Ok /k/ let's finally settle this once forever! SMAW or

>>32774188
>http://www.strawpoll.me/12196836
bumb

>>32774188
RPG, hands down.

The SMAW is a giant piece of shit that never stays zero'd, the spotting rifle never works flawlessly, the standard scope is garbage, and on, and on...

>Source: 0351 for 4 years

Why exactly these two?

>>32774188
>Anything else than the mighty Carl Gustav (or GrG)
>ever

SMAW and RPG-7 btfo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO1X9MvHh1s

>>32774188
Carl G > RPG > SMAW

>>32774975
>>32774991
This

>>32774188
And the swiss just decided to drop the Panzerfaust 3 for the RGW 90 HH, the NLAW AND the M72 LAW Mk2.

>>32774975
>>32774991
Carls look like they're better for general use against sand monkeys.

>>32774188

The RPG has made the rifle obsolete.

>There's another stat that's even more important right now: the RPG has inflicted more than half -- half! -- of US casualties in Iraq. This is the weapon that's hurting us. And it's been doing that for one hell of a long time.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/06/RPG_310504.html

>>32776442

I'm honestly baffled that the US military doesn't have it's own RPG clone by now.

>>32776442
>http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/06/RPG_310504.html
>2004

Yes half of the casualties in the first year of the war

>>32776689
Actually it does lol.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/22/us-army-tests-amerikanski-rpg-7-derivative/

https://youtu.be/ighicWhmI1k

>>32776902

Says they were testing it, not adopting it. In early 2015.

The Mobile Infantry in the BOOK (not the fucking movie) did not use rifles, they used rocket launchers with different types of rockets and flamethrowers.

With the proliferation of body armor and armored vehicles, it makes sense to use weapons that are very hard to defend against, especially when using hit and run insurgent tactics.

150,000 rounds were fired per kill in Vietnam.

The intermediate caliber rifle was a mistake.

>>32776442
>>>32774188 (OP)
>The RPG has made the rifle obsolete.
>>There's another stat that's even more important right now: the RPG has inflicted more than half -- half! -- of US casualties in Iraq. This is the weapon that's hurting us. And it's been doing that for one hell of a long time.
>http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/06/RPG_310504.html


Traditionally speaking my man, rifles actually only cause a tiny percentage of casualties. Crew served weapons, mortars, machine guns and rockets/grenades kill a lot more people. And even then they cause a smaller number than things like artillery and air power.

>>32777178

Rifles are only good for self defense and to protect the guys with more effective weapons.

File: 1017700928.jpg (131KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1000x541px

Who wins?
Carl or Javelin?

>>32777152
>Implication that this was higher in most previous wars

>>32777218

Depends on what they are competing for.

>>32777218

Javelins are expensive as fucking shit and designed to fuck start MBT's.

Charlie G's are good at everything, masters of nothing.

>>32774188
Carl Gustav, it has 84mm flechettes

>>32777204
>>32777178
>>32777152
>>32776873
>>32776689
>>32776442
Most rounds fired downrange in a combat scenario are used for the purpose of surpressing the enemy. There is a reason you still shoot at the enemy even if he is behind cover, when bullets are passing over his position he will be very reluctant to stick his head out and fire back accurately or effectively. Assault rifles and LMGs will always have a place on the battlefield for this reason. Just because the enemy's life was ended by air support/artillery/a recoilless rifle/rpg doesn't mean that sending hundreds of rounds at the enemy doesn't serve a purpose.

>>32777423

Good thing I didn't say they're useless.

I just wondered why we don't have our own RPGs. I mean, US troops have only been on the receiving end of the damn things for decades now.

>>32774975
>Carl g
>Heavy POS thats backloaded
>Weighs as much as two RPGs
>Costs more
>Does brain damage to user

its shit.

>>32777423

It's also immensely expensive to fight that way and the enemy gets away most of the time.

But the US has had no intention of winning any war since Japan.

>>32777524
A couple thousand rounds of 5.56 is a lot cheaper than a JDAM.

>>32776442

That's not a big surprise given the trend since WW1 has been explosives and other shit killing more than bullets.

I'm also suspicious, before seeing >>32776873 , that half of the casualties in IRaq wouldn't be caused by IEDs. those faggots probably are responsible for 60-70% of casualties in the Iraq war.

Won't disagree that we should start using our own RPG-7 type of thing

>>32777547
I'm pretty sure some "prepper" does that much on a reloading press for less then 20c a round.

>>32777547

Both have proven themselves ineffective at actually defeating anyone.

