Military type questions that ive wondered

[Nusselt]

firstly why dont the americans get rocket propelled grenades, they seem to be very useful, every force that america comes across in the world seems to consist of AK47s and RPGs


and secondly what are those arrow symbols on the tanks and APCs for??? some point left other up, what do they mean??

[Dave]

Originally posted by Nusselt
firstly why dont the americans get rocket propelled grenades, they seem to be very useful, every force that america comes across in the world seems to consist of AK47s and RPGs

Because the RPG is actually a pretty useless weapon against a tank, unless you hit it in the rear.

And secondly, because America has far more advanced hand held anti-tank weapons, give me a few minutes, and I'm sure I can get some links.

[edit some American weapons]

M72 LAW 66
This 66mm HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) is a one-shot missile contained in its own launcher tube. Once fired, the tube is discarded. The weapon has a range of 300m, penetrates up to 300mm of armour, yet measures around 65cm long (closed) and weighs under 3kg. The 66mm LAW is being phased out, but there are a good many still in stock, and the Regiment like them because a man can strap one or two to the top of his bergen, giving him the ability to knock out armoured vehicles and hardened positions for a relatively small weight penalty.

Milan
Milan is a wire-guided anti-tank missile system which can be mounted on a vehicle. It has a maximum range of 2,000 metres. In the latest version, the missile is 1200 mm long, weighs 12 kg, and will penetrate over 1,000 mm of armour. The firing post has a built-in infra-red thermal imaging sight. Milan is highly effective against fixed positions as well as armoured and soft-skinned vehicles, and adds considerable punch to a vehicle mounted patrol. Milan is due to be replaced in service by Trigat, although this is a heavier weapon less well suited to the Regiment's SOPs.

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by Nusselt
firstly why dont the americans get rocket propelled grenades, they seem to be very useful, every force that america comes across in the world seems to consist of AK47s and RPGs


and secondly what are those arrow symbols on the tanks and APCs for??? some point left other up, what do they mean??

The Americans have wire guided missiles. Go to any military website and compare accuracies.

[Jammers]

The arrows are to make them easily recognisable as allies to passersby. Unfortunatley it doesn't work.

[Anaximander]

What is a RPG????

[Matrim]

Originally posted by Anaximander
What is a RPG????

It's a Role Playing Game.


Somehow these silly men have gotten it mixed up with weapons lol!







Matrim

[Anaximander]

Oh yeah! I can almost see them. The Iraqi special forces, armed with numerous RPG's and a AK 47.

The RPG's, to distract the small groups of Soldiers from war.
The AK 47 to settle the rule debating between the dedicated and adsorbed AD&D, Rolemaster, etc fans.
That would be great: Stop the war AND genocide the RPG'lers...

[Vermillion]

Fistly, everyone had Wire Guided missiles. They are in a different category as they are Squad anti-tank weapons, rather than personal Anti-Tank weapons. It takes 3-4 people to function as a Dragon team.

By the way, at the time of the fall of the USSR, TOW missiles were one of the places that the Soviets had the edge. The AT Sniper and Metis-M were better than their US counterparts, and the modern AT-16 Vikhr is supposed to be quite remarkable.


Anyways, the weapon everyone is used to seeing on TV and the movies is the RPG-7 or RPG-16. These are old, I mean quite old, weapons which are now used as bunker busters or anti-infantry weapons. They have little chance of defeating modern armour.

The Soviets even abandoned those in favour of the RPG-18 which is a one-shot disposable AT weapon, much like the US made LAW.

[Atamur]

Originally posted by Anaximander
What is a RPG????

http://www.g2mil.com/RPG.htm

[M_Drudge]

What a bunch of Amateurs.

The US uses the AT-4 Missile, the Dragon, and the Javelin. Those are all FF weapons (fire and forget). The TOW, oth, is NOT fire and forget.

The AT-4 and Dragon are aimed by the person firing the weapon and must be ranged and led, just like with a round from a gun, and exposes the firer for the duration of targeting. These are slowly being used-up and phased-out as the Javelin becomes THE man-portable anti-armor weapon.

The Army doesn't use the LAW anymore.

The Javelin is a true FF weapon in that it tracks, locks-on, and manuevers its way to the target, letting the firer to hit the trigger withthe weapon pointed in the general direction of the target after lock-on and get the Hell out of there.

