recoilless rifle

[dirt911]

yeah true but the heavier tanks in ma up against a 57mm or 30 cal. on a jeep+ victory=not likley
 i would put 0 perks on it

It's very much a late war weapon, IMO its the type of thing that would be a a great option (lets say 1 perk point) when/if we get selectable ords for any jeep or M3.

[TheZohan]

http://books.google.com/books?id=I_fFkOS4b_4C&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=jeep+mounted+weapons&source=bl&ots=gUN9TbXysg&sig=o0XhiFpW_9Rvgp2PoV2DakIwxtI&hl=en&ei=0tCvSYv4IdKCtgfVzIT0BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result

it was interesting to find  there was T2 37mm and T21 105mm mounted on jeeps along with the 57mm

[TheZohan]

i wouldnt mind seeing better weapons sets on the jeep

[Ack-Ack]

Only problem with the RR's being used on jeeps in World War II is that for the most part they were field experiments, like the jeep with 4.5in rocket launcher (using M14 launch tubes) that under went field trials with the 7th Army in the Alsace region in the winter of '44.  It really wasn't until after WW2 that RRs on jeeps saw extensive use.


ack-ack

[humble]

Only actual use in line units (that I'm aware of) was dismounted paratroopers in huertgen forest area and on Okinawa. However that is not a "field experiment" per se. The 57mm RR was designed as a shoulder or tripod mounted weapon. So it was interchangeable with any man portable infantry weapon capable of being tripod mounted (on compatible tripod). So for any unit equipped with the RR (basically paratroop/some marine units) all that was required was a jeep or M3 with a suitable tripod. They were primarily used as bunker busters not AT weapons when jeep mounted...

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

+1 Im all for it.


Besides most tanks could kill this thing with machine gun fire, cant see why the tankers are so afraid.

[dirt911]

ok lets get it im for it