anyone got any ideas as to how these shoudl be treated? ie AP/AT dice? lt., med. or hvy. gun?
in 3 Para they get hit with one and it sounds liek it can do a lot of damage including causing buildings to collapse. I could'nt find any specific mention of them in the rule book.

Depends on the RR used in your scenario. Several of them have stats in our companion books where they are used in some scenarios.

An example is the Russian-built SPG-9
which is rated as follows

Hvy. AP:3/AT:2(L)

_________________
Sgt. Screams 28mm/20mm/15mm Wargaming Blog (Modern, Sci-Fi)

Are the recoiless rifle used anymore?

I remeber the Folgore, for an exemple, it seemed an excellent weapon when we used it in our Twilight:2000 campaigns, but is a weapon that is today virtually unused.

Well the Carl Gustav is used extensively in Afghanistan by US and UK forces. The Libyan rebels use the 106mm M40 recoilless rifles and others. Greece and others even fields them in their regular army. They are cheaper than ATGMs and more versatile, but they lack punch versus tanks nowadays. That is relative though, as the best HEAT rounds penetrated up to 700mm RHA. The range and accuracy is limited however. As the big red horde isn't around any longer, some countries are glad they mothballed them. Against fortifications they work wonder.

_________________
ad astra per aspera
liber et infractus

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." –- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

The RR is a low tech low signiture weapon that can still be really effective .
Most western powers had begun to rely on rocket and missile and placed thier RR in strorage or sold them....The RR is making a comeback the M67 90mm is being used once again in the Stan as a low cost replacement for shooting of 1-500,000 dollar missile and is working quite well.

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

Indeed, RR rounds are quite cheap. And as I said, ammunition can be as deadly as that of ATGMs. The problem is to get the warhead into the target. By design the range is limited, so is accuracy compared to ATGMs. But where this does not matter, versus stationary targets or infantry, RRs are the way to go. I figure it's only a matter of time, until new systems with modern optronics emerge.

_________________
ad astra per aspera
liber et infractus

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." –- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

Thanks for your update

I think anyway that the future of warfare is the defensive field, the offensive has for now limited spaces for development. I think the weapons that we have will see decads still of service. I mean small arms, pistols, the RRs that demonstrate themsleves useful again, reliable ATGMs...

Think about instead to protective armor, helmets, personal communications, anti-mine designs for vehicles... that's the frontier now it seems. And drones obviously.

Joe
All of the equipment you describe was developed out of one purpose to close with and destroy the enemy.
The body armour and helmets protect against enemy small arms while the soldier is moving into the attack. the radios and other equipment assist the soldier to move into a position more advantageous to the destroy the enemy .
The US military Infantry recognize 2 phases in Infantry maneuver summed up nicely by this phrase.
" A Infantryman moving is attacking , a infantryman stationary is preparing to attack"

_________________
"All Men for the rights of Every man, every man for the rights of all Men"

I think the next decade will see final breakthroughs in hardkill weapons against ATGMs, unmanned vehicles (both land and air) and fully integrated commad structures for most western frontline troops. Sadly, military spendings are at an all time high and again become war budgets, not defense budgets. I'm unsure what offensive weapons will be introduced beyond drones though. For some time it seemed 5.56×45mm NATO might be superseded by a middle calibre like 6.5 mm Grendel. It seems the rear echelons finally realized 5.56×45mm NATO is a bad calibre for fights beyond 200 meters. But I guess they will sit that one out. No one wants to swap all rifles in the inventory. And by now, the middle-calibre-hype is mostly over.

With all those asymetric conflicts going on, it seems unlikely that developments in the offensive part of heavy units (vehicles and planes) will go on. No radically new tank designes, 5th generation fighter designs will be few and limited to the most populous countries (USA, Russia, India, China). We will have to see, how things develop, once China and India rise to full power. In India's case, that might still take 20 years however. But a Sino-Indian conflict might arise in the future, once both countries can claim leadership in Asia and start fighting over resources in Africa.

