To Recoil or not to Recoil- that is the question...

[43rdRecceReg]

Thanks for that two cents worth, Steve! It was more like a silver dollar, in fact. Glad you you survived all of that... to be able tell us about it. First hand accounts of armoured vehicles in conflict situations, and how they really look, sound and behave, add
so much more to our understanding of how they should be represented in model form...
Roy.

[Merlin707]

To give an idea of the force exerted by recoil here’s another example.
The USAF A10 Thunderbolt with its massive GAU88 Gatling Guncan fire 4,200 rounds per minute. Because of the recoil the aircraft is only allowed to fire it in a dive position as to fire in the straight and level would cause the aircraft to lose too much speed and stall itself (drop out of the sky).
The pilots manual states that it should only be fired while in a 5 to 15 degree downwards pitch and then only with 3 second bursts.

To show the effects of this recoil on the ground, they taxied an A10 to the end of the runway and fired the gun.
The resulting recoil pushed the aircraft backwards at just over 30mph.

[Black Knight]

Well I will chime in here with my own experiences. In Viet Nam we Marines had an odd little critter called the "Ontos". It had 6 106 recoilless, yeah right, rifles mounted on it. I t was great for the country as it was light enough it could cross rice paddies without sinking in. And the 106's had a flechette round that was most impressive.You wanted fire superiority a couple barrels of needle like darts flung with precision into the area where we were taking fire and the fight was over. It would kill so quick the victims rarely bled. Shredded would be more the term I would use. And yeah the vehicle would recoil to a small degree. What I noticed more was the amount of dust kicked up around the pig.

I was in the last Marine beach assault being directly supported by the USS New Jersey. And it moved in the water as a broadside went off.Most impressive. Those of us heading for the beach in Amtracs were very impressed. Watch any WW-II film of a Marine beach assault in the Island campaigns and seeing the results on shore while offshore lent us to believe nothing could have survived. We were badly disappointed by the significant lack of damage. One little farmer had his garden damaged by the fire. The craters were most impressive though. But the ship would moved a couple of feet in the water when it fired.

Tanks would also recoil from firing. My problem with the 1/16 scale is that it always moves backwards. And if I am shooting towards the rear it would need to move forward. The M-1 Abrams doesn't tend to recoil as a unit. I was part of the senior infantry staff that witnessed its debut up at Ft. Lewis. And at 60 mph it could shoot, and hit, whatever it was aiming at. At a standstill it doesn't move but a tiny amount due to the superb recoil system in the main battery and how it handles the recoil.

So for me, if I want realism I want the tank to move, just not in any specific direction. A stiff shake would be much more appropriate. And the road dust that accumulates on tanks makes for a nice dust storm. THAT is the real truth about a tank firing. And yeah I am thinking it would near knock your butt off the rear deck.

Just my .02 centavos!!
Be well,
Steve

Semper Fi Brother - fellow (Royal) Marine here Love the Ontoss - it's a fantastic looking piece of kit IMHO! I've only ever been up close and personal with Scimitars when live firing - watched quite a lot of tank movements/range work but mostly through the scope of my L96. Anyway, I like a slight amount of track recoil - currently I have a Challenger 2 with a DKLM lower half (all metal and heavy) which provides a satisfying jerk when firing the main gun!