Striker Recoil

[wolverine848 13,097]

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

Open up the spoiler.  Your sentences in same order you presented.

 

FYI - this entire string was started because a tanker felt that Striker having recoil made no sense.

Nothing you've posted counters that thought.  Read post #2.

 

Do a bit of research on IFVs that use anti-tank missile launchers.  FV102 Striker.  M3 Bradley. Raketenjagdpanzer.

 

Even the M72 LAW (light anti-tank weapon) which is shoulder-mounted by infantry can disable a tank.

If there was any significant recoil it would never be a feasible infantry weapon.

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Read post #2.

that guy just watched a few videos but has he ever fired one himself? 

 

also, had it been rocket propulsion from the start then it'd be like one of the photos below. either the flash explodes out from the front.. or it gets released from the back. clearly striker neither. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do a bit of research on IFVs that use anti-tank missile launchers.  FV102 Striker.  M3 Bradley. Raketenjagdpanzer.

i really don't see the point because i know already know the reason some rocket launchers have recoil. but I'll do it anyway.. although tbh i don't really trust what random people say on the internet. I prefer to experience it myself. 

 

Even the M72 LAW (light anti-tank weapon) which is shoulder-mounted by infantry can disable a tank.

If there was any significant recoil it would never be a feasible infantry weapon.

there's also other reasons... it's inside that pdf actually. reasons like not giving away too much of it's position (with powder discharge you don't give away your exact position, they'll still know the general direction you're in though)

 

another thing is the sound. with ear protection infantry won't get harmed, but it's not enjoyable either. 

 

there's also the heatwave... 

 

 

 

anyway my only experience with rockets was when i was doing something with the alpine hunters... maybe the special modifications are only suitable in the mountains and not anywhere else. 

[wolverine848 13,097]

that guy just watched a few videos but has he ever fired one himself? 

 

i really don't see the point because i know already know the reason some rocket launchers have recoil. but I'll do it anyway.. although tbh i don't really trust what random people say on the internet. I prefer to experience it myself. 

 

How many tanks do you think Steven Zaloga has actually driven?

 

You don't see the point in doing research because you... already know  ... it all?   <_<

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

How many tanks do you think Steven Zaloga has actually driven?

 

You don't see the point in doing research because you... already know  ... it all?   <_<

i don't and i don't have to. i just need to know one and that's enough to know that it exists

 

also i don't really have a choice actually. my contract was terminated early because... anyway unless my country is officially at war i can't go back. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[shafter9 156]

“there's also other reasons... it's inside that pdf actually. reasons like not giving away too much of it's position (with powder discharge you don't give away your exact position, they'll still know the general direction you're in though)”

The PDF is about an exotic recoilless rifle type being promoted/proposed by the presenter. You can see in the diagrams near the end, it’s clearly not a rocket.

 

You’d be able to hear a separate ejection charge. Striker makes a steady “fwoosh” sound (as opposed to a small bang if there was an ejection charge), and the rocket is ignited from the instant it leaves the barrel. It doesn’t light when 10 meters away or something. There is no physical explanation for recoil from a rocket launcher aside from an ejection charge or some form of pressurized gas ejector.

 

or a steam launcher, but that’s for submerged submarine missile launches, let’s not convolute things.

 

Edited February 25, 2019 by shafter9

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

“The PDF is about an exotic recoilless rifle type being promoted/proposed by the presenter. You can see in the diagrams near the end, it’s clearly not a rocket.

it is a rocket. it's a handdrawn sketch, not a photo. 

 

in the whole thing it clearly states that it is a rocket that will ignite after it leaves. you really gonna find your excuse just because he didn't draw a detailed rocket? there's no point in that because he already said it is a rocket. 

 

 

 

You’d be able to hear a separate ejection charge. Striker makes a steady “fwoosh” sound (as opposed to a small bang if there was an ejection charge),

my boy, you should hear a bang too if it leaves directly from rocket propulsion. and the bang is a lot louder for rocket propulsion than powder discharge in case you're wondering

 

thank wolverine for his example ;)

 

 

 

and the rocket is ignited from the instant it leaves the barrel.

 

exactly. it gets ignited the instant it leaves. not before it even leaves. you see the difference? and how does it leave the barrel before being ignited? powder discharge that causes recoil of course. 

 

 

 

It doesn’t light when 10 meters away or something.

no one ever said it has to be 10 meteres, it just has to ignite after it gets out. you just completely made that up.

