/k/ - Weapons

>>523917

>100-200rpm

you what

I'll also add Soviet AGLs also had 200m on Western ones. Because their round was narrower and lighter it had better ballistics, and it came stock with a radar sight just like their heavy machine guns. Which essentially means they can fire through fog and smoke without an issue, whereas all of NATO can basically be rendered useless with some WP. So we're actually crawling where we can't see or hurt the enemy and he can see us and kill us. For an eighth of a mile.

>>523921

Not the important part, the rpm is just there to show similar capability in that area.

>>523917

What's your source on all this data?

Weight difference seems extreme.,

>>523933

Janes, feel free to google and check, I'm not a liar.

I don't know why their guns are lighter, maybe because stamped not milled?

>>523917

US skips them straight to autocannons, it's smarter. a payload weapon is better than a HMG in many ways.

I adore russian 14.5s, but given control over procurement i would skip over them straight to 20mm.

>>523936

>>523938

jesus

related, we have lightweight mounts and cannon for 25&30 now

>>523940

>google

Just seems weird, but I suppose stamped would make sense. Still, first lot's 7 lbs heavier, and it only gets worse from there. Seems to get even more extreme as you go on.

same ammo as apache

>>523936

You out leafed the leaf.

Just use artillery you homos. If you have to hit something that is over 2km away you just might save everyone's time and fuck that map grid over with artillery.

>>523953

Artillery is a dead concept. Aircraft can usually do the same job, but they also funnel more money into the pockets of defence contractors, and they look cooler on TV. You'd throw away all those ultra-cool jets for what's basically a tank with no armour? Artillery doesn't stand a chance.

>>523957

>i have no idea what im saying : the post

>>523959

Do you disagree? Point out where I went wrong.

Artillery:

>can drop some "fuck you" on someone alllllll the way over there

>cost effective

>"lol napoleon called he says he wants his cannons back lol"

Aircraft:

>can drop some "fuck you" on someone alllllll the way over there

>can burn up a couple million dollars while doing it

>look cool

>top gun

>air shows

>going faster than the speed of sound

>waving a tiny little flag and then getting a half-chub when the jet flies right over your head

>can get shot down and then you make a movie about it and buy more aircraft

>>523917

War zones have obstacles and cover so max range kinda means diddly.

>>523941

Could be true.

>>523953

What do you think a dozen guys firing AGLs are? It's basically pocket artillery.

>>523921

He's a fucking Leaf, what do you expect? Of course he's an idiot

>>523917

>comparing the cyclic rate of an RPK with the sustained rate of a M249

>trying to tell people the M240 is still 28lbs

>forgetting that most M240s have adjustable ROF

>forgetting they made the M2 lighter

>pretending the the majority of russian forces still don't use the DShK and NSV

>Super heavy MG

>Designed right after WWII

>Still being used today

>No notable upgrades

>Not realizing that Americans go straight to 20mm with the Bushmaster

Fucking Leafs. I don't know what I expect anymore.

>>524014

He was being facetious.

As America neglects artillery in favour of airpower. While ARTISTICALLY yelling overmatch

>>524018

Because in Burgerland, there's always going to be someone who genuinely believes whatever mocking position you might be making.

Trust me, I've met those people. It's horrible. You sit there, sarcastically going to the most extreme and exaggerated point, and they sit there saying "Yeah! Exactly!"

>>524018

>those shells

>that automatic fire

>that mobility

Why the fuck isn't this a thing?

>>524035

>importedsomalisemen.jpg

Which is such a shame, Sweden had so much potential to be one of the greatest countries on earth.

Instead it's one of the gayest.

I feel bad for swedenbro who posts here occasionally.

>>524018

American's are made from brute force and will power, subtle behavior is for our European cousins.

>>524014

You're fucking retarded

>>524008

So you want me to compare latest prototypes of 2017 American military technology with the 1938 variant of DShK used by some conscripts somewhere? Or ignore that vehicles where America has 20mm the Soviets had 30mm?

You're right though the NSV is actually better than what I posted, should have used that.

>>524016

>You also forgot that the M2's 84 pound "weight" is with the chest high tripod mount included.

No it's not, the mass is the naked gun like for the other. With the tripod mount it's lose to 130lb.

That's a lot of horseshit in two posts, I hope given your subhuman behavior that you're niggers or spics and not representative of average Americans.

