/k/ - Weapons

>>684487

>But T-72BX will still be around in 2050 like T-62 are still around, even if by then France and Germany have maybe 12 Leoclerc superwaffen Europanzer each and they have 1000 T-14.

LOL, the delusion of this slavaboo.

And 2075, the fleet of 100-ish Su-57, am I rite?

>>684459

>>684447

I've seen this shit before on half/k/, it's a fucking dud.

Is there any other example?

>Amusingly since they're deployed ISIS captured and used at least 2 due to the fact that they survive so well…

ISIS uses Abrams as well, I guess Abrams are good?

>>684490

You can shit on M1 all you want but nothing will ever take away it's retarded thick armor plating on all sides, you need some serious fucking guns to take it out.

>>684491

> Big Brother never lies, he only tells us truths

> all footage from all sources of media that claim to be from combat or other "real" or "reality" sources MUST be authentic

> even if the enemy fakes footage for propaganda, we never do

> there isn't a constant war to set narratives and affect morale both for and against people

> all video is real, the camera never lies

Keep your eyes and ears open, friend.

>>684492

Abrams has been shown to survive ATGM hit as well, see >>680605

The slavaboo will screech HUURRRRRR the crew leaves the tank, it's completely useless now.

>>684482

>It's not 70's TOW it's an E3. The rebels uses BGM-71E (and some F even) in their long range version no less, AKA it's the 2000's version that is what the current US arsenal is made of.

Provide proof.

>>684496

>supersoldier

Where are the bulletproof power armors? Where is the heavy machine gun?

>>684498

It was a joke, implying that they're not any better than sandniggers they're fighting - not in the "surviving the battle" department anyway.

>>684499

They are fucking outnumbered, outgunned and without support.

Infantries are soft targets regardless of the million dollars spent on them.

>>684503

Excuses, excuses. These literal niggers literally don't aim their guns, if these guys were tenth as competent as advertised they'd remove all the kebab and went home unscathed. Even ignoring this, what the fuck kind of tactical decision it is to slowly move outside a vehicle while you're being ambushed? They should've all hopped in and ran away full tilt like the rest of the company did.

>>684509

>Excuses, excuses. These literal niggers literally don't aim their guns, if these guys were tenth as competent as advertised they'd remove all the kebab and went home unscathed.

LOL if this is true, NOBODY would have died in any African wars, including the Rhodesian.

>Even ignoring this, what the fuck kind of tactical decision it is to slowly move outside a vehicle while you're being ambushed? They should've all hopped in and ran away full tilt like the rest of the company did.

Retarded decision.

I don't defend them, I'm just saying they are still soft targets in the end.

>>684509

Actually nevermind, I don't want to hear it. The fact of the matter is that the decision was pants on the head retarded and resulted in the entire squad getting killed. The rest of the guys just ran away in their trucks and none of them got hurt.

>>684500

Yeah he was just a little lightheaded afterward ;^)

>>684511

If a nigger were to magdump in a completely random direction while you stand out in the open a mile away, there would be 0.1% chance that you'd get shot. The way they normally aim, that's more like 0.1% per bullet. However, a half-competent soldier should have upwards of 10% chance to hit a man at that distance. That's not to mention, one should be able to use the fucking cover properly, something niggers don't do seemingly out of principle, just like aiming. The point being, practice shows that between some of the best and the worst prepared armies in the world, the man to man fighting ability difference is pretty marginal in spite of supposed astronomical skill gap.

>>684513

>>684509

Now that you say that, it is very strange. Why did they decide to basically just stay put and not book it out of there? Very stupid.

Perhaps it is darwin being exploited on the special forces, weeding out the retards.

>>684515

Again, I don't defend muh NATO soldiers.

I'm just saying they are just infantries and aren't bulletproof.

>>684409

And how is an engine going to be running when on a road march to maintain that 40mph cruising speed? And a diesel engine with the same power as a turbine engine will be so much heavier and larger that you will NEVER get the same power to weight ratio out of it.

>>684431

>NATO's goal in desert storm wasn't to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait

>Iraq's goal in desert storm was to flee kuwait with their tail between their legs

Yup, that sounds about right to me. And their army was in a horrible state that had zero hope of achieving Iraq's actual goal which was to occupy Kuwait and cause enough NATO casualties to cause them to withdraw because they didn't care at all to preserve their vehicle crews which would have learned a lot of experience in the Iran/Iraq war. So they had a surplus of equipment and no crews because their crews all died horribly. But hey, at least it means Iran didn't capture any of their tanks right?