Astronomically expensive and bottom tier efficiency.

>>32776442
Its because the ragheads can't shoot and you just need to hit near someone to kill them with a RPG

>>32777694

So wouldn't good training just make it more lethal?

Instead of

>PEW PEW PEW x 500,000 in their general direction after they fired a fucking rocket and took off...

>>32777056
I thought the suits also had a minigun?

RPG-7 for just about anything.

They're lighter and they aren't limited by tube diameter as much: SMAWs and m/48 are limited to their 84mm diameter tubes and can not fire larger charges.
The RPG-7 has had warheads up to and including 110mm diameter, even though it's 40mm projector diameter. It's lighter, more compact, can be folded for transport (RPG-7D2) and remains effective to 300 meters.

The SMAW and CG have munitions that are more advanced, like the CGs airburst, but have limited effectiveness for AT or antifortification use due to their maximum payload being directly related to their bore.

>>32777152
>I don't understand small arms development: the post

>>32778556

Not that I remember, but it has been about 8 years since I last read it.

Anyone care to confirm?

>>32777471
>Does brain damage to user

dont they all do this?

File: da18-Djn.jpg (12KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 240x240px

EPG

>>32777471
>>32779274
>brain damage to user
waaat??

>>32780412
The concussive force can cause TBI over the long term. Obviously it depends how many times you fire them. They can also cause internal organ damage I've heard.

>>32774188

Carl Gustav.

>>32780412
yes. putting a metal tube next to your head and detonating a small ammount of explosives in it can do that.

>>32778679
The problem is that in comparison, the RPG is inaccurate as fuck. Both the SMAW and CG can reach out to 500m reliably while most RPG-7s are only good up to 200m.

>>32774188
What are you measuring? The RPG-7 is objectively the better weapon for anyone on a budget/with shittily trained troops. It can be used fairly effectively by monkeys if they fire a few practice shots and the main weapon can be had for ~$300-500 and warheads for $100-300 (depends on how effective you want) if you have the right source in kebabland.

Neither is going to fuck up a suitably advanced vehicle and cost + ease of use trumps most other concerns.

>>32777452
Well it would be a propaganda nightmare for a start.

>>32774188

>comparing the single most sophisticated missile launcher on gods green earth to some durkha made pos rocket tube

>>32774188
I would imagine the logistical advantages of the RPG-7v2 are considerable

you can carry more, which means you can practical utilize them against lower value targets, or you can save weight

they are cheap, very very cheap
you can get grenades for almost $100 US
this means you can use them against lower value targets, arm more men
and when fighting to the lowest dollar, you can sustain conflict much longer
and those prices are likely to DROP as newer RPG systems make older launchers and munitions surplus

I don't know about the SMAW, but I am assured the RPG is as accurate as a rifle if you can get your head around the drop, inverse wind deflection and leading

would you rather cart around a heavy as fuck launcher, with a guy who has only fired it twice because it costs so much; and have to worry about which targets are worth shooting at
or just take a few RPG7's and use them against everything
blow up a mud hut, hardened cover, a VBIED, a fortified door, a haji armour piece, some guy with a pair of binoculars
go nuts, it's $100

>>32781224
>comparing the single most sophisticated missile launcher on gods green earth
It's the SMAW vs the RPG, not the Javelin vs the RPG

If Trump drops import bans, can I buy an RPG-7V2?

>>32781197
why not just use LAWs? arent those even lighter and retard proof?

>>32781445
LAW isn't a reloadable platform, use it and you carry the tube home.

File: download (5).png (269KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 480x360px

>>32774991

>>32781445
Slightly more expensive, not reusable, warhead size limited by diameter of the tube.

>>32781454
>>32781473

Does reusability even matter? LAWs weigh fuckall and only cost a few hundred dollars a piece, you could give a few to each soldier in the squad if you wish

>>32781454
If it's not reloadable, why do you have to keep the empty tube out of enemy hands?

>>32781526
Yes, because the RPG7 can be used and it's still light.
>>32781527
Ask the Army, because you must bring the tube home.

>>32781532
>>32781527
IIRC it's to prove that the LAW was actually fired and not lost/forgotten somewhere.

>>32781445
slightly weaker, slightly more expensive
you have to carry one tube for every grenade because they arn't re-loadable
marginally shorter range, but perhaps more importantly not to my knowledge compatible with optics

also the LAW being pre-loaded means you can't mix and match your munitions
take say one HEAT and one incendiary grenade

I believe it's also really easy to booby-trap a LAW, because being sealed they can't be inspected very well before firing
so soldiers often carry the launch tube out with them, which is a bit silly for a single use weapon

>>32781534
Yeah, this is fucking retarded.

