project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Off-Topic Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Military Technology
24 Nov 2017, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Military Technology Discussion on military hardware.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2012, 09:23 PM   #11
Bellator
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Quote:
Because there is a higher probability of hitting the tank with an anti-tank guided missile? And the Javelin was designed and fielded post Cold War.
The Javelin is designed for the conditions of Fulda Gap more than Korangal Valley. My point is that there aren't any Taliban tank divisions. A simple tube and lots of high explosive fragmentation warheads makes more sense than Javelins, SRAWs and whathaveyou.

Quote:
As for the RPG family, they have their pros and cons. They are pretty simple in design and don't break often, and when they do you can fix it with a paperclip and some tin foil MacGyver-style. Their rockets don't weight too much, so you can carry several on your back. But the damn things are about as accurate as a senile blind woman, and they leave one huge damn signature behind. This makes them perfect for some suicide-lovin meatbag, but not so good for conventional forces that dislike incoming tank rounds or mortar fire.
Incoming tank rounds? really, the taliban have tanks? heh.

My point is that the US should introduce an RPG-style weapon. A relatively light unguided, reload-able launcher that can fire affordable, but effective rounds. These tubes could be made to tighter tolerances and their projectiles could be a bit more fine-tuned than RPG rockets, but it would still be more affordable than a Javelin. It would be much more suitable for "unconventional" warfare, I think. And also, it would have no caliber restriction, since the warhead is outside the tube, meaning it could be used to fire all sorts of funny, bloated warheads (APERS-T anyone?).
Bellator is offline
Last edited by Bellator; 01-14-2012 at 09:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2012, 02:30 PM   #12
CastleBravo
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

If I had to guess I would say the higher-ups don't want soldiers slinging unguided high explosive rockets all over the place. This isn't a war we can win just by blowing shit up. They should still be good for defending remote outposts though, which from what I can tell is exactly what they are using the carl gustav for.
CastleBravo is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2012, 11:09 PM   #13
Sidewinder Zulu

Sidewinder Zulu's Avatar
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellator View Post
The Javelin is designed for the conditions of Fulda Gap more than Korangal Valley. My point is that there aren't any Taliban tank divisions. A simple tube and lots of high explosive fragmentation warheads makes more sense than Javelins, SRAWs and whathaveyou.
Well, the Apache was designed for the Fulda Gap as well, and its proved to be possibly one of NATO's most useful weapons systems in Afghanistan. Sometimes equipment designed for one purpose can find useful application in another, when put into resourceful hands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellator View Post

Incoming tank rounds? really, the taliban have tanks? heh.
The Taliban may not have tanks, but the Iranians, North Koreans, Chinese, what have you, definitely do. It would be unrealistic to assume the US will never fight another conventional war against a nation with armored units.
If the North Koreans came pouring across the 38th Parallel with their vast columns of armor, I think we'd be quite grateful for weapons like the Javelin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellator View Post
My point is that the US should introduce an RPG-style weapon. A relatively light unguided, reload-able launcher that can fire affordable, but effective rounds. These tubes could be made to tighter tolerances and their projectiles could be a bit more fine-tuned than RPG rockets, but it would still be more affordable than a Javelin. It would be much more suitable for "unconventional" warfare, I think. And also, it would have no caliber restriction, since the warhead is outside the tube, meaning it could be used to fire all sorts of funny, bloated warheads (APERS-T anyone?).
The M136 can and has filled that role pretty well, and anything more substantial than the targets it can engage would be well worth the extra cost of a weapon like the Javelin.
It would be wrong to tailor such a crucial weapons system to only unconventional warfare.

Practically speaking, it would be quite a lot easier to take weapons designed for conventional war and apply them to counterinsurgency, rather than vice-versa.
Sidewinder Zulu is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2012, 09:15 PM   #14
Hotrod525

Hotrod525's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to Hotrod525
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Canadian Army have those for a while... i'm quite surprise the US send those old crap to units when they have plenty of AT4 and Javelin... probly cost related.

And yes, its a old crap. I can offord to say that since i carry one once over some distance and its just to heavy.

Hotrod525 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2012, 09:35 PM   #15
Eddie Baker
Banned
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotrod525 View Post
Canadian Army have those for a while... i'm quite surprise the US send those old crap to units when they have plenty of AT4 and Javelin... probly cost related.

And yes, its a old crap. I can offord to say that since i carry one once over some distance and its just to heavy.
US has had them for a while, too, but just in USSOCOM units.

Was it the M2 or M3 version you used? The M3 version is maybe 2/3 the weight (about 10 kg) of the M2 (around 16).
Eddie Baker is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2012, 04:27 AM   #16
[R-DEV]Ninja2dan
PR:BF2 Developer

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan's Avatar
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

One should note that while the M3 is still heavier than disposables such as the AT-4, the M3 can be lighter-weight "overall" when you use multiple rounds. Having to carry 4-5 M136 in a squad takes up much more weight and bulk than a single M3 and several packed rounds.

And as mentioned above, the M3 is used in roles that the M136 and other weapon systems primarily designed for anti-armor support are just not properly suited. Sure, an AT-4 will punch a hole in the side of a house, but thumping an HEDP or standard HE round from the M3 into the same structure is going to have a much more effective anti-personnel effect.


I have fired the M3 several times, and while it's fun to "play with" it's not something that I personally would want to be stuck humping through the mountains. But when you have limited heavy weapon support and you need to hit a hard target, that M3 will do as much with one round as an AT-4 could do in three. Even the mighty Javelin has many disadvantages when compared to the M3.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 12:54 PM   #17
Doro

Doro's Avatar
Send a message via AIM to Doro
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

The Gustav and Mk-48 are being used by US light infantry units in Afghanistan right now, not just SOCOM.

I've also worked along side with Czech "Wrecker Squads" that use them in combat as well. Much love to our Czech brothers!

Doro is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 06:09 PM   #18
[R-CON]Zeno
PR:BF2 Contributor

[R-CON]Zeno's Avatar
Send a message via MSN to [R-CON]Zeno Send a message via Skype™ to [R-CON]Zeno
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Norway is using the Gustav RFK (recoilles cannon) as a standard AT-weapon along with the Javelin.

the gustav is being put into great use in a-stan, especially with the air burst amunition.

you see the effect at 0:55

Norske styrker i harde kamper | TV 2 Play


[R-DEV]Ninja2dan: Not having a spotter is like masturbating with a cheese grater...mildly amusing at first, but generally painful and bloody in the end.

Thornehaw: If all this have been evidently true, Battlefield is a much scarier and dirtier than ever imagined. Not a conspiracy, but a possibility. If it is true, then trusting another is quite worrisome.
[R-CON]Zeno is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
army, carl, conventional, gustav, testfields, units
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2015, Project Reality.