_________________
ad astra per aspera
liber et infractus

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." –- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

My take on it is that "soft kills" are going to bemoce even more comon than currently. Some armies are reputed to be able to take out hostile FC computers now, and have been able to do so for 20+ years.

IanS

_________________
TOE moderator. Author

Well with fully integrated, networkcentric C4I systems comes some vulnerability that's for sure. When your task force runs its own internet, malware inducers suddenly start getting a battlefield option. Even more so, with unmanned vehicles in the field. But that is rather a problem between regular armies. I doubt there is a terrorist network that can mount simultanous attacks on US/NATO networks and forces in the field. They would recquire a C4I capability and online operatives that support attacks on communication nodes and forces in the field. This contradicts the basic principles of irregular forces, in which small units operate under the leadership of higher-ups, but independently in the immediate battle.

_________________
ad astra per aspera
liber et infractus

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." –- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

Get in from a remote location ?

On RR - South Korea has used lots, rather than ATGW, or alongside them...

The logic seems to be that RR's have a way better AP effect, and NK isn't exactly equiped with monster tanks anyway.

IanS

_________________
TOE moderator. Author

This is exactly my point of view.

There is no need to expend money to develop new rifles, because the existing ones are good enough. the same for tanks and planes. The 5th generation fighters are in this moment a waste of money, if not for the experimentations and the research that can be useful in future. The F-22 Raptor is an excellent exemple as can perhaps be the European Typhoon. Top notch fighters that are too for a paradox too good for the modern battlefield. The good old Tornados, F-15 (another exemple of a vehicle that could touch the century of service like the B-52 bomber) are enough. Pistols have seen the Glock emerging in the 80s, but aside special forces it is sufficient to use the usual array of Colt 1911 (one century old design and still in service!), Beretta M92s and Browning Hi-Powers. The HMG Browning .50 caliber has 70 years and, having been obviously updated and revised, it is still the standard. Assault rifles like the AK series, M16/M4 and FAMAS demonstrate that when a design is good enough there is no need to change. The H&K models that see service in Europe are the most recent addiction, but others like the Steyrs are again here. And will stay!
There are some exceptions to this my discourse of course, but SMGs like MP5 and UZIs confirm that, as the RPG-9, MAG MG and Minimi MG continual use does.

The defensive side is instead seeing development, change in jacket and helmets designs, new camos experimentation, new armors for tanks and new designs to resist the horrible IEDs. Communication and electronics at "soldier level" is another front. But the weapons the soldier have today are sufficient for the job he has to accomplish.

Until ballistic defence starts to make the now standard weapons and bullets redundant. Then we shall see new weapons and ammunition changes to compensate!

It is the ever vicious circle - defence vs offence.

The main advantage the F-22 and its like have over current aircraft designs is the stealth component which greatly increases pilot (and aircraft) survivability. If you are going to spend a squillion dollars in purchasing such equipment the Defence Forces around the world want Bang for your Buck.

They want a weapons system that is going to last well into the future, allowing for upgrades as technology improves.

_________________
"The first thing people do in this situation is panic"
"Good, I am glad I am doing it in the right order!!!'

While the Raptor certainly is the best available air superiority fighter and will last for decades maybe, this is mainly due to one fact: No one is fighting wars at the moment, where air superiority has to won. Only the US Airforce had such a promising project in the tube, when the Iron Curtain fell 20 years ago. And except for the USAF only the Chinese and the Russians claim to be superpowers. Both are years away from an equivalent project. And I doubt Russia has the resources available to make this happen before 2020. For asymetric conflicts like Afghanistan, the cheap F-16 is the way to go. Developd 40 years ago, the bird has been upgraded to be still up to date, is still being build and the payload is big enough, as is flight duration. The result ist that the F-22 and even the F-35 constantly feel the budget cuts, while COIN planes like the AT-6B Texan II are introduced. Even the venerable Bronco is making another run again, as North American proposed a OV-10X for the USAF light attack contract.

_________________
ad astra per aspera
liber et infractus

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." –- Andrew Lang (1844-1912)