- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Army soldiers to get powerful new Swedish-made tank-stopper
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:20 pm
Ok, there's something here I don't understand.
They've had these weapons for quite a while now but haven't issued them to front line troops, choosing instead to give them inferior weapons?
Why? How can this be?
LINK
quote:
The 15-pound guns, which soldiers hold just above the shoulder to fire, were previously only issued to Special Forces
quote:
Additionally, the M3 will provide our soldiers a cannon-caliber weapon that will reduce the dependence and cost associated to artillery and air support. Commanders now can deploy his units to any combat environment without overburdening his soldiers or need to trade lethality for portability.
quote:
The standard infantry munitions soldiers have used for more than a decade in Afghanistan are not reusable and have a range of less than a third that of the Carl Gustaf, Belanger said. That means insurgents can attack U.S. soldiers from a safe distance.
They've had these weapons for quite a while now but haven't issued them to front line troops, choosing instead to give them inferior weapons?
Why? How can this be?
LINK
15
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:22 pm to beejon
The politicians and the corporations, man. :puffingondoobie:
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:24 pm to beejon
quote:
They've had these weapons for quite a while now but haven't issued them to front line troops, choosing instead to give them inferior weapons?
Why? How can this be?
You are given this choice before battle...
1. Tank stopper with maybe 5 rounds
or...
2. A semi auto rifle with a 30 round interchangable magazine and literally hundreds of rounds on you followed by another guy with cans of thousands of rounds.
What are you choosing?
I think this gives them the option of sending one guy with the tank stopper and the rest will continue to use good old 5.56 terrorist stoppers by the thousands.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:24 pm to beejon
quote:
They've had these weapons for quite a while now but haven't issued them to front line troops, choosing instead to give them inferior weapons?
Why? How can this be?
They're expensive as frick and most of the regular Army infantry units don't see that much close-up combat. JSOC and the like test them and if they're deemed viable for regular infantry then they get them.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:25 pm to beejon
maybe they didnt see the need for frontline troops to have them because they already had air/infantry support. 
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:27 pm to beejon
How often are our soldiers fighting tanks these days?
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:27 pm to beejon
quote:
They've had these weapons for quite a while now but haven't issued them to front line troops, choosing instead to give them inferior weapons?
Why? How can this be?
Everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING, revolves around $$$$$.
$$$$$>Human Life to the DOD
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:28 pm to beejon
The poor countries that we invade can't afford tanks, so it's a moot point.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:30 pm to beejon
These aren't just for tanks. Other targets were attacked using inferior weapons.
quote:
This gap in capability has forced our soldiers to maneuver under direct and effective fire for great distances to bring the enemy into the effective range of his weapons
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:32 pm to Buddy Garrity
quote:
How often are our soldiers fighting tanks these days?
It's multi role, not just for armor.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:38 pm to USMCTiger03
There are a hundred and one reasons this went to SOF first but MONEY and TRADOC (training/doctrine) are the two primary reasons. Basically, everyone can say "that thing looks great" but while big Army is trying to figure things out, SOCOM runs out with their credit cards - buys a bunch of them - throws them to the guys who run out and figure out how to use them in combat. Meanwhile, big Army is back home arguing over who has to pay for them, who is going to get them, who "owns" them, how they are going to train/qualify on them, who is going to write the training course, who is going to get credit for thinking of the idea in the first place and who gets it in the arse if things go bad with the idea.
It's the same thing as a two-man business adopting some cool new technology versus a Xerox Corporation buying into the same technology.
It's the same thing as a two-man business adopting some cool new technology versus a Xerox Corporation buying into the same technology.
This post was edited on 3/11/14 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:41 pm to USMCTiger03
quote:
USMCTiger03
Any idea what the backblast on that thing is?
Posted on 3/11/14 at 12:45 pm to beejon
I would assume this...
1) They would need to be trained to use this. (more money and time)
2) They already have trained heavy artillery.
3) It costs a lot.
4) It is probably hard to carry around.
5) Politics
1) They would need to be trained to use this. (more money and time)
2) They already have trained heavy artillery.
3) It costs a lot.
4) It is probably hard to carry around.
5) Politics
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:08 pm to Corkfather
quote:
Any idea what the backblast on that thing is?
Probably about 25 meters but I think it may vary with the type of projectile used.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:12 pm to beejon
quote:
new
M3 entered service in 1991.
The Gustav (M1) introduced in 1946.
A recoilless rifle. It is a RECOILLESS RIFLE.
Better than nothing? Sure. Better than a Javelin? Not hardly.
This post was edited on 3/11/14 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:17 pm to Buddy Garrity
quote:
How often are our soldiers fighting tanks these days?
last time for me was February 1991.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:19 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
last time for me was February 1991.
Weren't you sitting in the turret of a M1A1 and did not need a "recoilless rifle" to kill tanks?
"Gunner, sabot, T-72"
"Identified"
"Up"
"Fire"
"On the way"
This post was edited on 3/11/14 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:21 pm to beejon
Had one in our platoon 10 years ago
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:21 pm to beejon
quote:
They've had these weapons for quite a while now but haven't issued them to front line troops, choosing instead to give them inferior weapons?
I didnt know our troops were fighting tanks over in Afghanistan
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:22 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Weren't you sitting in the turret of a M1A1 and did not need a "recoilless rifle" to kill tanks?
Yep. Sitting in the gunner's seat. Our gun was not rifled and it had one helluva recoil on it.
quote:
"Gunner, sabot, T-72"
"Identified"
"Up"
"Fire"
"On the way"
Like music to my ears.
This post was edited on 3/11/14 at 1:23 pm
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News