Infantry w/ 100% Explosives

Hypothetically how effective would a military be if it fielded all of its infantry battalions with exclusively explosive weaponry? So grenade launchers, rocket launchers, bazookas, anti-tank launchers like Javelins, anti-air like Stingers etc? And no rifles? What advantages and disadvantages would they have in infantry and armored/tank level combat, whether in field or urban, against an opposing army fielding a more traditional mix of like 80% rifles and 20% explosive launchers for their infantry?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    so basicall modern warfare 2 with noob tubes only

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the scenario. But generally not good. Range is somewhat of an issue, but the bigger problem is infantry won't be able to carry enough ammo for extended engagements and be left extremely vulnerable once the ammo dries up. That's why there's a mix of both bullets and explosives so the riflemen can suppress and the explosives can destroy.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/WK9mENC.jpg

      Motherfuckers would have to have some wild fitness requirements, for one thing.
      Logistics would have to be incredible, given anything with a sufficient boom is heavy.
      Warfare on open ground would favour them I imagine, especially with grenade launchers, but above 400m they're fucked.
      CQB and urban fighting would basically devolve to 'level fucking everything.'
      No way they could clear a building unless that means leave it a burning husk.
      Potential as total war, shock and awe troops but no way are you winning a war with rocket men.

      Javelins have a 2 mile range. Also I forgot to mention mortars in the OP

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A javelin costs about the same as a BMW and weighs damn near as much

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Javelins have a 2 mile range
        A javelin is a fuckhuge and hilariously expensive missile. Even if you go fucking buck wild and have everyone carry one you've barely increased your firepower compared to just schlepping some along in whatever vehicle is handy, and you've made your infantry nearly defenseless in any protracted close range engagement because explosives are bulky and you can't carry nearly as many of them as you can carry bullets. All throughout military history armies have kept the dudes with crossbows and spears around even when they had some sick-ass cannons.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That was trench warfare on the western front for a little while. Nobody wanted to use their firearms, it was just chuck 10 grenades into the enemy trench and advance

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This has been my idea for a long time. Bombs will always be better than bullets. Make it happen Pentagon.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Motherfuckers would have to have some wild fitness requirements, for one thing.
    Logistics would have to be incredible, given anything with a sufficient boom is heavy.
    Warfare on open ground would favour them I imagine, especially with grenade launchers, but above 400m they're fucked.
    CQB and urban fighting would basically devolve to 'level fucking everything.'
    No way they could clear a building unless that means leave it a burning husk.
    Potential as total war, shock and awe troops but no way are you winning a war with rocket men.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pikes are pretty light, and have a 2km range. Switchblades are light, too, but they're also kinda bulky, and it's unlikely that most infantrymen would be carrying more than 1-2 of them.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    wouldve been ok maybe if the xm25 didnt get cancelled

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did somebody mention the OICW?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They already carry lots of explosives, you're simply removing the rifles.
    It would be about the same.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They'd probably be mexican

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >enemy closes to less than 200 meters
    >all weapons rendered useless as none of their fuzes will arm in such a short distance
    nice job retard

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      An HEDM SMAW rocket arms in 17 meters, 40mm grenades arm sub 30 meters. The madlad RPG-7 standard rounds arm in 5 meters. Now who's retarded?

      It's you. And OP. Maneuver warfare via suppressive fire has been the meta since 1944 bro, and until drone swarms happen it's still gonna.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Now who's retarded?
        you for thinking you're going to kill someone with an RPG from 15 feet away and be totally fine

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He's not saying you literally have to hit someone point blank with the thing, but 200 meters is a bogus minimum arming distance and you know it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, what if the enemy is 15 feet away and you have nothing but explosives each to fight with.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      moron what heretofore undiscovered variety of super weapon do you have where an INFANTRYMAN is carrying an explosive with a minimum arming distance of 200 meters? Davy crockets?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        yes.
        Every infantryman should have two.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It would probably work pretty good if something like an XM25 was used. Outside of clearing buildings, it would probably be more effective then conventional kinetic rifles.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Almost as if there is this funny looking tube thing that people drop shells into that has been a staple of warfare for nearly the last century.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The improvement in spring technology has really increased the range on mortars in the last 20 years.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Guided HE is indeed the best way to remove threats, but lightweight slugs are still needed for suppression. Heavy weapons are... heavy.

