Why isn't there a really light small and mobile vehicle with high firepower.
Like a quad with an RPG or something like that.
I'm sure the chinese would be really interested in something like that, so they can zergrush their neighboring countries, if they wanted.
>>32334409
because a MG team will walk some tracers onto it and kill the crew instantly. maybe for very situational cases it makes sense but as a general tactic it's fucking dumb
>>32334429
You don't need a lot of armor to be MG proof.
And if you are going fast from cover to cover, while one thousand of your colleagues do the same, it will be very effective.
Imagine there is a fortification and these fuckers come onto you from all directions, fast, zigzagging and shooting rockets.
>>32334409
Seals stuck TOWs on their dune buggies and had pretty good success fucking up iraqi tanks in the gulf war
Soo.. wiesel tanks ??
>>32334544
They did okay but the guys driving them knew they would get chewed the fuck up the moment someone got smart and used a fucking MG on them. This kind of shit only works if you can hit the enemy in a very unexpected manner, and you can't do it very many times before they catch on.
>>32334466
You're going to have a hell of a hard time carrying munitions and armor on a quad bike. Also getting a thousand of these fucks anywhere is not realistic. Won't be able to overrun anything but shittily sited outposts manned by third worlders who don't know how to set watch.
>>32334409
because you would just carry a man portable anti armor weapon with you on any motorcycle or other available vehicle. no need for an integrated weapons system, we rocket dragoons now.
>>32334466
that fucking diagram!
>>32334668
> Also getting a thousand of these fucks anywhere is not realistic.
They are light, so you can paradrop them
>Won't be able to overrun anything but shittily sited outposts manned by third worlders
But that's exactly the type of enemy one would engage.
>>32334409
https://youtu.be/DfqGuFYKSoE
>>32334735
>They are light, so you can paradrop them
the point being that a thousand is not a realistic number in any combat situation. the terrain is going to limit the number of vehicles that can be involved in direct combat.
>But that's exactly the type of enemy one would engage.
then you could practically moonwalk into their outpost holding a pepsi
anything works if the enemy is retarded
Anyways most of the time quads have been used in modern combat, they were used to carry recoilless rifle rounds up mountains, or they were used to quickly and quietly move sniper/observer teams into their OPs in mountainous terrain.
>>32334409
>>32334466
BMD then?
>>32334409
It's called a tankette. They've fallen out of favor since WW2, with a few exceptions (Wiesel, that jap thing with twin recoilless rifles)
>>32335145
Wiesel is the right step, you are right. But if you wanted you could probably make it lighter and smaller.
sup
>>32335429
>>32335443
>>32335455
>>32335466
>>32335480
>>32335487
R O A D
W
A
R
R
I
O
R
>>32334409
Or a helicopter with an RPG?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMdrMIYiFx4
>>32334466
>You don't need a lot of armor to be MG proof.
Yes you do. You can shred a BRDM-2 with an M240.
>>32334409
seems like a tracked version of this would be the only sensible kind of land drone
>>32334409
>>32334409