>again, pointing to the bottom escape hatches like its a huge "gotcha" moment

If you actually fucking read the sentence all the way through, you would notice that I said the only incident you can point to OVER THE COURSE OF FORTY YEARS OF SERVICE means that bottom escape hatches are more of a liability due to the loss of hull integrity against land mines vs the chances of ending up in an unfortunate situation like what you keep pointing to that literally only happened once. I'm willing to bet many more crews would have been injured or killed by landmines and daisy chained aircraft bomb IEDs had the hull not been solid. You can't fucking have your cake and eat it too.

>>684459

>it was a TOW-2

>dude, trust me

>the super tank also would have jammed the wire guided missile too

>dude, trust me

<ignore the part where the crew panic bails in fear of being broiled alive all according to plan and also do so out the top hatches and don't die instantly

>>684482

>I have lied out my ass about burning radioactive armor, deadly fire extinguishers, the Abrams lacking any kind of reactive armor, WARPACT guns being compatible with NATO ammo to the point that it was all designed that way, but please trust me when I continue to spew bullshit like this without any sources at all to back it up besides saying a lot of official looking words

>>684556

I don't get it, is that proof it's a TOW-2 or something?

>>684557

BGM-71E = TOW2.

>>684558

Please prove it's the same fucking TOW used against that particular T-90?

>>684554

>And how is an engine going to be running when on a road m

Retard a tank isn't supposed to ride on roads, that's why it has treads. No wonder you've been losing tanks to fucking IEDs if your most powerful vehicles are literally being used as trains on predictable tracks. This is as dumb or dumber than the Iraqi retards using their tanks as pillboxes.

>>684559

Numero Uno) America is the primary supplier of anti tank weaponry to the terrorists which are TOW-2s, they knew they were attacking a tank, the range is makes sense as well. The preponderance of evidence is on the side of it being a TOW2 so you better have some compelling evidence otherwise. Please prove something else was used.

Numero Dos) Why do you think a TOW-2 has a chance of penetrating the T-90 or even the later T-72 variants? The best of the TOW series is only 70% effective as the Kornet, which the Russians use to test their fucking tanks. American anti tank missiles are nerfed to under 1000mm RHA because they know its going to end up in terrorist hands and they don't want it to be a danger to Abrams with its 1100mm RHA glacis in the future. Please provide your rationale for thinking TOW-2 stands a chance because I don't get even why you're butthurt.

Numero Tres) An export russian tank crewed by dirt monkeys that didn't even have the sense to button up much less turn on the Shtora just shrugged off a large anti tank missile with a good hit right on the turret ring. It doesn't matter what kind of missile it was, the important part is that the tank itself kept moving after the hit, is solid, exceeds expectation. I've yet to see an Abrams shrugging off anything that wasn't built before polio was eradicated.

>>684482

>It's not 70's TOW it's an E3. The rebels uses BGM-71E (and some F even) in their long range version no less, AKA it's the 2000's version that is what the current US arsenal is made of.

pruufs?

>>684554

>And how is an engine going to be running when on a road march to maintain that 40mph cruising speed? And a diesel engine with the same power as a turbine engine will be so much heavier and larger that you will NEVER get the same power to weight ratio out of it.

Explain how the Leopard 2 with around the same weight as the Abrams uses 30% less fuel then?

There's a reason why everybody except amerilards abandoned the retarded gasturbines-for-tanks-concept.

>So they had a surplus of equipment and no crews because their crews all died horribly.

What part of "the republican guard escaped which kept saddam in power" didn't you understand, fatty?

>THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

proof?

>Retard a tank isn't supposed to ride on roads,

holy shit you're retarded beyond down syndrome.

>>684568

I do wonder, if having a turbine engine is such disadvantage in fuel usage and other things like you noted, why do they still use it? There has to be a reason other than keeping the jobs of the industry alive, I assume. Do they go faster? Do they have more range?

Why did it get chosen over a diesel engine?

>>684568

>holy shit you're retarded beyond down syndrome.

Well someone who formats his texts

like this

doesn't have much of a margin to talk about who has and who doesn't have down syndrome

unless you're talking from experience

of course

>>684563

So literally dude trust me?

>>684564

So no direct proof, but speculation.

Please prove first it's a TOW-2 in the first place.

>>684572

>>684568

Well go ahead. Provide ONE single example of TOW used by syrian rebels with it's markings showing it's not a TOW-2, compared to the half of dozen pics I've found with a simple google query.

I'll wait.

>>684570

It takes up less space in the tank, the engine itself is lighter which lets you carry more armor per tank weight. Kind of offset by having 2x bigger fuel tanks though lol… But that was the original rationale.

It actually might make sense if we switch to exotic electric weapons and propulsion because a turbine free to rotate at max speed can gemerate electrical power more efficiently than apiston engine. Its why hybrid submarines use them.

