Antique Weapons

File: 1446327079100.jpg (74KB, 850x550px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 850x550px

>>34841143
tracked Scud TELs look so cool, it's a shame they're well into "more than you can afford, pal" territory.

V2 is hardly a runner-up to a Scud, there's dozens of weapons that would be more practical/effective.

File: rr04.jpg (85KB, 650x320px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 650x320px

>>34841143
M67 recoilless rifle. Basically just a rifled tube for chucking HE and HEAT, it's still about as useful as a CG minus the age of the ammo.

>>34841143
HMS Dreadnaught from 1906 could still provide some beastly naval gunfire support.

>>34841241
Not sure that counts as that was not the designed role of the ship, and she'd be relatively easy to sink with modern weapons.

>>34841267
Ships have been firing at land for more than 200 years before HMS Dreadnought.

In a world of area defence missiles, it's easy to give it some escorts.

>>34841267
Hell Dreadnought was considered an easy target by the time the first World War rolled around, she was built with an outdated knowledge of armor design and underwater protection.

>>34841300
>and underwater protection.
My thoughts precisely
>>34841291
>Ships have been firing at land for more than 200 years before HMS Dreadnought.
True, but bringing it back soley as a bombardment ship IMO doesn't really count as it "holding its own" as a battleship, as it is unfit to lie in line of battle.
>In a world of area defence missiles, it's easy to give it some escorts
Requiring escorts to defend it isn't really holding its own, is it?
Also any torpedo designed since the 1950s would probably sink the ship.

>>34841143
well scuds are still used on modern battlefields

>>34841241

Yes, you could shoot its guns at stuff so long as none of it can shoot back.

By that logic you could resurrect an old Napoleon 12 pounder. Or a catapult.

>>34841900
>americans want to scrap this

>>34841143
M2 Browning .50 cal, because half-inch holes never go out of style.

MG42, enough dakka.

File: yemeni su100.jpg (76KB, 656x472px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 656x472px

The SU-100 mounts a D-10 series gun. The T-55 mounts a D-10 series gun. The same thing that got it dumped from active Soviet service so quickly is also why it's actually almost viable in active service right now. Unfortunately it's easier to snag an actual T-55 than this thing, so it's largely academic unless you live in Yemen apparently.

Aren't they still using STGs in Syria?

And neither the Nugget nor the Enfield will ever go out of fashion. Unless you're talking things that aren't small arms, in which case most WWI artillery shouldn't be too bad, and T-34s, Shermans and iirc Stuarts are still in use in various places.

>>34841143
Katysha will never die as long as you have enough of them that you can field in a short amount of time.
Hell, even Packard trucks can still carry the contraption on their back

Bofors flak too, hell of a shotgun that is

>>34841143
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT5jo7aZzTw
Nuke cannon.

Obligatory Ma Deuce post.

>>34841329
Aren't modern destroyers capable of gun support? Though with the current performance of cruise missles using direct fire artillery today would not be a bad idea.

>>34841980
>Asides from firearms, explosive charges and grenades,
>Asides from firearms
>Aside