>>523917

Most likely never going to hit someone past 1k on a mounted weapon in a open field; let alone the fact that the conditions to make that happen with modern militaries fighting realistic wars where the less casualties is preferred method. This is not even taking into account armor and using weapons, weapons platforms and air power. The United States most likely saw this concept, and considered it useless in a non defensive war in a mountain country or vast open country.

>>523936

Undercover leaf.

>>525666

Care to provide stats, Lucifer?

>>525675

well this anon>>523948 came from there so the track record so far isn't superb

>>525676

You know what I mean. I actually thought the M-60 was the least ass backwards of the Nam’ era guns. But I guess that anything Americans were pretty garbage.

>>525679

>but this shit that occurred for such a minuscule amount of time will last for eternity?

Because "Hurr you can just pull AKs out of the mud and they shoot fucking Americans and their rifle that only jams durr durrr."

>>525678

>the M-60 was the least ass backwards of the Nam’ era guns.

Literally the opposite. M60 was a horrible piece of equipment. MG3/FN MAG were much better weapons systems. Best thing the US fielded in that time period small arms wise were MAC-10/11 series. Small, crude, but reliable as fuck. Swedish-K and the pistols were good too, as were the shotguns. The rifles weren't as great as the AK fielded on the other side. 7.62 was too heavy and 5.56 didn't punch through dense foliage.

>>523917

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_BRG-15

>15.5x106 mm

>It was announced in October 1983, FN were seeking to develop a more powerful replacement for the .50" Browning, better able to penetrate light armoured vehicles (in effect, a Western equivalent to the Soviet 14.5mm KPV heavy machine gun). FN initially selected the 20mm Hispano case as a basis and necked it down to 15mm for the FN-BRG (15x115). The weapon and its ammunition had a protracted development and finally emerged as a 15.5mm because of fast barrel wear.

>The 15.5x106 was FN's second effort to make a KPV competitor in the BRG-15, appropriately by necking out the KPV's case. It also utilized an unusual dual feed device (A la Hafdasa C-4), with link ammunition belts feeding from both the right and left. Spent shell casings were ejected out of the bottom of the gun, as in FN's later P90 personal defense weapon. The quick-change barrel assembly developed for the BRG-15 was redesigned for use in an updated version of the M2HB.

>The project was cancelled in the early 1990s, as FN shifted its focus to the P90 personal defense weapon.

>The subcaliber bullet fired from FN BRG-15 15.5mm round, with a muzzle energy of 40,000 J (more than double that of the M2HB at ~18,000 J of bullet energy at muzzle).

>>525702

I wouldn't call the 60mm "artillery support". It's more like an abortion. Vid related is objectively superior. It has more fragements than the 40mm Mk19, better accuracy and effective range. A burst of three can cover a far greater area than the 60mm mortar.

>>525710

>finn posts a video of the Dvosdika 152mm SPG

>somehow thinks he's talking about 60mm mortars

>>525711

Well he was responding to me and I was talking about it :/

>>525714

His response is along the lines of "your infantry and cavalry are not supposed to fight within a brigade outside of the range of their own artillery"

>>525715

Well that's true, but having organic indirect fire is kind of useful, because it means the artillery section isn't being called on every moment to kill some durkas that are pinned down.

Kind of like you're not supposed to fight outside of massive IADS rocket umbrellas, but it's still useful to have OADS trucks like Pantsir, and infantry armed with MANPADs.

>>525716

Battalions have the 120mm

Companies have the 81mm

Platoons have the 60mm

They're decent enough for the range.

AGLs are a good thing to have but it's more "general area" past 800m than "kinda precise" like the 60mm beyond 2km.

different roles, different tools.

>because it means the artillery section isn't being called on every moment to kill some durkas that are pinned down.

it's their job. A brigade has a battalion (or in the UK's case a regiment) made up of atleast 3 batteries which are 6 guns each.

That's atleast 18 guns which can put down 5 rounds per minute each for maximum rate of fire, mortars can support with even more fire support per minute.

If it's just a durka they only need one gun for about a minute which is more than enough to support the companies in a brigade.

>>525718

>60mm

>precise

>beyond 2km

60mm isn't even precise in direct fire. Canadians died in WWII because of this cancer, there's a reason everyone breathed a sigh of relief when Carl Gustav was marked for NATO-wide adoption. The smallest mortar should be 80mm and even that is already pushing it outside of commando duties.