The TOW missile, on the other hand, must be guided to the target while it is in-flight through signals passed along hair-thin wires which spool-out behind the missile during flight. This exposes the firer for the duration of the missile flight.

Every single one of the above are better than the standard RPG.

As for the symbols you see on vehicles, they are a way of identifying the vehicle by the element they belong to. For example:

^ is normally for "Alpha" Company

> is normally for "Bravo" Company

< is normally for "Charlie" Company

|> is normally for "Delta" Company

|| is normally for "Headquarters" Company


Anything else you want to know about the nuts & bolts of the US military, let me know.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
The Javelin is a true FF weapon in that it tracks, locks-on, and manuevers its way to the target, letting the firer to hit the trigger withthe weapon pointed in the general direction of the target after lock-on and get the Hell out of there.

I didn't read the opening few lines and therefore I ironically assumed it meant Friendly Fire.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by M_Drudge
What a bunch of Amateurs.

The US uses the AT-4 Missile, the Dragon, and the Javelin. Those are all FF weapons (fire and forget). The TOW, oth, is NOT fire and forget.

heheh saying amateur and being wrong is a bad combination. The Dragon is a MAW (medium anti-tank weapon) and is wire guided. It's crew served, and has a maximum range of 1000m (wire is actually over 1100). It also leaves you exposed. The Javelin is the replacement for the Dragon, but is so damn expensive, that we haven't converted, though we were receiving training on how to use it.

Originally posted by M_Drudge
The AT-4 and Dragon are aimed by the person firing the weapon and must be ranged and led, just like with a round from a gun, and exposes the firer for the duration of targeting. These are slowly being used-up and phased-out as the Javelin becomes THE man-portable anti-armor weapon.

AT-4 is going nowhere. It's still in use with no plans for leaving since it's a LAW (not to be confused with the M72. LAW is actually a weapon TYPE rather than name), while the Javelin is a MAW..completely different weapons systems.

Originally posted by M_Drudge
The Army doesn't use the LAW anymore..

Wrong. infantry units still use a modified LAW as bunker busters but the stock is primarily gone. We could still draw them as late as a couple years ago, but never did. I'm a civilian now, but they still teach people how to use them.

Originally posted by M_Drudge
Every single one of the above are better than the standard RPG

Not particularly, as they serve different purposes. The standard RPG's equivilant would be the M203 and AT-4 weapons systems, though it's a hell of a lot more fun to bring in a couple Mk-19's and a bushmaster 25mm or 3.

[Radical Edward]

see now, if some of you spent as much time studying diplomacy, environmentalism and such instead of weaponry, the world would be a much better place.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
see now, if some of you spent as much time studying diplomacy, environmentalism and such instead of weaponry, the world would be a much better place.

I was a soldier for 7 years...diplomacy "wasn't my job." However, I got paid to play with all the cool toys, so....

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
I was a soldier for 7 years...diplomacy "wasn't my job." However, I got paid to play with all the cool toys, so....

oh I know of you It's just those people who sit there reading books for no reason on military hardware that they will never see strike me as a bit well, sad. Similar to armchair football critics who are too fat to move.

[M_Drudge]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
heheh saying amateur and being wrong is a bad combination. The Dragon is a MAW (medium anti-tank weapon) and is wire guided. It's crew served, and has a maximum range of 1000m (wire is actually over 1100). It also leaves you exposed. The Javelin is the replacement for the Dragon, but is so damn expensive, that we haven't converted, though we were receiving training on how to use it.

AT-4 is going nowhere. It's still in use with no plans for leaving since it's a LAW (not to be confused with the M72. LAW is actually a weapon TYPE rather than name), while the Javelin is a MAW..completely different weapons systems.

Wrong. infantry units still use a modified LAW as bunker busters but the stock is primarily gone. We could still draw them as late as a couple years ago, but never did. I'm a civilian now, but they still teach people how to use them.


Not particularly, as they serve different purposes. The standard RPG's equivilant would be the M203 and AT-4 weapons systems, though it's a hell of a lot more fun to bring in a couple Mk-19's and a bushmaster 25mm or 3.

I stand corrected. I was drawing on memory, and I never messed with the Dragon, but I did mess with the AT-4 and the TOW. I viewed a test firing of the javelin.

But, the gist of my post WAS correct, as we do NOT use Milans!

