82mm recoilless canons

hicapa · Post by **hicapa** » 2008-04-27 13:33

It would be nice to see REAL insurgent weapons like ones found in this video:
LiveLeak.com - Mujahidin engage Crusader outpost: Khost, Afghanistan
In the vid, i think their are two canons used, both recoilless one of them being 82mm. Notice the muzzle flash is considerably LESS than found in games.

Fighting in afghannistan style maps would be fun, maps that look like this:
LiveLeak.com - Mujahidin engage Crusader outpost with 122mm rockets: Kunar, Afghanistan
cedar type trees, with shrubs mixed in.

Dempsey · Post by **Dempsey** » 2008-04-27 13:38

one thing.... the mujahidin were not insurgents, they were soldiers of their country in the 79-88 soviet-afghan war, do not get them muddled up with the taliban, because they had different morals.

Maxfragg · Post by **Maxfragg** » 2008-04-27 13:41

and this had been suggested several times before, please search when suggesting something

Post by **Rudd** » 2008-04-27 13:43

I assume that if the insurgents were to get a weapon like this it would be mortars- when they are added in, so there probably won't be room for the cannons. Looks like it takes a while to deploy as well, much like how I assume the TOWs are, so if they were put in it would have to be on the back of a vehicle?

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2008-04-27 16:46

The miltia get those artillery (AT)cannons with no recoil.
I recorded an amazing video yesterday of a tournament game but the dam sound failed to work so I cant publish it.
Anyway we had artillery rounds and cannon fire landing all around us as we assaulted the militia bunker, was amazing like in a movie. Needed a bit of ground shake and earth flying up in the air but it was pretty cool.

Anyway we do something not far off what you suggest, just not for insurgents.

Whats the machine gun carried off in the end of the video

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2008-04-27 17:43

The Militia AT guns are missing the breech block

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2008-04-27 18:38

It'd funny if it misfired and blew up

Is this the right one?

76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think we should go the whole hog and replace the motorcycle with this

Dempsey · Post by **Dempsey** » 2008-04-27 21:42

Sabre_tooth_tigger wrote:

Whats the machine gun carried off in the end of the video

Soviet 7.62x54 PKM LMG's

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2008-04-28 01:52

PK series MG's are GPMG's.

And LOL at the moped cannon. Do want

Dempsey · Post by **Dempsey** » 2008-04-28 15:28

Expendable Grunt wrote:PK series MG's are GPMG's.

Gimpy is a Western, if not only british designation of a weapons system.

Soviet gun classification is different... although it is one f*** off gun, and is in general terms, a general purpose machine gun, its still smaller than the dushka 12.7x109mm Heavy machine guns, and thus a squad support LMG.

cof anal afternoon time.

agentscar · Post by **agentscar** » 2008-04-28 21:53

Yea!!!!!!!

MMLAS (Moped Mounted Light Artillery System) LOL!

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2008-04-28 23:09

Dempsey wrote:Gimpy is a Western, if not only british designation of a weapons system.

Soviet gun classification is different... although it is one f*** off gun, and is in general terms, a general purpose machine gun, its still smaller than the dushka 12.7x109mm Heavy machine guns, and thus a squad support LMG.

cof anal afternoon time.

Not quite, the Russians still make the distinction between "machine gun" and "light machine gun".

Example:

PK - Machine gun designed by Mr. Kalashnikov

RPK - Hand Held/Light Machine gun designed by Mr. Kalashnikov

Essentially "Machine Gun (P)" is the same as saying "General Purpose Machine Gun" in western terms, where as "Light Machine Gun (RP)" means pretty much the same thing, but doesn't cover GPMGs in the "light" role (ie on a bipod instead of a tripod or pintle mount) as it can do in the west and refers to weapons in the SAW/LSW class like the Minimi, MG4 or AUG HBAR

And using such weapons in the squad support role is far from a soley Russian concept, British forces often deployed the L7 series at the squad level, even when the L86A1 had allegedly replaced it and NATO forces wern't supposed to have 7.62 weapons at the platoon level, let alone squad level.

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2008-04-29 03:09

Guy fires Russian 50cal machine gun while walking with it

Post by **Thermis** » 2008-04-29 03:15

Dempsey wrote:one thing.... the mujahidin were not insurgents, they were soldiers of their country in the 79-88 soviet-afghan war, do not get them muddled up with the taliban, because they had different morals.

Sorry for off topic, But the Mujahidin actually looked down on there taliban comrades when the fought the soviets. They found them to be ineffective and unreliable forces who would often do more running away than fighting.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2008-04-29 03:45

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley wrote: And using such weapons in the squad support role is far from a soley Russian concept, British forces often deployed the L7 series at the squad level, even when the L86A1 had allegedly replaced it and NATO forces wern't supposed to have 7.62 weapons at the platoon level, let alone squad level.

This still confuses me. How exactly do you use a MG at a "platoon" level, or "company" level?

Dempsey · Post by **Dempsey** » 2008-04-29 12:50

[R-MOD]Bob_Marley wrote:Not quite, the Russians still make the distinction between "machine gun" and "light machine gun".

Example:

PK - Machine gun designed by Mr. Kalashnikov

RPK - Hand Held/Light Machine gun designed by Mr. Kalashnikov

Essentially "Machine Gun (P)" is the same as saying "General Purpose Machine Gun" in western terms, where as "Light Machine Gun (RP)" means pretty much the same thing, but doesn't cover GPMGs in the "light" role (ie on a bipod instead of a tripod or pintle mount) as it can do in the west and refers to weapons in the SAW/LSW class like the Minimi, MG4 or AUG HBAR

Yeah sorry about that, i was a tad confused, knew it was something like that though!

Dempsey · Post by **Dempsey** » 2008-04-29 12:55

Thermis wrote:Sorry for off topic, But the Mujahidin actually looked down on there taliban comrades when the fought the soviets. They found them to be ineffective and unreliable forces who would often do more running away than fighting.

The taliban are modern world terrorist force, with new beliefs... They are not relative at all to the sov-afghan war, nor the mujahadin.

The taliban were a by product you could say though... with a dictatorship role against the afghan people, (after war there has to be someone to pick up the peices) They are/were not liked by the majority afghan people, with some stupid 'laws' especially agaisnt women.

-=shootmeplz=- · Post by **-=shootmeplz=-** » 2008-04-29 14:09

Dempsey wrote:The taliban are modern world terrorist force, with new beliefs... They are not relative at all to the sov-afghan war, nor the mujahadin.

The taliban were a by product you could say though... with a dictatorship role against the afghan people, (after war there has to be someone to pick up the peices) They are/were not liked by the majority afghan people, with some stupid 'laws' especially agaisnt women.

stop reading the yellowpress, try this:Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dempsey · Post by **Dempsey** » 2008-04-29 17:37

I havent looked at your link... but what do you mean, yellow press?

-=shootmeplz=- · Post by **-=shootmeplz=-** » 2008-04-29 21:36

Dempsey wrote:I havent looked at your link... but what do you mean, yellow press?

i totally disagree with your statement "The taliban are modern world terrorist force, with new beliefs...", this is a mess-up of cheap headlines of newspapers with 30pages of soccer and 1 and a half of politics.
taliban are not modern when using selfmade guns, not a world-force, cause talibans outside afghanistan can only be found in guantanamo - they are even no force anymore, the last seperate groups belong to some warlords. and, you won't believe it, they are no terrorists! your "stupid laws" is the islamic sharia, which ruled as hard as it nearly does up to now in saudi-arabia. the beliefs are the same like decades ago, but came to power again in the 90's.
and so on...