I think the russian do hit some very good spots in weapon development, especially in explosives.

File: at.jpg (64KB, 620x827px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 620x827px

>>32781553

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M80_Zolja

pic related are M80s seized that were meant for "export" to the EU.

>>32781532
The RPG7 launcher weighs about as much as 3 LAWs and the the rockets all weigh a bit less than a single LAW, not a massive upgrade

>>32781536
You can mix and match your LAW munitions, just take different ones to go with you as you would with RPG7 rockets

>>32781592
It's still better because RPG7 can utilize much bigger warhead than the LAW.

>>32781527

The empty tube can be usedwith an ied to kill curious troops. They did it in iraq with spent at4 tubes and even coke cans. Anything a soldier with subconsciously recognize as a friendly object

>>32781596
rpg7 has a auto destruct at 1000ms so you can use it to fling shit over a base and then air burst kill doods.

>>32781589
I guess when you give a guy something worth more on the black market than he makes in a month, it's a real concern
I have no idea how anti-theft and trafficking would work in the US army

>>32781592
you would have to choose which launcher you wanted, rather than just choosing which grenade
on the other hand you would have both pre-loaded
the issue is still mainly that you need one launcher for every grenade, and if you are carting the launcher around everywhere it's probably worth firing it more than once

>>32781614
>I have no idea how anti-theft and trafficking would work in the US army
aren't guns and ordnance all serialized?

>>32781614
A single RPG7 rocket is slightly longer than a LAW + you don't have to carry dead weight in the form of the launcher

The RPG7 does allow for a greater warhead though

>>32781604
>auto destruct at 1000m
and you can disable that to bring the range out to 2km

>>32781665
>and you can disable that to bring the range out to 2km
can the rocket charge propel it that far?

>>32781688
Probably the maximum ballistic range, not sure why you would even want to do that unless you are a raghead pretending to have rocket artillery

Slightly unrelated, what purpose does the M136 serve? It doesn't penetrate MBTs and I believe the LAW is still fine for anything less than an MBT, atleast without ERA and other survival packages

>>32781688
>can the rocket charge propel it that far?

An object in motion, etc.

>>32781698
>unless you are a raghead pretending to have rocket artillery

but that's exactly what's happening.

>Slightly unrelated, what purpose does the M136 serve?

break fortifications in urban conflicts, muh like the RPG7 or the M80. every urban squad should
have a grenadier armed with one of these.

>>32781716
where do you aim, like 70° up in the sky?

>>32781731
45° would be optimal assuming no elevation changes.

>>32781628
but your aim is to stop theft, NOT to catch thieves

it wouldn't be enough to catch the soldier who sold his LAW, the weapon would already be in the hands of the enemy

while you can serialize just about anything, it's hard to ensure serials arn't removed, or that components can't be removed and sold individually

and even if all this wasn't the case, you would have to work out who's possession the stolen goods were in
for instance supply might be able to add an extra LAW in a delivery form, if the recipient didn't notice supply would have a "ghost" LAW
after the fact it could be hard to establish whether supply fabricated the ledger, or if the recipient lost or stole the weapon
and this would be particularly effective because if the fabricated ledger was discovered, it could be brushed off as a clerical mistake; and since no crime had that point been committed and the weapon was still in it's correct place in storage it probably wouldn't even be treated as suspicious

>>32781665
>>32781688
pointless
the auto destruct is just a safety feature in case the weapon is accidentally fired into the air, or if fired at an airbourne target it doesn't return
it's not "airburst"

if this was disabled the weapon could be fired in a huge arc, becoming a very expensive mortar with no accuracy
I am unsure what the theoretical maximum ballistic range would be, it would be highly variable

I for one would much rather a raghead use a rocket launcher like retard rocket arty than to fire it at me from 50M

>>32781731
>>32781748
that's literally...wait for it
rocket science

it probably is 45 degrees, because I'm pretty sure a LAW doesn't even burn in-flight
the rocket motor burns out while in the tube

>>32776442
>The RPG has made the rifle obsolete.

US casualties being gallery targets on MSRs are a bit of a niche case. US casualties are so very low that it takes RPG/IED/really large dildos to score much of anything.

>>32780461
A single concussion can cause TBI.

>>32781811
Well, you might opt for a higher elevation if the rocket burn is significant thrust and time, so when burnout happens you are at 45 degrees.

>>32780461
>>32780526
Anybody have that green text about the 51 who shot a smaw 11 times in fallujah and is now a hot mess?

