at the cost of increasing the recoil specifically so that it could be used in confined spaces. 

 

did you have a friend right behind you when you fired your rocket launcher without recoil? 

 

another thing... what's the purpose of countermass systems in rocket launchers then? to take up the extra space and cost extra money? or maybe make your weapon bigger to look scarier? maybe anyone with a problem with striker's recoil can pay a couple thousand crystals to buy it as an alteration that removes recoil but increases reload time 

 

i don't see what the problem with a little recoil but self damage if anything is behind you... or damage to teammates if friendly fire in on..;

 

 

 

You missed the part where I said it is a game and does not HAVE to be realistic.

his argument is based on the fact that rocket launchers do not have recoil in reality. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

 

 

cause letting energy escape from the back isn't suitable for use in compact situations where other people might be behind you? 

for exapmle... i used a certain model that was modified from it's original to reduce the backblast at the cost of increasing the recoil specifically so that it could be used in confined spaces. 

 

did you have a friend right behind you when you fired your rocket launcher without recoil? 

 

another thing... what's the purpose of countermass systems in rocket launchers then? to take up the extra space and cost extra money? or maybe make your weapon bigger to look scarier? maybe anyone with a problem with striker's recoil can pay a couple thousand crystals to buy it as an alteration that removes recoil but increases reload time 

 

i don't see what the problem with a little recoil but self damage if anything is behind you... or damage to teammates if friendly fire in on..;

 

 

 

his argument is based on the fact that rocket launchers do not have recoil in reality. 

 

 

You found a video of the absolute worst demonstration ever.  It was almost comical, and has no bearing on mechanized anti-tank weapons.

 

Go look up video of an m3 Bradley firing a TOW anti-tank missile - backblast but almost NO recoil. Vehicle does not move one inch.

 

 

go to 1:20 of video...

 

Second of all - who would be standing behind a rocket-launcher on a vehicular version?  NO ONE.

 

 

Rocket-launchers mounted on a 25-ton vehicle indeed have no recoil.

Edited February 24, 2019 by wolverine848

[shafter9 156]

i don't see what the problem with a little recoil but self damage if anything is behind you... or damage to teammates if friendly fire in on..;

 

I have no clue what happened in that video, but it is obviously a malfunction. Maybe the missile or warhead blew up prematurely.

The exhaust gasses are pretty well dissipated. A person could certainly be injured, but no armored vehicle could be seriously harmed by being behind a firing missile launcher.

another thing... what's the purpose of countermass systems in rocket launchers then? to take up the extra space and cost extra money? or maybe make your weapon bigger to look scarier?

 

You are confusing recoilless rifles (which have counter mass) with missiles, which inherently have no recoil and need no extra dedicated counter mass. Rocket launchers don’t have counter mass, or inherently have it, depending on your definition.

 

A recoilless rifle has extra propellant (compared to comparable, recoiling cartridges), so it can shove gasses out the back of the rifle, creating a “recoil” in the opposite direction. (Mass of projectile) x (velocity of projectile) = (mass of gas) x (velocity of gas).

 

Striker has missiles, which continue to propel themselves in flight, as opposed to recoilless rifles. They expel gas behind them to shove themselves forwards, and continue to do so after leaving their launch tube.

Edited February 24, 2019 by shafter9

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

You found a video of the absolute worst demonstration ever.  It was almost comical, and has no bearing on mechanized anti-tank weapons.

 

Go look up video of an m3 Bradley firing a TOW anti-tank missile - backblast but almost NO recoil. Vehicle does not move one inch.

 

Second of all - who would be standing behind a rocket-launcher on a vehicular version?  NO ONE.

 

 

Rocket-launchers mounted on a 25-ton vehicle indeed have no recoil.

your video features a tank designed for use in open areas...

 

striker is designed for use in compact areas where it is constantly around other tanks and other objects

yes, i know that there are rocket launchers that don't have recoil... but I'm saying that there are also those that do. and that striker is one of them.

 

unless you show me a video of every single rocket launcher and they all don't have recoil...

 

it is obviously a malfunction.

yeah really, more like just a misuse. the recoil certaintly felt like it could knock me off had i been stupid enough to use my rocket launcher while standing like that.

 

You are confusing recoilless rifles (which have counter mass) with missiles, which inherently have no recoil and need no extra dedicated counter mass. Rocket launchers don’t have counter mass, or inherently have it, depending on your definition.

 

I have an eidetic memory and i confuse nothing (unless I'm doing it to on purpose) read below for the details i was to lazy to lazy to explain earlier

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/d019605.pdf

 

 

 

 

and for both of you who say people won't be behind a vehicle mounted version... or that it won't harm armoured vechiles... you realize that tanks need infantry support?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[shafter9 156]

 

I have an eidetic memory and i confuse nothing (unless I'm doing it to on purpose) read below for the details i was to lazy to lazy to explain earlier [regarding claim of rocket launchers having counterbalance]

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/d019605.pdf

 

That’s actually a good source. It clearly says “To fire a shoulder-launched weapon with no recoil, the

traditional method is to use either a rocket propulsion system OR a powder charge with a countermass.” The rocket systems don’t have countermass.

