Automatic grenade launchers are the most kino man portable weapon. You know you're gonna have a bad day when this shit starts shooting
Automatic grenade launchers are the most kino man portable weapon.
Automatic grenade launchers are the most kino man portable weapon. You know you're gonna have a bad day when this shit starts shooting
A high capacity machine gun of grenades, a man could squeeze his finger and remove a village in moments, destroying vehicles and buildings.
>most kino man portable weapon
what is this even supposed to mean?
kino=cool
Satisfying in aesthetic and operation.
Anyone that played fary cry 2 knows.
Once you get the rotary grenade launcher and trucks start mounting mk19 the game can be run by just launching grenades at enemy outpost then walking in to complete the mission.
Just be careful and don't hit your own rover. M2 is most versatile though.
>Arma Tank
I sleep. Doesn't help they never fire HE but even if they did it's a single shot explosive. Scary but managable.
>Autocanon or Grenade Launcher Machine Gun vehicle
Pic related.
yup, or Bad Company 2. Was great to get on a mounted GL and just tear down a village.
I hate the chinks but I have to admit that they are based and grenade launcher-pilled.
I have been wondering why militaries bother with rifles at all when explosive weapons are so much better in seemingly every way. why not just give every guy something like this
even if that particular model is too heavy I'm sure you could engineer something smaller and lighter.
Rifleman walks further per day, operational speed higher, you win the war.
Rifle has higher range. You shoot first. You win the war.
Rifle ammo is 1000 times cheaper. You win the war.
but like I said, you could likely engineer some kind of grenade launcher that's much lighter or even comparable in weight to a rifle, even if you had to also design a new smaller type of ammunition for it.
Range does not seem to be a particularly big concern even in a land as flat and open as ukraine, as in most modern wars the vast majority of fights happen at close range.
And rifle ammo may be cheaper but if your hit rate with a rifle is an order of magnitude lower than it is with a weapon with an explosion radius you have to question the effectiveness of cheap ammo.
I would bet that explosive weapons also have a dramatically higher suppression effect as well, because blind firing them in the vague direction of the enemy like we have seen in ukraine has a decent chance of a hit and even if it doesn't hit it will destroy obstructions like trees unlike spraying your machine gun blindly into vegetation.
>bro, just engineer it lol
any explosive munition that is lighter than a intermediate rifle round would be basically useless, unless you have some sci-fi explosive that we don't know about.
It doesn't need to be lighter than an intermediate rifle round. I was referring to the launcher anyway not the ammo.
If a grenade has 10x the effectiveness of a rifle round it can justify being 10x the weight, carrying less ammunition that is more effective is not inherently negative.
for example look at those bomblets they have beet ripping out of the cluster shells they got from the US, they are tiny and yet still are capable against some degree of armor apparently, in addition to their substantial performance against personnel. You could definitely design a launcher to shoot grenades that size.
>carrying less ammunition that is more effective is not inherently negative.
Better hope no one ever misses or you never need to use suppressing fire
Ukraine tells us absolutely nothing about modern war besides the fact that the rest of the world is nothing but illiterate savages who haven't advanced a day since the 80s. One group of savages just has a few boxes of our infinitely superior future technology.
1990 America could have fucking crushed Ukraine AND Russia ten times over by now.
If your enemy knows that your theoretical engagement range is massively shorter than theirs, they will actively try to force that engagement and you will have no effective response besides "throw more bodies".
Since *everyone* can engage at medium and long range, forcing that engagement is not a priority, but if you show up with a completely new weapon system with a glaring weakness, you have to be retarded to think your enemy is going to fight like you still have rifles.
the ranges are so short because that is the limit that a person can see in practice. any amount of vegetation/building or whatever else that obscures line of sight means your effective 600 meter range with a rifle can't be realized. They are not fighting in brutal close quarters instead of taking potshots at each other at 600 because they prefer to fight in brutal close quarters.
A regular solder in a regular camo uniform standing straight up is very hard to spot against a natural backdrop at 300, let alone when they are trying to hide from potential enemies. when you can't see shit you can't hit shit, that has been the case going back over 100 years now.
like 90% of the combat footage from Ukraine is guys blind firing over trenches holding the gun sideways as they advance or defend and not hitting anyone until they are in literal pissing distance at which point they hose the shit out of the enemy. the average kill range is probably like 20 yards lmao.
>but like I said, you could likely engineer some kind of grenade launcher that's much lighter or even comparable in weight to a rifle
Nonsense. Weapon weight determines felt recoil. Larger projectile means higher recoil, or decreasing velocity. Velocity is ALREADY extremely low.
Extremely low velocity is going to lead to poor accuracy.
>I would bet that explosive weapons also have a dramatically higher suppression effect as well
At extremely close range for less amount of time.
Video of it firing (or launching?):
?si=DrjHc7c0XtdXOYjO&t=42
want one of these
>most kino man portable weapon
That isn't the Neopup PAW-20.