why the M202 was the incendiary launcher

File: M202A1 66mm FLASH (Flame Assault Shoulder Weapon) Rocket Launcher.webm (1MB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 600x480px

Do what now?

This is the rocket launcher from the last boss fight in the first resident evil right?

>>32394168
Sure is, mate

>>32394132
Whats the question? Four tubes that make fire where you point them, the combat applications are endless.

>>32394132
this thing was super powerful

arnold used one in commando and one round makes the army barracks on valverde explode 8 times

>>32394132
just wiki'd this, it's still in service and apparently was in the arsenal of troops in afghanistan, so why no liveleak vids?

>>32394132
I got to play with one of these when I joined the National Guard in 2003.

>>32394132
Great for starting fires in wet weather

File: delight.jpg (7KB, 213x255px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 213x255px

>A video game weapon is roasting kebab right now

>>32394652
>Whats the question?
I think he's asking why the LAW wasn't a 4x, or perhaps alternately, why the Flash wasn't 1x. What with them theoretically being interchangeable.

>>32398824
Talking out my ass here, but HEAT warhead effectiveness is proportional to warhead diameter, so a quad-packed M72 wouldn't penetrate shit.

Incendiaries, on the other hand, tend to do better with multiple shots at different flammable things, since fire is both an area-of-effect weapon and will spread.

>>32395724
Wasn't there claymores next to a shitton of conveniently placed fuel drums as well?

>>32394165
What shitty special effects.

>>32398924
The M202 and M72 share the same warhead diameter, which is 66mm.

In fact the M72 incendiary variant and M202 share the exact same rocket - the M74 TEA. (Not many LAWs were made with the TEA warhead).

The M202 is multishot and reloadable to allow it to better start fires in a wide radius. This is directly opposite the the design of the M72 where it is designed from the ground up to be entirely expendable after firing (if need be) to limit it's weight.

The M202 not being as widely issued by a scale of magnitude shows it was simply another experiment that didn't pan out.

>>32399117
Unrelated question about the m72 - how do you think it compared to the m/68 "miniman"?

>>32399157
That's a very specific and difficult question to answer. Especially since I have no experience with the M68 or a big pool of first hand opinions to draw from. Any specific answer I give about the M68 would be removed from actually knowing what I'm talking about.

I think the M72 is an excellent weapon that adds to a dismounted platoon's firepower. It is light and easy to carry and use, and it gives extra punch against fortified structures and light vehicles. It suffers from being unable to really punch through modern MBTs, but that's not something dismounted platoons should really be handling on the fly in the first place.

>>32399210
Im not sure for other cunts, but that role is filled by the AT-4 now in Sweden. Pretty much all units in our military has a bunch of them, even stuff like logistics companies and field kitchens...

>>32399258
I have a lot of experience with the AT as well. I don't like it.

It has greater warhead diameter, giving it more penetration. The downside is that it is a heavy and awkward weapon for an infantryman to carry, in comparison to the M72 which can sit on top of a ruck and cause almost no awkwardness.

The AT-4 also has a much higher rate of failing to detonate due to the increased number of operator safeties.

Against enemies without MBTs (insurgents) there is really no reason to carry an AT4 IMO. I'd rather have the M72 and better maneuverability. But that's opponent dependent; fighting against somebody with MBTs, a bigger diameter weapon would be welcome.

>>32394165
That's some really neat footage.

>>32394132
It is an incendiary weapon that lights fires in my pants.

>>32399309

Yeah, I guess it all comes down to what enemy you intend to fight.

>>32399309
Wow, a sensible opinion.

>>32399309
I recall hearing rumors of AT4s being unsafe for the operator due to the overpressure. Anyone know about this?

File: 1481868282239.jpg (60KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 640x360px

>>32399597
They suffer from similar issues that many shoulder fire weapons suffer from. There will be a significant blast pressure which causes safety limits. Almost all shoulder fire weapons have a limited number of times in a day a single person is allowed to fire them.

Overall AT-4s are as safe as anything to fire.

Like I said, my main issue with them is their high failure to detonate, since IIRC they have 16 electrical safeties which must all function in order for the warhead to detonate.

I like the SMAW-D a bit better. Overall, the M72 is best girl for light anti-structure work.

Can an M72 take off a Mbt track?

>>32394132
>fire 4 times without having to load another rocket
>user is healed for 15 hp on each hit

What's not to like?

>>32399663
How realistic is that though? Say something like the panzerfaust is used many times in the battle of Berlin. What are the effects on the human body of extended use? Is there any evidence or studies on this?

Just speculating on this, I don't know shit about shoulder mounted weapons.

>>32399663
Where do you learn this

>>32399739
Well we can only fire the SMAW like five times a day (irc). Anymore then you risk hearing/brain damage. Its also the loadest man portable waepon in the Marine Corps and if you were able to spread out the sound to be longer (if that makes sense) it would be louder then a shuttle launch. But the Marines being the marines I would be around twice as much which would explain my hearing loss

>>32399739
Ear damage and brain swelling are possibilities I know of. I know the limitations are sourced, but can't exactly pull them up from my private PC at a moment's notice.

The safety limitations universally error on the side of caution, and are generally far conservative in their estimations. This is similar to minimum blast safety distances with explosives- you can be closer, but at that point you start rolling some dice. You'll *probably* be fine if you bend the rules at bit, but increase your chances of getting fucked the more you push it.

As for shoulder fire weapons in WW2, I don't know of any specific examples of somebody firing a lot in a short amount of time and then that person being physically examined for harm. I know many people who have worked around explosives and there are definitely long term effects.

File: fam.jpg (79KB, 720x463px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 720x463px

>>32399750
I prestiges in Call Of Duty:Mw2

File: 1481644638664.png (237KB, 382x597px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 382x597px

>>32399793
I was just using WWII because that would have been ideal for massed antiarmor shoulder mounted weapons (all them Ruski tanks).

I was just wondering. The sources I was asking for were just for my own reading, I wasn't trying to be a dingus. Maybe I am just ignorant but I just feel like the regulations are always more conservative than they need to be. Although brain swelling would be a bitch to deal with when even not in combat. I suppose the pressure is more an issue than the noise as far as overall health is a concern.

>>32399788
>louder than the shuttle
Growing up in Florida, and having seen the shuttle go off in person several times that must be loud as fuck. Although I can see how in a short burst it might be somewhat bearable.

File: 8f781b22-e4f6-43a7-8388-086bba0e8700.png (487KB, 1280x1539px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 1280x1539px

She has great cans though

File: mfw.jpg (234KB, 661x757px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 661x757px

>>32399949
>no bra
>practically no clothing or gear
>no sights for M202
>M202 seems to be damaged
>Improper usage of M202

0/10 would not operate with.

>>32395783
What's with the weird sight? I'm assuming you turn it down to adjust for farther ranges?

>>32399697
Don't forget user hardness increases +3 each time as well.

>>32395764
They're heavy and awkward and there are way better options like the LAW.

Plus, not everybody gets one.

>>32399949
I'd operate with that

>>32394165
>+15 hp on hit
>-25% clip size

>>32399949
a half assed drawing