>>684572

Its not speculation it is evidemce. Your debate opponent has provided more evidence than you have, this isnt 'innocent until proven guilty beyond doubt' we are judging events not people. Provide counter evidence or fuck off.

>>684580

Hes going to go back under a rock with no response but then months later claim everyone who debated him was a russian lover/agent in another thread and we had no arguments except our patriotic love of russia. Screencap this post take my word for it the fucker will do it.

>>684580

>>684608

I have nothing to prove otherwise since:

1. First, you have to prove that syrian rebels ONLY have access to TOW-2.

2. That specific TOW used by the syrian rebels is a TOW-2.

Now you are using reductionist logic hurr pictures show syrian sandniggers only use TOW-2 thus they ONLY have TOW-2, that shit is not logic.

>>684617

You do know that the launcher is pretty much the same across the board. Most likely an E model of rocket being used like the rest considering no markings are being showed.

>>684618

>most likely

Proof?

>>684617

You can't see the missile markings on that picture.

Congratulation on proving you can't even comprehend basic English.

>>684630

>The turbine is more fuel-efficient at 95%+ load

ftfy

>>684518

Inexperience of the African theater.

In Afghanistan afghans takes pot shots at you for being there. Afghan armed forces looters run away when shoot at so even normal villagers do this.

You retaliate, maybe shoots one or two, the 5 or 6 left run away or there was really just one or two (and they run away seeing you were up for a fight).

In Africa if the local wildlife feel strong enough that it can take potshots at soldiers… it means there is a LOT of them. So you haul ass and get out there and come back with armor (armored vehicles are a MUST have in Africa, ghouls don't aim but they're very enthusiastic about it).

Also recon is done in force at never less than 12 men and 3 vehicles (no matter how many local "soldiers" are with you) and all 3 vehicles have at least one MG with a 200rnd belt (preferably twice that) and you never split up more than running/shouting distance.

4 whites guys in a car anywhere in Africa are zombies. They might still be walking but they're dead already.

12 men with 3 MGs can hold off 200 ghouls that rely on juju to hit.

4 men with ARs can be run over by a local gang armed with machetes.

>>684970

What do you think about vid related? tl;dw is that everyone's favourite Larry had a tricked out CAR-15 that he used in Panama and in the Gulf War to "hunt SCUDs". He said that their experience was part of the reason the US Army switched to the M4 from the M16, even though he himself says that they should have used 7.62 guns in the Gulf War.

>>684973

It's a nice carbine is what I think, but he clearly stated where the "problem" is.

The M4 is retarded as a general purpose service rifle, because it can't do "general purpose".

It's fine replacing MP5 (or SMGs that were still in service in the 80's in most commandos units) as commandos aren't supposed to get in long range firefights, CQC and surprise actions is their job by a 5.56 carbine, but if you're replacing a 147 gr projectile launched at 800m/s rifle by a 62 gr launched at 850m/s (instead of the 1000 it was designed for) at some point you got to admit that it's not gonna be able to do the same thing because it's half the energy and even if 5.56 flies better than 7.62… it's nowhere near two times better.

The problem is not a technical problem. It's a doctrinal one, the "chechenisation" of conflict.

First chechen war. Russia sends conscripts, a full cycle was done since the collapse of the Soviet Union, conscript where barely kept fed and warm, let alone trained. Conscripts get slaughtered.

Russia leaderships reacts, sends in guys that are actually still trained (spec ops). Spec ops end up being used as "line" infantry… it kinda works but not well and is clearly unsustainable and leads to a full on Pyrrhic victory and Russia is forced to withdraw (which will lead to deep changes and reform of the Russian army).

The moral of the story is: Spec ops aren't magic.

Commandos forces outside of their elements (surprise, CQC) aren't exactly better than regular infantry.

They're often worse. If it had been 12 guys on a Stryker (US medium infantry), or 3 Humvee (US light infantry), they wouldn't had been attacked in the first place and had they been they would have won. And had they actually been linked to their proper support assets, as combined warfare dictates, it's quite possible no one on their side would have died.

Different tools for different jobs.

Some commandos (french, UK) does train for long range desert patrols. But that's all they do, that's a specialty, like combat diver or hostage rescue. And it comes with specialized vehicles and equipment.

When you start to think that "every spec ops should be able to do every jobs" that's when they start dying (we've had a bunch in France recently too) and is a telltale that either a military is stretched too thin or that the higher ups have no idea of what they are doing (and typically both).

>>684996

Like Vickers' said, it's a 200 meter gun. It rocks in those 200 meters, but beyond that it begins to falter.