 

 

 

 

yeah really, more like just a misuse. the recoil certaintly felt like it could knock me off had i been stupid enough to use my rocket launcher while standing like that.

 

I have an eidetic memory and i confuse nothing (unless I'm doing it to on purpose) read below for the details i was to lazy to lazy to explain earlier

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/d019605.pdf

and for both of you who say people won't be behind a vehicle mounted version... or that it won't harm armoured vechiles... you realize that tanks need infantry support?

 

It isn’t stupid to fire a rocket-powered weapon while standing. Here is a video of a very little kid firing a RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v-2N404MqwU

The recoil is obviously very little, because most firearms would knock that kid over when firing!

 

There really are vehicle mounted versions, and people know to steer clear. It’s hardly the most dangerous part of being in the armed forces.

There aren’t any infantry in Tanki, and the exhaust wouldn’t harm a tank. Are you telling me striker shouldn’t have any recoil out of concern for the infantry?

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

That’s actually a good source. It clearly says “To fire a shoulder-launched weapon with no recoil, the

traditional method is to use either a rocket propulsion system OR a powder charge with a countermass.” The rocket systems don’t have countermass.

how about you read again? 

 

 

 

It isn’t stupid to fire a rocket-powered weapon while standing. Here is a video of a very little kid firing a RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade).

The recoil is obviously very little, because most firearms would knock that kid over when firing!

as i already said earlier... showing a video of one without recoil doesn't prove that one with recoil doesn't exist... 

 

 

 

There really are vehicle mounted versions, and people know to steer clear. It’s hardly the most dangerous part of being in the armed forces.

and people know how to deal with recoil too

 

 

 

There aren’t any infantry in Tanki, and the exhaust wouldn’t harm a tank. Are you telling me striker shouldn’t have any recoil out of concern for the infantry?

how do you know striker wasn't a rocket launcher designed to be used with infantry protection that happened to be used in tanki? 

 

just because you design something for a situation doesn't mean it can't be used in any other situation. for example, MATADOR was designed to kill people inside of buildings but that doesn't mean that that the only people it can kill are those that are behind buildings... same about armour piercing rounds and everything else

[shafter9 156]

how about you read again? 

 

 

 

as i already said earlier... showing a video of one without recoil doesn't prove that one with recoil doesn't exist... 

 

 

 

and people know how to deal with recoil too

 

 

 

how do you know striker wasn't a rocket launcher designed to be used with infantry protection that happened to be used in tanki? 

just because you design something for a situation doesn't mean it can't be used in any other situation. for example, MATADOR was designed to kill people inside of buildings but that doesn't mean that that the only people it can kill are those that are behind buildings... same about armour piercing rounds and everything else

1. I directly quoted the article you linked. It only passingly mentions rocket launchers, most of it is about recoilless rifles. It still corroborates what I say. Rockets don’t have counter mass.

2. You said it was improper technique that lead to the guy getting knocked over by recoil. I provided a video of a small boy firing an RPG with no problems.

3. Exactly. That is why we have smoky and thunder and stuff. The point of rockets is to provide good firepower without needing a large or elaborate gun and recoil mechanism.

4. Even shielding the exhaust somehow wouldn’t provide the levels of recoil we are seeing.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

1. I directly quoted the article you linked. It only passingly mentions rocket launchers, most of it is about recoilless rifles. It still corroborates what I say. Rockets don’t have counter mass.

2. You said it was improper technique that lead to the guy getting knocked over by recoil. I provided a video of a small boy firing an RPG with no problems.

3. Exactly. That is why we have smoky and thunder and stuff. The point of rockets is to provide good firepower without needing a large or elaborate gun and recoil mechanism.

4. Even shielding the exhaust somehow wouldn’t provide the levels of recoil we are seeing.

1. as i said, read it again properly. and by that i mean read the whole thing, not just see the part you like and ignore the rest. the 2nd variant is pouder charge first before igniting the rocket. due to the fact that noting comes out if the back of striker, it is clear that striker is the 2nd variant. 

2. because you showed a different model. some of them have recoil, some don't. striker is one of those that does and that's why it has recoil. 

3. are you sure about that? since when are youthe one who decides what people use each turret for? 

4. wat

Edited February 24, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[wolverine848 13,097]

your video features a tank designed for use in open areas...

 

 

 

striker is designed for use in compact areas where it is constantly around other tanks and other objects

yes, i know that there are rocket launchers that don't have recoil... but I'm saying that there are also those that do. and that striker is one of them.

 

unless you show me a video of every single rocket launcher and they all don't have recoil...   Oh my!

 

yeah really, more like just a misuse. the recoil certaintly felt like it could knock me off had i been stupid enough to use my rocket launcher while standing like that.

 

I have an eidetic memory and i confuse nothing (unless I'm doing it to on purpose) read below for the details i was to lazy to lazy to explain earlier  LMAO

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/d019605.pdf

 

 

 

and for both of you who say people won't be behind a vehicle mounted version... or that it won't harm armoured vechiles... you realize that tanks need infantry support?