>>32781855
just trying to think about that boggles my head

gravity acts on all parts of the rocket equaly, regardless of which directing it is moving in

but that being said, the rocket would likely experience less drag flying at a tighter angle, as less wind would be hitting it latterally

this would I suspect turn the rocket, so if you aimed higher than 45, the wind would hit the tail as it boosted, so at the end of the thrust phase the momentum was at 45 degrees

...although the momentum and orientation of the rocket can't be presumed to correlate perfectly, as the rocket turned it's momentum would follow the orientation (after a lag) during the thrust phase
this is I imagine why a rocket can go into a spin if it turns too tightly
but after the thrust phase, it would be the other way around, as the rocket would align it'self to the direction it was moving in to streamline itself

I drew thin in a minuet just thinking about it
if the rocket wasn't stable after it burned out (because it weighed less, the balance was wrong etc) the red path firing in a straight line to the target - gravity drop might be the best option.
if the wind effected the thrust angle, firing above 45 might yeild a better result than firing at 45 (blue track)
the purple track is if thrust angle was unafected/countered, in this case 45 would probably be ideal

then you have atmospheric difference wind, the rocket having less mass due to the engine burning out

I wish I studied physics

File: Untitled.jpg (36KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x600px

>>32782242

>>32781197

>Implying your average 11b is not a poorly trained monkey

>>32781592

Easier to carry up to 5 or 6 warheads than 5 or 6 fucking launch tubes.

>>32782412
i dont think so

>>32777471

The newest variant is 7 kg.

The oldest one is 14, but that thing is from 1948, and no systems were light back then.

>Costs more
Yeah, atleast the newer variants.

>Does brain damage to user
Not really, unless you fire a huge ammount of them during a short period of time, but that applies for all similar systems.

>>32781408
No, it's a nfa weapon under us law. Unless he attacks the nfa or other related bans and regulation then you can't import them. If it where bans against just Russia then we would get rpgs from other country's

>>32782633
Oh, I thought he was going after all bullshit import restrictions, not just Russian hate.
Fugg.

File: ARE U FUCKING SERIOUS.jpg (24KB, 480x319px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x319px

>>32782495

>>32774975
Mah nigga

File: drone-downed-by-in-daraa-3.jpg (130KB, 960x541px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 960x541px

>>32774975
It over, drone-rocket mashups are already killing terrorist leadership left and right in Syria. Bow down to the Switchblade.

>>32774975
RPG29 seems pretty neat

File: 1383171223295.gif (142KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 500x283px

>>32776902

>>32774975
That gun literally will make you retarded if you fire to many shots no thanks.

>>32782252
What the fuck is this bullshit? That's not going to be the flight path whatsoever.

Ballistic flight paths ALWAYS follow a parabola of sorts.

[cos(Angle_Of_Shot)]*Average_Velocity_Of_Rocket = Vx is the ground speed of the rocket, or the speed that the rocket will be moving with respect to the ground axis with

[sin(Angle_Of_Shot)]*Average_Velocity_Of_Rocket = Vy is the "upwards" air speed. If you shoot it then you can calculate the time in the air by

d= Vy*t + 1/2 a * t^2 , where a = Fg = ~9.8m/s/s
dy=0 since it hits the ground (you can set this to anything, all d is is the difference between the hegiht you shot it from and the hieght where it hits. For example if you're 2m tall and you shot it and it hits a building 10m at the top, then d would be 8. If it fell into a 10m hole where it hits then d would be -8. IT doesn't matter)

0 = vy * t + 1/2(9.8) t^2

Anyone who has taken grade 7 math should now be able to solve for time of flight.

I'm not going to bother deriving anymore of these for you guys but here are the relevant equations.

Angle required to go a certain distance d.
theta = 1/2 arcsin(gd/v^2)

Maximum distance is always obtained at 45 degrees. This will be v^2 / g.

Anyways here's it with air resistance with speed as a function of time

S(t) = -(mgt/k) + (m/k)*(Vy0 + mg/k)*(1-e^(-kt/m))

File: 1460158028532.jpg (24KB, 480x332px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x332px

>>32785492
Please explain.

>>32777178
You are both right and wrong. The First World War was the first war in history in which crew served weapons caused the bulk of casualties, not small arms. This has been similar in most conflicts since.

>>32774926
This, no m4?

>>32781993
I am interested in this as well. Hopefully someone has it saved.

>>32785684
the blast is concussive and can lead to brain damage. Some guys get stupid from firing too many rounds