[Ditcher]

Obvisously we have persons with information here so whats the basic oob of US mot/ab divison? Also number of tanks, helicopters if you may.

Thanks in advance

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by M_Drudge

Anything else you want to know about the nuts & bolts of the US military, let me know.

How come the US Army always assumes everybody will play by their rules and then complains about it when they do not?

Surely your opponent realizes as well as you do that they dont stand a chance if they play by your rules, so is US command truly arrogant enough to believe their opponents would be stupid enough to stick to those 'rules' ?

It's akin to the cheetah complaining to the antilope "stop hopping about ffs, I can only catch you if you move in a straight line!"

[BLACK_OPPS]

americans have used rifle grenades in WW2 and they also had a rifle grenade for there M14

isrealis use modifed m16s with rifle grenades
belive the US marines tried to use rifle grenades on the m16 but wimped out

but the american milltiary has relied on CAS [close air surport] more than explosive infantry fire power

and yes before the pro americans out here point out yes the americans do have the LAW at there disposal but thats not as universaly effective as the RPG witch can take up a number of diffrent roles from anything from shooting at helicopters to storming trenches

[s|k]

Originally Posted by BLACK_OPPS

americans have used rifle grenades in WW2 and they also had a rifle grenade for there M14

isrealis use modifed m16s with rifle grenades
belive the US marines tried to use rifle grenades on the m16 but wimped out

but the american milltiary has relied on CAS [close air surport] more than explosive infantry fire power

and yes before the pro americans out here point out yes the americans do have the LAW at there disposal but thats not as universaly effective as the RPG witch can take up a number of diffrent roles from anything from shooting at helicopters to storming trenches

I was a US Marine.
We do use the M203, wich are grenade launchers attached to the M16A2 service rifle.

As for RPG's, Marines have something much deadlier. Its the MK19 it shoots HE (High Explosive) ordinance at rapid fire: " It can fire a variety of 40mm grenades". Soviet weapons are shoot once, this bad ass will empty a hundred grenades into your vehicle within 10 seconds.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by M_Drudge

Anything else you want to know about the nuts & bolts of the US military, let me know.

Why do you more often than not kill your allies than anyone else. How come you always ALWAYS end up killing 4 times as many civlians as military combatants.

Why do you constantly bitch about the fact that the Iraqi army and combatants loyal to sadamm are not assembling in the middle of the desert so you can proceed to bomb them to death from afar.

Guerrila warfare was the ONLY way there were ever going to fight you, it seemed the US military thought different. How come?

RPG's are just fun to shoot in general, thats why they are still used. Every terrorist wants to put the FUN back in Fundamentilist Killing.

[WarFalcon]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Why do you more often than not kill your allies than anyone else. How come you always ALWAYS end up killing 4 times as many civlians as military combatants.

Why do you constantly bitch about the fact that the Iraqi army and combatants loyal to sadamm are not assembling in the middle of the desert so you can proceed to bomb them to death from afar.

You've answered your own questions without knowing it.

We 'always' (not accurate in general, but in a few specific cases) have more civilian casualities because our enemies slink around in populated regions so they can use hit and run tactics.

We always complain about them using these guerrila tactics because they result in more needless civilian deaths.

[deerbarn]

Originally Posted by Fifth_teletubbie

How come the US Army always assumes everybody will play by their rules and then complains about it when they do not?

Surely your opponent realizes as well as you do that they dont stand a chance if they play by your rules, so is US command truly arrogant enough to believe their opponents would be stupid enough to stick to those 'rules' ?

It's akin to the cheetah complaining to the antilope "stop hopping about ffs, I can only catch you if you move in a straight line!"

Well in truth if america really wanted to win they would just nuke em to buggery

[s|k]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Why do you more often than not kill your allies than anyone else.

Because our smart bombs are so damn smart, that they're eccentric, and once and awhile a little change livens up the monotony of killing innocent civilians all the time.

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

How come you always ALWAYS end up killing 4 times as many civlians as military combatants.

It's really a thin line between civilian and military combatants, I mean they both have two legs and two arms (well, before we bomb them at least), and who's to say that all those women and children are so innocent anyways. I bet they've stolen an apple once or twice to fend of starvation. You see nobody is innocent really.

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Why do you constantly bitch about the fact that the Iraqi army and combatants loyal to sadamm are not assembling in the middle of the desert so you can proceed to bomb them to death from afar.

