/k/ - Weapons

I think a lot of people significantly underestimate technicals, basically out of racism. "But that's what the niggers use …"

As >>516173 said the Hummer is basically a ridiculously expensive and heavy technical.

"But, muh armour…" When you're throwing around 23mm (or even .50 cal AP) you're going to be punching holes in the side of anything short of a full-size tank anyhow, it's just going to be a question of how much of the mountain behind you it penetrates as well.

And when the armour doesn't matter being a smaller, faster target does.

I'd be willing to bet that if you mixed in a decent number of AT missiles and/or recoilless guns for the same dollars, man-power [technicals would need more crew, but less support, and even REMFs die if they get overrun], and technology level technicals could beat MBTs.

Technicals are great if you aren't too worried about casualties but as the west is moving away from light vehicles towards MRAPs I can't see us adopting them without some kind of CROWS systems keeping the gunner in an armored cab.

While being light and fast is the primary advantage I think 7.62x54r rated armor is a good standard for the cab.

>>516336

Hummers are the shittier, pussified version of the HMMWV. They're only useful if your name is Horatio Caine. And still is bad 'cause you'll be the main character of a very awful tv show.

>>516336

>muh racism

who here wouldn't put a pintle mount on a pickup? i sure as heck want to

>>516382

>Chadian victory

Alphas once again prove themselves over betacucks

>>516361

Ok I clearly meant HMMMV not civilian version, hummer is hummer.

Also just to actually add an on topic reply to this thread: What is potentially the most effective weapon to mount on a technical platform? I'd argue, in the case of no major aerial threats, a recoilless gun like the M40 or SPG-9 would be the most practical since it's suitable to be mounted on anything and each have been used through history as a weapon of choice for technicals, both in official military use (I'd argue that slapping these things onto Jeeps during WWII made them some of the first technicals) and with paramilitaries, terrorists, guerrilla, and rebel forces. Recoilless rifles would be optimal for bunker busting operations and for engaging light armor. Otherwise, with the advent of attack helicopters, drones, and other low flying aircraft, any sort of anti-aircraft gun platform would be optimal because not only could they be used for cheap anti-aircraft defenses (especially for operators who don't have the funds or manpower for a dedicated anti-aircraft network) but also for engagement against enemy infantry as a suppressing fire role.

>>516336

The best use of technicals is like dragoon cavalry.

Ride faster than enemy tanks.

Go 160kph on roads where they can only go 80kph.

Go around enemy armor.

Dismount 20 infantry you had in the back.

Get trucks with mounted heavy weapons into beneficial positions.

Wait for enemy light forces.

Shoot them with heavy weapons to halt their column.

Attack with infantry to clean up.

Salvage, remount, drive off before enemy armor can turn around.

Do this enough times and enemy will be left with just tanks it cant fuel.

Then your cheapo trucks shoot them up with ATGMs at ranges beyond which they can respond.

>>516392

i would argue that they would work better as horse archers

>just circle around the fucker and shot him if you can

>if you cant just run away, you are faster then everything they have either way

>>516396

Shoot while moving? Yeah that might not work out so well. Remember theres no way to stabilize both gun and gunner, its too light to serve as inertia anchor…

>poland

>horse archers

inb4 hungary

>>516390

I think >>516392 has the gist of it. The best weapon to put in technicals is infantry. Some specialist ones with heavy weapons might be desirable but their primary use should be striving for the apocryphal "Fustest with the mustest." Especially given the current balance between weapons and protection; man portable stuff is a threat to all but the heaviest armor.

>>516399

>inb4 hungary

actually poland had a fuckton of horse archers:

>pancerni had a bow. or at leaast should have, its not like uniformitiy existed back then

>tatars. dont ask somehow we were allied a fuckton of times, with only6 reason why being them wanting to rape and pillage and our nobles wanting somebody they can talk with about horses what autists obssesed over before trains

>lisowczycy/lisovianus started as "ultra light cavalry" with whatever they could get their hands on. also, they werent paid anything, werent provided with food or equipment but were allowed to pillage as much as they wanted.

and yeah maybe you will have hard time hitting, but so does enemy.

>>516449

Barely enough for self-defense, needs more firepower

>>516460

Even worse, "gorda" means fat in spanish, and it's in a feminine way.

So is a fat cunt.

>>516507

This isn't a technical

>>516507

What are they saying?

>>516577

technically it isnt

>>516685

I don't even speak Russian and it's obvious.

>wtf ur a kid

>so what

>where is your parent

>parent hahaha come see this fellow kid

>how old are you!

>im 18

>such an old pervert

>*turns off cam*

>>516685

Someone translated when it was posted on /b/. It's something like

>girl asks why he's so hairy/ has a beard

>he says something about his mom forbidding him

>girl asks his age

>he says 15 or 18

>they laugh and say he looks 25

>>516173

man that's like 90% a 23mm cannon

lying frenchman

Light guns are made for arcade games, not really useful in real combat.

>>516483

You ignore the fact that Americans have garbage morale.

Present the average American with the possibility it will not be an easy win they will start deluding themselves or outright give up

>>527022

Foreign mercenary troops then?

>>527022

>Americans have garbage morale

I would gladly die fighting and killing commies. I don't care if its a 100% chance of death, if I get to kill commies its worth it.

Also, what do you all think of taking something like a F350 and turning it into a halftrack with a Hawkeye 105mm or some other form of artillery like mortars on the back?

>>527098

I've been around 105s, they're pretty damn powerful, not sure a truck can handle them.

Maybe a pair of 60mm mortars and a boatload of ammunition. Even if it's going to be bouncing all the place, just keep loading them as fast as possible because the best kind of accuracy is accuracy by volume.

>>527098

Shit I didn't post it in this thread, I always post it in all technical threads

>>527102

Vid related, it's got a decent recoil system and can be pretty accurate for volume of fire.

>>516392

>Dismount 20 infantry you had in the back.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket, that can be another truck altogether,

>>527102

>>527098

Also a few of these per truck would be neat.

>>527111

Wow that's neat! I bet if they shortened it they could fire on the move.

>>527130

> I bet if they shortened it they could fire on the move.

I doubt but it's nice to think about that, maybe a simultaneous impact on target would work better for shoot and scoot than firing on the move.

Something more like an AMX-10RC would work better for that.

>>527098

The canuck is kinda right with the Morale thing, Officers going in are leftist faggots and making the situation worse.

Not to mention armored brigades have the lowest moral of all the other types of units in the US Military (Airborne has the highest).

>>527102

>Maybe a pair of 60mm mortars and a boatload of ammunition.

I have something for that too

sage for test

>>537172

sage

>>537174

>>537175

sage