Infantry Discussion Thread 6: True Korea Edition

[The Kievan People]

Carl Gustav seems to have more potential for killing everything other than tanks. Especially over great distances.

With a programmable time fuze it would make the make the XM25 weep bitter tears. And a spin-stabilized HEDP might not penetrate MBTs, but it should wreck just about anything else at great distances. Especially with one of those fancy new reactive liner shaped charges.

But I guess this depends on how much you value tank killing vs pocket artillery.

[Aqizithiuda]

Carl Gustav seems to have more potential for killing everything other than tanks. Especially over great distances.

With a programmable time fuze it would make the make the XM25 weep bitter tears. And a spin-stabilized HEDP might not penetrate MBTs, but it should wreck just about anything else at great distances. Especially with one of those fancy new reactive liner shaped charges.

But I guess this depends on how much you value tank killing vs pocket artillery.

Is there something about the RPG-7 that prevents it from doing any of that? I don't think an airburst shell would be out of the question, and the RPG-7, or it's Chinese clone, seem to have the other areas covered as well.

[Eisarn-Ara]

I never have to ask for the IDTs opinion. But now I am

Would you rather a multi-purpose assault weapon more in the vein of the Carl Gustav (Grg m/48), or the RPG-7?

I'm at an actual loss for choice. I like the RPG-7 and m/48 almost equally; having used the RPG-7(V2), I am inherently biased to it, but I have absolute confidence in its ability, and its pretty well-established its a very effective weapon; probably the most effective really.
To the same note, I love the Carl Gustav; its general use, its effectiveness and its design have always interested me and, having fired one a few times, I take some interest in it in that regard. Its clearly good enough, being one of (the, really) longest serving anti-fortification/tank weapons in the world of the particular type.

Carl Gustav; I mean, really, it's a proven tool; and holyfuck does it pack a wallop.

[The balkens]

Pretty sure the Gustav doesn't have as much penetration as the PG7-VR. Pretty sure the RPG-7 is also significantly lighter. Additionally wikipedia is telling me the Gustav's range against tanks is actually shorter than the RPG's. Though it has significantly better range overall. I still have to give it to the RPG tho.

Correct.

The big advantage of the RPG is that you're not limited by bore size, and you don't need a rifled barrel. I think that, from a design stand point, this makes the RPG-7 superior, since it has better potential for upgrade than the Gustav. On the other hand, the Gustav is still around despite any perceived lack of futureproofing.

Correct and agreed.

The RPG-7 is a substantially superior weapon. I agree.

Eh, i always was a fan of it. the RPG-2 in particular.

So simple....

[Puzikas]

Id just like to note that the RPG-7s Thermobaric warhead has more explosive yield than the m/48s

[Radicchio]

mmmmmmmm thermoberic...

[The Kievan People]

Id just like to note that the RPG-7s Thermobaric warhead has more explosive yield than the m/48s

But can it blow up squad a kilometer and a half away?

I doubt many other shoulder fired weapons can compare to this. That aren't guided missiles.

[Puzikas]

Presently, no. The issue I see with it is that, well, the RPG-7 has a kill fuse that detonates at a distance of 1,000 meters +/- 30m.

Its not integral to the RPG-7s design, so there is, theoretically, nothing stopping it from happening, besides, you know, cost.
That said, given the M/48 already HAS the capability, it goes have an advantage in that field, for sure.

It seems far too much like our standard East vs West debate really. I cede, naturally, both are excellent systems. I even admitted this in my first post about it, both are excellent in their respective roles. Its just not a discussion I see much here, the deployment aspects of assault weapons.

I actually started this because im fucking sick of swords

[Dostanuot Loj]

Why no love for the AT4?

[Korva]

I actually started this because im fucking sick of swords

the hero IDT needs

[Puzikas]

Why no love for the AT4?

Different role.

[The Kievan People]

well played

I'd wager the Carl Gustav is more accurate at greatly extended range though. A spin-stabilized shell will have an edge over a fin stabilized rocket.

But this goes back to "for what purpose?" I certainly agree have their merits. Personally the RPG-7 is something I'd stick in squads and the Carl Gustav is something I'd give to weapons companies.

[Aqizithiuda]

I actually started this because im fucking sick of swords

the hero IDT needs

I'm seriously contemplating trying to start a discussion on the proper length of pikes and deployment of pikemen, just to undo Puz's good work.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Why no love for the AT4?

Different role.

I'd argue that the RPG-7 is closer in role to the AT4 then it is to the Charlie G though. At least in terms of distribution.

[Eisarn-Ara]

the hero IDT needs

I'm seriously contemplating trying to start a discussion on the proper length of pikes and deployment of pikemen, just to undo Puz's good work.

In fact to get the ball rolling on the crazy bullshit this mostly-toxic thread-set is famous for; let's have a bit of either potentially retarded or awesome stuff. What are the merits of a recoil-less-autocannon firing 75mm rocket/scramjet-assisted shells (inspired by that weird jap Ho gyrojet cannon, and some of those insane luftwaffe autocannons) being used both as an emplacement, fortification and potentially heavy-duty infantry support vehicle' kit component (basically used & abused as company assets)?