Well, when you pay the damn corrupt Iraqi general to do a job, you expect him to follow through.

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Guerrila warfare was the ONLY way there were ever going to fight you, it seemed the US military thought different. How come?.

US military thinking is quite complex really. It's very different from normal thinking. For instance why drop an atom bomb on a military target when you can bomb a civilian city? Or why increase the risk of innacurate bombings by forcing your pilots to fly such long hours that they need to take methamphetamines to stay awake? It's because military thinking says thats the way to go. It's very very complex thinking.

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

RPG's are just fun to shoot in general, thats why they are still used. Every terrorist wants to put the FUN back in Fundamentilist Killing.

Yessir, you got that, but the best fun is in strapping nail ladden bombs onto your fellow country man or woman and sending him or her to blow them selves to bits in order to kill "soft targets," whatever the **** that's supposed to mean.

[W]

Was it necesarry to dig this thread up? (Oh and the M72 is great; two for each man (that doesn't have any other extra armament) and you can cost the enemy quite alot should the opportunity arrise. Mobility++)

[s|k]

heh, I didn't realize how old it was ://

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by BLACK_OPPS

...

You're doing a lot of bumping today.

[wu_trax]

well, these anti-tank-weapons are only usefull if there are tanks to use them against. you cant just throw a grenade into a group of civilians when you are supposed to 'free these people from the worlds evil', can you?

[Intrepid00]

I saw a video of US forces testing a new Anti-Tank Weapon that flew at the target low to the ground shot up and went straight through down the top compelety blowing the Abraham to tiny itsy scraps of metal.

Now, some mass produced cheap knock offs of Cold War era weapons or high tech weapons

[W]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

well, these anti-tank-weapons are only usefull if there are tanks to use them against. you cant just throw a grenade into a group of civilians when you are supposed to 'free these people from the worlds evil', can you?

Oh shut up.

[LHC]

I like the way people used this thread about military hardware specifics to take a dig at the US friendly fire and not really freeing civilians.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I saw a video of US forces testing a new Anti-Tank Weapon that flew at the target low to the ground shot up and went straight through down the top compelety blowing the Abraham to tiny itsy scraps of metal.

Its called terminal pop-up, its a feature that has long been common on anti-shipping missiles.

[Luckeh!!!!]

Originally Posted by Dave

Because the RPG is actually a pretty useless weapon against a tank, unless you hit it in the rear.

And secondly, because America has far more advanced hand held anti-tank weapons, give me a few minutes, and I'm sure I can get some links.

[edit some American weapons]

M72 LAW 66
This 66mm HEAT (high explosive anti-tank) is a one-shot missile contained in its own launcher tube. Once fired, the tube is discarded. The weapon has a range of 300m, penetrates up to 300mm of armour, yet measures around 65cm long (closed) and weighs under 3kg. The 66mm LAW is being phased out, but there are a good many still in stock, and the Regiment like them because a man can strap one or two to the top of his bergen, giving him the ability to knock out armoured vehicles and hardened positions for a relatively small weight penalty.

Milan
Milan is a wire-guided anti-tank missile system which can be mounted on a vehicle. It has a maximum range of 2,000 metres. In the latest version, the missile is 1200 mm long, weighs 12 kg, and will penetrate over 1,000 mm of armour. The firing post has a built-in infra-red thermal imaging sight. Milan is highly effective against fixed positions as well as armoured and soft-skinned vehicles, and adds considerable punch to a vehicle mounted patrol. Milan is due to be replaced in service by Trigat, although this is a heavier weapon less well suited to the Regiment's SOPs.

are those quotes correct? 1000mm of armour? that's 100cm or 1m, a tank would be decimated, the Challenger II main turret can only penetrate roughly 400mm...

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Luckeh!!!!

are those quotes correct? 1000mm of armour? that's 100cm or 1m, a tank would be decimated, the Challenger II main turret can only penetrate roughly 400mm...

yes, the milan is some kind of missle especially designed to be used against tanks. but then, tanks dont seem to be especially usefull today anyways.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

tanks dont seem to be especially usefull today anyways.

Helicopter Gunships is where it's at.

[Dace]

Originally Posted by BLACK_OPPS

and yes before the pro americans out here point out yes the americans do have the LAW at there disposal but thats not as universaly effective as the RPG witch can take up a number of diffrent roles from anything from shooting at helicopters to storming trenches

If i remember correctly in "Black Hawk Down" (the book and as such the real event and not the film) 126 or 127 RPG's were shot at one of the Helicopters (which went down) before one hit.