    That said, the OICW wasn't a bad *concept*, the technology just wasn't there to make it work. Replace the 5.56 with a C-T or caseless PDW, increase the HE in the frag round (which means either a new composition of explosive, or a larger, heavier round), add a smart scope that talks to the soldier's AR visor, and keep the whole thing to a reasonable weight, and it would work just fine. I'm not sure that it's possible, yet, but we're a lot closer than we were 20 years ago. Pity that 10+ years of C-T/caseless R&D got flushed away in favor of a new M-14.

    All that said, the more likely outcome will be the proliferation of guided artillery/mortars/kamikaze drones. AR (really, MR) is coming, eventually, and with it, soldiers will have the ability to rapidly call in highly-accurate HE from afar onto any targets their sensor suites can detect. Infantrymen will become sensors in a sensor-shooter system. Of course, they'll still have plenty of firepower for defending themselves, or for operating in environments where calls for fire are not appropriate (like, say, buildings that you don't want to raze to the ground).

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you could somehow hypothetically solve all the logistical and weight issues, it would be a superior army. If I had a mecha army I wouldn't field anything less than 20 mm.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If this was a parallel universe where every historical event played out identically but tech was somehow changed to reflect the lack of ballistic weapons it'd probably be reasonably effective. Small caliber frag/airburst weapons like the XM-25 would be highly prioritized in terms of development and smart munitions in general would probably be a lot more advanced than ours out of necessity.
    As for a force equipped with existing explosives, it'd have to be almost all vehicles armed with HE autocannons and ATGMs. Our man portable explosive weapons were designed with the assumption that rifles also existed and could be used, so with the possible exception of grenade launchers, there's just nothing that can provide long term 'foightin capabilities like a rifle can.
    In short, nah it would suck ass.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm retarded and didn't read the word "infantry"
      I suppose nothing much changes from what I've said, just scratch the "only HE autocannons and ATGMs" bit since we're allowed to use regular vehicles as well.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        why do they call it infantry if newborns cannot legally purchase firearms?

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not as effective, because explosive rounds favor larger and larger weapons, making the number of them infantry can carry effectively very small.
    Yes, they are important to have and can be useful in many scenarios, but the comparatively high cost, smaller numbers, and the greater difficulty of transport means that explosive-only infantry would have poorer mobility, endurance, and more inflexible combat doctrine (no ability to clear rooms, risk of blue/blue in close quarters much higher, reliant on more complex logistics and a higher overall technology base just for basic functionality).
    Consider, an 80/20 split of normal guns and dedicated HE/HEAT can still do a lot of damage to buildings and vehicles with well placed explosives, but can also clear and hold buildings, suppress targets for prolonged standoffs, pick off single individual enemies without expending a significant fraction of their ammo.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Only will work if you can develop battle suits ala Space Marines or Battletech.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the main problem with effective explosive weapons is that theyre heavy and big. the smallest ones that are still useful are 40mm grenade launchers and hand grenades.

    i dont think you'd ever want to arm your soldiers with 100% all high explosive weapons because the effectiveness and amount of ammo you can carry for simple rifles is just too good. but with the introduction of more and more UGVs and methods of last-km tactical logistics allowing soldiers to carry and move around far more heavy weaponry you could see armies focusing more on heavy weapons (urban warfare wall busting rockets, automatic grenade launchers on a motorized carriage, UGVs carrying dozens of spare grenades/rockets for infantry) and using a small,light and compact rifle as mostly a backup weapon.

Your email address will not be published.