 

My video shows exactly what we are talking about - armoured anti-tank vehicle firing a missile and showing no recoil.

You think Bradleys don't operate near troops or other vehicles?

 

We are relating this to a game that involves only armored vehicles. No by standers and no infantry.

Why would a Striker in this game have recoil?  Only for game purposes. Period.  As the game is not realistic.

 

I've come to the conclusion you don't know as much as you think you do - or - you are just trolling.

Edited February 24, 2019 by wolverine848

[shafter9 156]

1.

another thing... what's the purpose of countermass systems in rocket launchers then? to take up the extra space and cost extra money? or maybe make your weapon bigger to look scarier?

 

Rockets don’t have countermass, even the sort that are ejected using powder prior to ignition.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

My video shows exactly what we are talking about - armoured anti-tank vehicle firing a missile and showing no recoil.

You think Bradleys don't operate near troops or other vehicles?

for the last time, showing examples of it without recoil doesn't prove that one with recoil doesn't exist. 

 

if i show you 1 picture of an american with 1 leg does it prove that 2 legged americans don't exist?? after all, it is exactly an american, and he ddoes have only 1 leg... 

 

i don't care what your video shows, because whatever it does, it doesn't prove that there can't be another one that has recoil. 

 

 

 

We are relating this to a game that involves only armored vehicles. No by standers and no infantry.

just because the game doesn't have any infantry doesn't mean that there can't be a tank in the game that is designed to work better with infantry support.

 

does every game with a stealth bomber in it need to have enemies with radar so it can be invisible to the radar? 

 

 

 

Why would a Striker in this game have recoil? 

because it was designed to imitate a tank that would be suitable to use with infantry protection. 

 

 

 

Only for game purposes. Period. 

this is your game now? 

 

 

 

As the game is not realistic.

then stop using reality as a reason to say that there should not be recoil

 

 

 

I've come to the conclusion you don't know as much as you think you do - or - you are just trolling.

as usual you dismiss anything you're incapable of comprehending as trolling... 

 

1. Rockets don’t have countermass, even the sort that are ejected using powder prior to ignition.

so you didn't read... because countermass for rocket launcher is exactly what it was about

Edited February 24, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[wolverine848 13,097]

 

 

 

1) for the last time, showing examples of it without recoil doesn't prove that one with recoil doesn't exist. 

 

2) if i show you 1 picture of an american with 1 leg does it prove that 2 legged americans don't exist?? after all, it is exactly an american, and he ddoes have only 1 leg... 

 

3) i don't care what your video shows, because whatever it does, it doesn't prove that there can't be another one that has recoil. 

 

4) just because the game doesn't have any infantry doesn't mean that there can't be a tank in the game that is designed to work better with infantry support.

 

5) does every game with a stealth bomber in it need to have enemies with radar so it can be invisible to the radar? 

 

6) because it was designed to imitate a tank that would be suitable to use with infantry protection. 

 

7) this is your game now? 

 

8) then stop using reality as a reason to say that there should not be recoil

 

9) as usual you dismiss anything you're incapable of comprehending as trolling... 

 

 

 

1) They don't exist on any IFV invented in the last 40 years.  Should we maybe start using M3 Grants in this game?

 

2) This makes no sense at all.

 

3) See 2 above

 

4) Since this game DOES NOT have infantry there is absolutely no reason to design a turret that takes that into account

 

5) see 2 above

 

6) No - again - because THERE ARE NO INFANTRY.  Holy smokes you are dense.

 

7) Wow. Way to deflect

 

8) Wow.  Changing the subject. It figures.

 

9) I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  But ok - I guess it's the "you don't know squat" option...

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

1) They don't exist on any IFV invented in the last 40 years.  Should we maybe start using M3 Grants in this game?

 

2) This makes no sense at all.

 

3) See 2 above

 

4) Since this game DOES NOT have infantry there is absolutely no reason to design a turret that takes that into account

 

5) see 2 above

 

6) No - again - because THERE ARE NO INFANTRY.  Holy smokes you are dense.

 

7) Wow. Way to deflect

 

8) Wow.  Changing the subject. It figures.

 

9) I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.  But ok - I guess it's the "you don't know squat" option...

you sure you ordered them correctly? cause they don't seem to correspond. how is there even 9? i only quoted you 6 times

 

 

nvm i think i understand now...

 

okay for 1 - 3, yes i know it makes no sense, my examples are just as senselesss as how you think your video showing a tank firing rockets without recoil somehow prove that all tanks who fire rockets don't have recoil. proving only 1 doesn't prove every single one of them

 

2-5, they didn't design it, they simply choose to add an already existing design into the game. 

 

6, they just take whatever design they like, cause does it really matter? 

 

7, then either shut up about reality or stop using reality as a reason. you decide but make sure you stick to it

 

8, so.. as i said, you can't comprehend it so you just dismiss it as trolling cause it's not possible for someone else to know something you don't. when that happens just assume he's talking rubbish and it's not true

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI