Message from @Reichtangle
Discord ID: 512393407188959269
Yeah, but think about this: you can fit a larger charge to a rifle grenade
At the cost of range
Or have a proper HEAT round
so you say that the most cost effective option is best, yet you advocated using 2 different systems for rolls that can be filled adequately with one
But which is the best one to settle on?
It might turn out that as with all things, there is no easy answer and the best answer may vary greatly by the resources of a country, the locales it might have to fight in, and the place those grenades might have in the doctrines of the army fielding them.
France and Yugoslavia used rifle grenades to very good effect for decades
France still does
they use an anti personell one and a HEAT one
Everyone else has gone between a dedicated platform and an underbarrel several times
Yeah for the FAMAS
But will those work on the 416?
they work on the NATO standard rifle grenade mounting
far as I can tell
This discussion will go nowhere. For now let's agree that this question is probably more complex than any of us have anywhere close to sufficient qualifications to make any meaningful arguments.
worst case they can add a new muzzle device
the only reason you say that is cause you're wrong but ok
Man fuck you
As I said above.
It might turn out that as with all things, there is no easy answer and the best answer may vary greatly by the resources of a country, the locales it might have to fight in, and the place those grenades might have in the doctrines of the army fielding them.
All of the systems are effective in their own right, it’s not like some other debates
There probably is no true infantry grenade projector master race.
Or at least, not with the current state of affairs.
Bottle launcher with molotov? 🤔
Bottle fields are based on the following principle: a tank drives through a field and crushes several self-igniting bottles, which cause fires and detonate nearby bottles. The tracks throw the burning fluid up on the tank's armour. The tank is forced to stop and is destroyed by tank destroyer teams. A burning field will also cut off infantry from its tanks.
A bottle field can also be used against infantry that is attacking without tank
The same bottles were launched in this Zuckerman bottle launcher
I thought this was <#508382218612375565>
I guess a minefield isn't exactly a gun
The problem with all of your arguments is that you're all trying to figure out which is the best GL system and none of you are taking in to account the role of the GL.
The best GL is the one that fits the current role best, and so far the current role is force multiplier.
It's like a BAR or StG44 in WWII, except you can stick it on all your rifles
So by that metric, you want something that can fire whatever grenade you have for as little cost, weight, and ergonomic disruption as possible
Standalone launchers are niche weapons with few applicable roles, so fucking up your UBGL to make it ammo compatible with a standalone is fucking dumb.
Just make your standalone GL fire purpose built ammo out of a purpose built launcher like the Mikor MGL.
@RoflTank what about a modern BAR? Mag capacity at 20 or 25 to make things a little more easy on the guy that has to carry it, long barrel for standoff engagements, but in a round like 338 lapua to make up for the smaller mag size? The barrel and reciever would be steel to make sure its durable but other parts of the firearm could be made out of high durability polymer to help cut down on weight more
As a force multiplier I think it could work well. I don't intend it to replace the SAW for whatever nation chooses to adopt it so the spergs that are gonna come around and reeeeee about it not being belt fed can fuck off
But... the magazine size and the weight of the gun are some of the main reasons why the gun is obsolescent
That would be heavy as fuck
Also smaller mags add up over time compaired to just throwing belts in a nutsack pouch
These are the same kinda guys who thought bringing back the M14 for use in Afghanistan was a good idea