 

 

 

There is no physical explanation for recoil from a rocket launcher 

the powder discharge to get the rocket out first? 

Edited February 25, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

let's see what's missing from my hypothesis that it works by powder discharge... we're missing a soft bang

and missing your hypothesis... flames erupting from the barrel, smoke and flash coming out from behind... and a much louder bang

[shafter9 156]

no one ever said it has to be 10 meteres, it just has to ignite after it gets out. you just completely made that up.

 

The ejection charge is so the rocket exhaust doesn’t damage the surroundings or the operators, and the rocket ignites at a safe distance. If the rocket ignites while in the barrel, then what’s the point of an ejector?

 

let's see what's missing from my hypothesis that it works by powder discharge... we're missing a soft bang

and missing your hypothesis... flames erupting from the barrel, smoke and flash coming out from behind... and a much louder bang

First off, there would be no more exhaust at launch than at any other period of the flight. So I’m missing a small amount of exhaust rear wards of the launcher. But smoke has never been accurately modeled in this game anyhow. The smoke is a modified version of the dust graphics, which only follow a tank. It would be difficult to program the smoke to be behind the initial starting point, i.e. where the projectile never was.

Looking at the rear of striker, you can actually see exhaust vents, which only make sense if the ignited rocket propelled itself out without a charge.

 

And beside, my “hypothesis” is just how the vast majority of rocket launchers work. What production rocket launcher is expelled by a charge prior to ignition? Name one. Besides submarine ICBMs.

Edited February 25, 2019 by shafter9

[shafter9 156]

Have it your way! Striker is ejected with something, like a powder charge or a pressurized gas.

I calculated striker’s recoil with an ejection charge.

The initial speed of the projectile, according to the wiki, is 25 m/s, and the mass might be around 5kg (a RPG-9 HEAT projectile weights 4.5kg). Viking has a mass of 2600kg.

M1v1=m2v2. (25)(5)=(2600)(resulting velocity of Viking?)

=50/2600=0.019m/s resulting backwards velocity from ejecting a rocket.

 

That means the tank moves backwards at 0.07 kilometers per hour due to the recoil of an ejection. This is far less than what is shown in the game, and is almost nothing.

Edited February 25, 2019 by shafter9

[wolverine848 13,097]

thank wolverine for his example ;)

 

You're welcome.

 

You noticed the Bradley had no recoil at all when launching missiles, correct?

 

Take away the 25mm chain gun and a Bradley CFV is pretty much a Striker - even going so far as to having two launch tubes.

 

 

Here's a different vehicle with anti-tank missiles... same result... no recoil.

 

 

 

 

 

and another...

 

 

 

 

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

The ejection charge is so the rocket exhaust doesn’t damage the surroundings or the operators, and the rocket ignites at a safe distance. If the rocket ignites while in the barrel, then what’s the point of an ejector?

no, as i already stated repeatedly, it is so that it doesn't affect people behind it as much. any more details go read the part where i already explained it.

 

First off, there would be no more exhaust at launch than at any other period of the flight. So I’m missing a small amount of exhaust rear wards of the launcher. But smoke has never been accurately modeled in this game anyhow. The smoke is a modified version of the dust graphics, which only follow a tank. It would be difficult to program the smoke to be behind the initial starting point, i.e. where the projectile never was.

Looking at the rear of striker, you can actually see exhaust vents, which only make sense if the ignited rocket propelled itself out without a charge.

i see smoke from hammer... i see smoke from magnum...

 

hammer was created right before striker and magnum right after. it's clear that no smoke comes out of striker because it's not supposed to.

 

And beside, my “hypothesis” is just how the vast majority of rocket launchers work. What production rocket launcher is expelled by a charge prior to ignition? Name one. Besides submarine ICBMs.

M72 LAW

 

 

Have it your way! Striker is ejected with something, like a powder charge or a pressurized gas.

I calculated striker’s recoil with an ejection charge.

The initial speed of the projectile, according to the wiki, is 25 m/s, and the mass might be around 5kg (a RPG-9 HEAT projectile weights 4.5kg). Viking has a mass of 2600kg.

M1v1=m2v2. (25)(5)=(2600)(resulting velocity of Viking?)

=50/2600=0.019m/s resulting backwards velocity from ejecting a rocket.

 

That means the tank moves backwards at 0.07 kilometers per hour due to the recoil of an ejection. This is far less than what is shown in the game, and is almost nothing.

does the tank even move back in the game?