This of course, is the biproduct of a culture sandwiched on the black-sea coast that took to early forms of rocketry (even during the late middle-ages; and majorly including Congreve and Hale-rocket tech (more-so Hale rocket later down the line for arty) like a meth-head to a trailer park in Tampa Bay.

[Puzikas]

In terms of distribution, sure.

But in terms of use, deployment, and tactics, no.

[Dostanuot Loj]

In terms of distribution, sure.

But in terms of use, deployment, and tactics, no.

That's not entirely true however. The targets are the same, as is the employment of organic firepower at the squad/section level.

There is something to be said about the distribution of systems of similar immediate-on-target capability as the RPG-7 or Charlie G to more hands with less crew.

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding which is better, but we need to keep the sword and pike debate down!

[Puzikas]

In terms of distribution, sure.

But in terms of use, deployment, and tactics, no.

That's not entirely true however. The targets are the same, as is the employment of organic firepower at the squad/section level.

There is something to be said about the distribution of systems of similar immediate-on-target capability as the RPG-7 or Charlie G to more hands with less crew.

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding which is better, but we need to keep the sword and pike debate down!

While the intended targets are the same, the actual deployment isnt as much. The RPG-7, in the Soviet model, is deployed with a variety of ammunition for the purpose of engagement of infantry, armored vehicles, and structures. On the combat level, soldiers maneuver, fire, relocate an fire again, or fire multiple times in synchronization with other gunners for maximum effect. In addition, the rapid change in ammunition (I.E, the ability to switch from a Fragmentation warhead to a Thermbaric or HE warhead) is something the AT-4 cant due.

Compare that to, the AT-4, which is individually utilized to engage targets, and can really do so a single time. Now, not having done the same thing with the AT-4 as I have with the RPG-7, I dont know how it is the US teaches its soldiers to employ the AT-4. But from understanding of disposable launchers, there's something to be said about how one utilizes them in combat. While they both overlap in some roles, they have different tactics governing their use and how to best employ them.

Not that I disagree with you per se, but to me, the two fill different roles; The AT-4 is more analogous to the RPG-26 (And vice versa), while the m/48, the Mk. 153 SMAW fill the role of the RPG-7 better in the Western world than the disposable launchers do.

[Radicchio]

Should i issue gasmasks to my infantry for squad training? I am thinking yes and i am even thinking yes for operations but i figured i would ask here before i just jump into something.

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Should i issue gasmasks to my infantry for squad training? I am thinking yes and i am even thinking yes for operations but i figured i would ask here before i just jump into something.

I do, personally. Just remember, gas mask stormtroopers are a terrible idea.

[Immoren]

Should i issue gasmasks to my infantry for squad training? I am thinking yes and i am even thinking yes for operations but i figured i would ask here before i just jump into something.

That should be part of every soldier's basic skills.

[Fordorsia]

the hero IDT needs

I'm seriously contemplating trying to start a discussion on the proper length of pikes and deployment of pikemen, just to undo Puz's good work.

Is there all that much to discuss? I guess a pike's length depends on the time period, how big you want your shields to be if you have them at all, and how flexible the pikemen need to be. Obviously there's no one best length.

[Bezombia]

I never have to ask for the IDTs opinion. But now I am

Would you rather a multi-purpose assault weapon more in the vein of the Carl Gustav (Grg m/48), or the RPG-7?

I'm at an actual loss for choice. I like the RPG-7 and m/48 almost equally; having used the RPG-7(V2), I am inherently biased to it, but I have absolute confidence in its ability, and its pretty well-established its a very effective weapon; probably the most effective really.
To the same note, I love the Carl Gustav; its general use, its effectiveness and its design have always interested me and, having fired one a few times, I take some interest in it in that regard. Its clearly good enough, being one of (the, really) longest serving anti-fortification/tank weapons in the world of the particular type.

Follow up question:

Can the RPG-7 fire nuclear projectiles?

[The Archangel Conglomerate]

Most probably.

[Aqizithiuda]

I'm seriously contemplating trying to start a discussion on the proper length of pikes and deployment of pikemen, just to undo Puz's good work.

Is there all that much to discuss? I guess a pike's length depends on the time period, how big you want your shields to be if you have them at all, and how flexible the pikemen need to be. Obviously there's no one best length.

Well, obviously 24ft long pike is too long, and we have a record of pikes of a similar length or longer being held by the front rank of enemy infantry and other troops going in under the pikes to attack.

Regarding shields, there is no pike length incompatible with them.

What we need to consider is just how more manoeuvrable a pike block equipped with 16ft pikes is compared to one armed with 25ft pikes. From Arrian we can deduce that the longer pikes were still quite manoeuvrable, since Alexander once turned his phalanx around when the enemy was within bow shot (anywhere between 80 and 200 metres) and coming on at a rapid pace. On the other hand, no one has yet come up with a satisfactory explanation as to how the Macedonian pikes were managed on the march, so perhaps the shorter pikes might be better rounded.