What >>684996 said is spot on. Special Forces equipment needs are not indicative of what line infantry needs. Both need to have access to different tools for different jobs, and have enough support at the fireteam level to make use of said tools. Trying to find a single caliber or projectile that works at close and long range is going to result in diminishing returns. Same with the lead throwing platform. And with training.

Giving your troops a swiss army knife may allow them to do a lot of things, but probably not better than with dedicated tools.

Now there are some outliers, red dot optics with or without magnifiers, better controls on the gun, .300 blackout (It has it's own issues though) to name a few, that can bridge some of those gaps in an economic manner. But almost all of them can be adapted to a gun that is better at that distance than one that NEEDS those bits to become effective at the same range.

Close range guns need to be developed for 0-200 meters. General line infantry guns need to be developed for 200-400 meters. And longer range general line infantry guns need to be 300-700 meters.

Now keep in mind that this does not cover support weapons, just the general issue rifles/SMG for infantry. You are still going to have belt fed MGs and DMRs and grenade launchers, but they need to be built to suit their purpose. The MGs need a robust magnified optic paired with a red dot, as does the DMR. The GL should be standalone with the option of attaching it to your primary, unless it is a dedicated standalone shoulder fired system.

As for SF? Their needs are way to diverse to use them as the model for infantry. There will be some crossover, but in general it would be for specialist positions like Sappers and Combat Engineers. And very rarely for the majority of the GIs.

It would also do wonders to expand the idea of Special Operations Capable units and personal. You don't always need all of your SF boys to be doing SF, but you need a strong, solid core of professional SF to work with. Give specialists more access to training that can allow them to be called in when a nearby SF team needs specialists in a certain field.

>Oh man, this op would be cake with a little mortar support.

>Damn, we don't have anyone that can speak this dialect available in the teams right now.

>A little more sniper support would do wonders for this.

>An extra MG section right here would cut off any reinforcements.

>A dedicated tank hunter team could save a lot of lives.

>We need a lot more medics if this compound is as full of hostages as you say it is.

>>684996

>>684973

>>685031

Even old feudal minded line infantry standard liking guys like me have to admit that the mixed squad is the way forward at this point. Whacky ideas about replacing the light machine gun are insane, it is the one piece of squad equipment that can't change except for extremely specific special operations duty. If you go with assault rifles, or even assault carbines, you end up needing battle rifle or now DMR support to supplement that lack of range in certain conditions. The dream of the standardized rifle for all 8-12 men of a standard infantry squad will have to wait, until something major super comes along to radically change things.

The negative parts of heavy specialty is that it becomes an organizational issue at the very least, now you have to attach how many specialized units to base minimum unit what/ An anti tank sub unit to every company, do you stick them to a platoon, place them in the heavy weapons platoon of an infantry company? How many DMR and where do you allot them? Full sniper support where and how? Small special operations forces find this easy, doing this along an army is more difficult, and trying to organize this and find replacements in a third world war would be insanely logistically difficult. Finding new units to equip new units, then organizing sending DMR, tank busters, snipers, ect. to these highly diversified units as they take casualties is an issue.

Standard line infantry advantage for its disadvantage with this issue: loss of specialization, but ease of equipping standard units and replacing losses. Give them man a rifle and standard equipment for the theater and send him.

The universal and constant problem of the diversified squad has haunted us from its earliest days back in WW2. SMG's can't be used very effectively at extended ranges, if you get into a longer range fight with weapons and people who can fight at those distances, the SMG and carbine soldiers find themselves pretty well out of effect. This reduces the squad's ability to use its full manpower and weaponry at ranged battles, or parts of battles. The one advantage of the battle rifle squad is that its never out in this type of trouble at range, the entire squad can fight and provide fire support at long range. The carbine and SMG heavy units are meant for close range, and they do well in their element, but in extended range fights they often have to sit back and let the other weapons do all the fighting. The battle rifle may be a harder to use close combat rifle, but it does provide the most universal squad in terms of logistics and ammunition, and requires the least specialization. Then again, one is tempted to insert assault rifles, carbines, and SMG into the squad for close combat. Or go the very common route of carbines and rely on the LMG to do all the heavy lifting.

The potential weakness of the assault carbine squad of modern make is that even though it works to a certain extent in limited warfare where the 1st world country has the material advantages and heavy firepower monopoly, things would be different against another super power or major third world war scenario. Today the boys with the carbines rely on artillery and airstrikes, which are at their disposal, their DMR and machine guns to win fights they have the immediate firepower disadvantage at. When you fight another major army, you may not have that artillery and heavy weapons advantage, in fact THEY might have the advantage on you. The mitigating factor in this is, a large conscript war would often see the quality of troops drop dramatically, and the amount of soldiers who would, and are capable, of firing at extended ranges drops.

Things to think about.

>>680607

>z-zero lost in combat!