 

[shafter9 156]

Tanks rock backwards when firing an ordinary gun. Recoil. If the tank was in neutral, it would roll backwards.

The M72 does not have a pre-ignition ejection charge. There is a small amount of powder, but it's in a "flash tube", and is a sort of fuse. There is still no recoil, and the powder does not move the rocket at all.

Edited February 25, 2019 by shafter9

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Tanks rock backwards when firing an ordinary gun. Recoil. If the tank was in neutral, it would roll backwards.

The M72 does not have a pre-ignition ejection charge. There is a small amount of powder, but it's in a "flash tube", and is a sort of fuse. There is still no recoil, and the powder does not move the rocket at all.

my mistake, RPG-7 then

[shafter9 156]

So, I can’t find good diagrams of the RPG-7 that aren’t in Russian. But I did find a HowStuffWorks (https://science.howstuffworks.com/rpg3.htm) article on the RPG-7. As far as I can tell, there is a booster stage, and a sustainer stage. This is just a multi-stage rocket, there is no ejection charge. The back end of the launch tube is open, allowing exhaust gasses to escape out the back!

If there was an ejection charge, then it would be like firing a breech loading cannon with the breech open. There could be no pressure build up, because the expanding gasses would escape out the back without shoving the projectile out. There is a small explosive charge, but it fires after launch to eject the first stage and deploy stabilizing fins.

 

Here is a slow-motion video of the RPG-7, there is no recoil. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P439jWJTQ-0

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

So, I can’t find good diagrams of the RPG-7 that aren’t in Russian. But I did find a HowStuffWorks (https://science.howstuffworks.com/rpg3.htm) article on the RPG-7. As far as I can tell, there is a booster stage, and a sustainer stage. This is just a multi-stage rocket, there is no ejection charge. The back end of the launch tube is open,

you conveniently missed the description in the the english wikipedia?

 

 

allowing exhaust gasses to escape out the back!

If there was an ejection charge, then it would be like firing a breech loading cannon with the breech open. There could be no pressure build up, because the expanding gasses would escape out the back without shoving the projectile out.

MATADOR has the back end open too, yet it shoots it's projectile solely from pressure build up.

 

back end open or not has nothing to do with now it fires it's projectile.

 

 

there is no recoil.

oh stop giving excuses. you asked for a rocket launcher system that expels the rocket by a charge prior to ignition and you got it. you didn't ask for recoil.

[wolverine848 13,097]

you conveniently missed the description in the the english wikipedia?

 

MATADOR has the back end open too, yet it shoots it's projectile solely from pressure build up.

 

back end open or not has nothing to do with now it fires it's projectile.

 

 

oh stop giving excuses. you asked for a rocket launcher system that expels the rocket by a charge prior to ignition and you got it. you didn't ask for recoil.

Well this whole discussion was about how unrealistic it is for Striker to have recoil - since - missile launchers don't have recoil.

 

Maybe somewhere out there exists a crappy-designed launcher that imparts some sort of recoil.

But not on a vehicle-launcher.  The sheer tonnage of vehicle completely negates any insignificant recoil.

 

Worrying about smoke and back-blast on a weapon in a game without infantry, and that involves wildly-coloured animated paints and pretty much no friendly fire, is a waste of time.

 

Striker has recoil not because launchers do - but because game designers either

- did not do their homework or...

- just don't care, or...

- did it on purpose for some sort of balancing, or...

all three of the above.

[shafter9 156]

Zloy; yes, itis boosted by gunpowder, but it's a gunpowder rocket stage. It still has a significant back blast, look in the picture you yourself posted. And no recoil. 

The backwards acceleration of exhaust propels it out of the tube, not the build up of pressure. It's just a rocket that happens to be fueled by gunpowder. Just like most 18th-19th century rockets.

Edited February 26, 2019 by shafter9

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

Well this whole discussion was about how unrealistic it is for Striker to have recoil - since - missile launchers don't have recoil.

 

Maybe somewhere out there exists a crappy-designed launcher that imparts some sort of recoil.

But not on a vehicle-launcher.  The sheer tonnage of vehicle completely negates any insignificant recoil.

 

Worrying about smoke and back-blast on a weapon in a game without infantry, and that involves wildly-coloured animated paints and pretty much no friendly fire, is a waste of time.

 

Striker has recoil not because launchers do - but because game designers either

- did not do their homework or...

- just don't care, or...