Remember when you call in 60mm someone else is giving you support, and you have to trust them not to fuck up on the first shot, so you can radio them where they hit, and then they re-adjust, and thereby slowly guide them in to the pinned down enemy when they can fire for effect. The 60mm warhead is just large enough for its fragments to force your own guys to take cover just in case, but so small that it's hard to put the enemy into the 50% casualty radius.

When you do it with AGLs it's literally your own section giving the fire, you can see it being done and are only feet away from the guy firing, you're in zero danger. And because it's fully automatic, the fire can be adjusted far faster, and when it hits the enemy it's far more effective. Watch the video to see what frontline AGL can do.

>it's their job.

You do realize that artillery isn't provided in a 1:1 ratio to frontline troops? Everyone has to compete for their attention.

>A brigade has a battalion (or in the UK's case a regiment) made up of atleast 3 batteries which are 6 guns each.

A brigade can have 400 sections from 150 platoons calling for fire support from those 18 tubes.

It's more than enough to support companies maybe, but 60mm isn't for company support… and there's nothing on the section level except the promise and hope of eventual RR adoption. At least the assault group has the pathetic M203 although they'd do better with rifle grenades.

>>525723

I never said precise I said "kinda precicse"

>Canadians died in WWII because of this cancer

And alot of other units in WWII had their own mortar support.

>When you do it with AGLs it's literally your own section giving the fire

It is not, it's your platoon giving you fire since it's designated to your weapon's section

Unless you plan on changing your automatic gunner to an automatic grenadier

>You do realize that artillery isn't provided in a 1:1 ratio to frontline troops?

well no shit numbnuts

>Sections fight on their own and not within a platoon

>It's more than enough to support companies maybe, but 60mm isn't for company support

>completely forgets that I mention the 81mm exists for the company

It's either you don't really know what the organizational structure is or you're mixing up unit sizes and roles.

>>525726

>completely forgets that I mention the 81mm exists for the company

I'm not arguing for 81mm to be replaced, just the 60mm.

You gotta stop with the strawmen or I'm not going to waste time with the discussion.

>>525729

I'm not strawmanning,it's what you said verbatim

>but 60mm isn't for company support

it is only for the platoon level, companies use the 81mm

Again, it seems like you don't know about the organizational structure

>>525732

Mortars under 80mm just don't have the case capacity for anything of value. Even 80mm shells sometimes struggle to cause an impact on a dug in enemy.

>>525730

Yes so why are you bringing up company support if we're not talking about the mortar tied to that???

>If it's just a durka they only need one gun for about a minute which is more than enough to support the companies in a brigade.

We're specifically talking about organic indirect support for platoon, section and assault groups, which is what the 60mm provides.

>Again, it seems like you don't know about the organizational structure

This is a strawman and an adhom. I thought you wanted a discussion where we mutually learn more from each other and come to a solution, but if you're going to be a cunt, we're fucking done. I don't have time for this I have to get back to work.

>>525734

>>525729

>tries to say 60mms are useless

>is explained reason why they are used

>ignores reason

>told "you don't know what you're talking about"

>STRAWMAN ADHOM AAAAHH MY CHARACTER

no one has this thin of skin wtf, he's literally saying you aren't listening, and you aren't.

Vid is the Mk.47 which is ten times better than the retarded Mk.19.

Mk.47 gets first round hits at 2km.

The 60mm is just obsolete compared to that, the Mk.47 is 3kg lighter and way more effective.

Here's the various AGLs of redforces

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUrUTaHbLWA

>>525744

>Mk.47 gets first round hits at 2km.

That's only because the teams using them are highly trained on a system built just for them.

Maybe the mod 1 would be better for line infantry and cavalry, but until then I don't see regular grunts getting first round 2km hits

>>524018

>I though I was laying the sarcasm on pretty thick

Its over text you moron. Sarcasm is a tone. When you type sarcastically you just sound stupid.

>>525729

>>525730

Don't worry he says something stupid then when you call him out on it he tries to change what he said and says your straw manning him. Don't let him drip that maple shit all over you he's a dumb fuck that has a hate on for how military is currently structured. Cause what we have right now isn't "good enough"