RPG ACCURACY +++++

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Its called terminal pop-up, its a feature that has long been common on anti-shipping missiles.

Yeah, but did it fit onto your shoulder before now. No.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

tanks dont seem to be especially usefull today anyways.

I think that depends what your opponent(s) have in the way of modern anti-tank weapons.

[Intrepid00]

Tanks are only as good as their support infantry and air wise. Tanks for the most part only useful to null out the opposing sides and protection from small arms fire.

[s|k]

Hey did you know that the tows, the RPG's, etc you guys are talking about, aren't just toys, but destructive weapons that kill people?

Did you know that they disembowel fathers, burn sons, dismember children, fry mothers, maim sisters? Did you know THAT THEY ****ING END THE LIVES OF PEOPLE? people like yourselves, people that care, love, hate, get irritated, angry, are curious, etc?

Did you know that when people that love and live die THEY NEVER COME BACK. THEY ****ING DIE JUST LIKE YOU WILL SOMEDAY.

I really think you ought to consider what it is you're talking about from a more indepth perspective.

Really get to the bottom of what a bullet, missle, grendade, and such mean for people who experience these things at a close distance, and not as some skinny pimpled nerd who cheers death and death, and oh death, and more death, and of course death, and maiming from the safety of their plush home while nonchalantly discussing the stats of a gun THAT ****ING KILLS.

**** YOU IDIOTS. I HOPE YOU END UP ****ING EATING THE VERY MOTHER****ING GRENDADES YOU GET OFF ON.

anyways, how about that MK-19? bad ass eh?

[W]

You think any soldier doesn't consider this?

Oh and the MK-19 is indeed hot. Not exactly an anti-tank weapon per se, but multipurpose. Certainly effective against infantry...

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I think that depends what your opponent(s) have in the way of modern anti-tank weapons.

since there is no match for the us-airforce right now, i dont think anyone would be able to use tanks, thus there is no need for anti-tank-weapons

[s|k]

Originally Posted by W

You think any soldier doesn't consider this?

Oh and the MK-19 is indeed hot. Not exactly an anti-tank weapon per se, but multipurpose. Certainly effective against infantry...

I think that most soldiers may say something along the lines of "damn, I'm glad that wasn't me"

and btw its against the geneva convention to use the Mk-19 and the m-2 50 cal against personel

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Dace

Helicopter Gunships is where it's at.

bah, poor humple peasants shoot down your helicopter gunships with their rifles!!! your infidel weaponry will never defeat us. your troops are commiting suicide against the walls of Baghdad as we speak!!!

[W]

Originally Posted by s|k

I think that most soldiers may say something along the lines of "damn, I'm glad that wasn't me"

and btw its against the geneva convention to use the Mk-19 and the m-2 50 cal against personel

What part of the convention is it against?

[s|k]

Originally Posted by W

What part of the convention is it against?

I don't really know, its what they told us in the Marines when they trained us with them. They would say: "You're not allowed to shoot at people with these, its against the geneva convention, so you have to shoot at their gas mask, their helmet, or some other part of their gear." Which was a joke, because you don't have to be hit by a 50 caliber M-2 round for it to kill you, if flies a couple feet away from your head it will still tear your face off.

That scene, in that movie "The Jackal" with Bruce Wills where he shoots that guys arm off is complete bullshit, he wouldve been dead that instant, and he wouldve lost more than just his arm.

Btw, you shouldve heard the speeches our company's commanding officer would give us:"You have to want to kill, you have to have that desire to put a bullet in a man's head near and dear in your heart" No reflexivity or consideration at all.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by s|k

Btw, you shouldve heard the speeches our company's commanding officer would give us:"You have to want to kill, you have to have that desire to put a bullet in a man's head near and dear in your heart" No reflexivity or consideration at all.

This is why the US Army and Marines are so awful at peacekeeping.

[Batman]

i always thought the arrows on the tanks were a sort of 'this way up' type thing.

[Embroglio]

Holy cow Batman! That was kinda lol.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

bah, poor humple peasants shoot down your helicopter gunships with their rifles!!! your infidel weaponry will never defeat us. your troops are commiting suicide against the walls of Baghdad as we speak!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...negro_plane_dc