- did it on purpose for some sort of balancing, or...

all three of the above.

actually the RPG-7 was the standard handheld antitank weapon of the soviet union when it was at it's prime and this is a russian game so it makes sense that they'd incorporate one of the most common and symbolic rocket launchers.

 

and remember, in the soviet union retreat is more dangerous that attack... so this does make sense for them. might be crappy for.. *cough* those who lost to vietnam *cough*

 

 

Zloy; yes, itis boosted by gunpowder, but it's a gunpowder rocket stage. It still has a significant back blast, look in the picture you yourself posted. And no recoil. 

The backwards acceleration of exhaust propels it out of the tube, not the build up of pressure. It's just a rocket that happens to be fueled by gunpowder. Just like most 18th-19th century rockets.

yes it has backblast, but it's reduced. had it not been expelled by powder the backblast would be bigger.

 

and stop telling me that it has no recoil. i never said it did. i only showed you RPG-7 because you asked for a rocket launcher that expelled the rocket by powder before the rocket gets ignited. you want one with better recoil and the same mechanics then how about RPG-16

 

 

and it does get expelled by powder before igniting, read properly...from wikipedia : The booster consists of a "small strip powder charge" that serves to propel the grenade out of the launcher; the sustainer motor then ignites and propels the grenade for the next few seconds,

 

 

green is when the powder pushes it out of the launcher..; red is after it gets out the rocket then ignites

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[shafter9 156]

You brought up powder charge to explain recoil. When asked to name a rocket that exemplified that, you picked one that had no recoil. Can you name a rocket launcher that has recoil, due to a powder charge or otherwise?

The rpg-7, IF it has a powder charge, is a semi-recoilless rifle. 

 

And not a submarine launched ICBM.

Edited February 27, 2019 by shafter9

[ZloyDanuJI 409]

You brought up powder charge to explain recoil. When asked to name a rocket that exemplified that, you picked one that had no recoil. Can you name a rocket launcher that has recoil, due to a powder charge or otherwise?

The rpg-7, IF it has a powder charge, is a semi-recoilless rifle. 

 

And not a submarine launched ICBM.

it launches a rocket so it is a rocket launcher... 

Edited February 27, 2019 by ZloyDanuJI

[shafter9 156]

Ok. You may be right about the RPG-7 using a powder charge for initial expulsion; I can’t access the Wikipedia sources though. I still think it is a sort of gunpowder rocket, propelled by the backwards expulsion of gasses from the combustion of the powder.

 

But you brought up the scenario of powder-charged rocket expulsion, as a means of explaining recoil. It could work, but I don’t think it exists in reality. You still have yet to list a rocket, expelled by some pressureized gas or powder charge, and that creates aforementioned recoil. Because that is why you brought up the powder-charge-scenario in the first place.

 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Момент_вылета_мины_из_орудия_%281916%29.png/2560px-Момент_вылета_мины_из_орудия_%281916%29.png

 

Naval torpedos often use pressure launch systems, but rockets are good at accelerating themselves. I can see some benefit to launching with a charge, but I don’t think such weapons exist, or have ever been produced in sizable numbers, on an anti-armor scale. All land vehicle-mounted rocket weapons, that I have seen, have no recoil whatsoever. Why shouldn’t Striker follow the same pattern?

 

The MATADOR acts as a recoilless rifle at the launch, to reduce backblast, and has a countermass and no recoil. (Then the rocket part ignites). The ejection charge fires, and accelerates plastic pellets in an opposite direction to counteract the recoil. This still doesn’t provide a reason for Striker to have recoil.

Edited February 27, 2019 by shafter9

[Maf 32,306]

Jeez guys, this is not such a big deal that it would require 3 pages of arguments  :lol:

[wolverine848 13,097]

actually the RPG-7 was the standard handheld antitank weapon of the soviet union when it was at it's prime and this is a russian game so it makes sense that they'd incorporate one of the most common and symbolic rocket launchers.

 

<_<

 

So when are AK-47s gonna be incorporated?

 

Jeez guys, this is not such a big deal that it would require 3 pages of arguments  :lol:

You were entertained by this string... no?   :P

[shafter9 156]

Jeez guys, this is not such a big deal that it would require 3 pages of arguments :lol:

It’s entertaining. And mechanical debates are my favorite kind, because of the rather objective nature of things. Edited February 27, 2019 by shafter9

[snipe3000 678]

Jeez guys, this is not such a big deal that it would require 3 pages of arguments  :lol:

I was thinking the same thing  ^_^