AT Class needs a PDW!!!

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-05-03 06:54

what you guys seem to forget that we cant wip this stuff up in afew hrs..... - how true, but if we do not have a good debate, we never come to an agreement and with a little effort we can create a almost pefect PR.

Dark Ewok · Post by **Dark Ewok** » 2006-05-03 07:49

Who said the MP5 doesn't come in a PDW variant?
http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military- ... k-pdw.html

Not suggesting this should be put in PR, just getting the facts straight.

It is still an MP5 just a different variation of it.

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » 2006-05-03 08:12

~WPN~ Buggies wrote:I DON'T CARE if AT class gets a rifle or not... really... i'm over it. But don't throw the "it's that way for realism sake" card out there. Some USMC units (which ARE what is being represented in bf2) do give at soldiers rifles. So somewhere in "real world" there are AT gunners carrying rifles.

So please don't say i'm wrong. We ALL have our own oppinions. Thats why PRMM is great.

YOU'RE WRONG!! j/k

My Platoon is in the process of going from Infantry Recce to Infantry Javelin (heh, we are about to get the kit and the US have had it for years!).

We will be 'heavy AT gunners' compared to the LAW 94 (usual infantry AT dumb fire light system that we had to yomp about with as well as our kit and a rifle) and we are vehicle borne for mobility. We will still carry our SA80s (although in ex's we'll no doubt leave em in the wagons...) all the time was well as man packing the Javelin systems.

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-05-03 14:28

Dark Ewok wrote:Who said the MP5 doesn't come in a PDW variant?
http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military- ... k-pdw.html

Not suggesting this should be put in PR, just getting the facts straight.
It is still an MP5 just a different variation of it.

Thats like comparing an m16 to an m4. Its based off the same parts but its not the same weapon.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-05-03 17:07

but is it not still a MP5! just a mini one that can be dual wielded by crazy maniacks.

Top_Cat_AxJnAt · Post by **Top_Cat_AxJnAt** » 2006-05-03 17:07

YOU'RE WRONG!! j/k My Platoon is in the process of going from Infantry Recce to Infantry Javelin (heh, we are about to get the kit and the US have had it for years!).

We will be 'heavy AT gunners' compared to the LAW 94 (usual infantry AT dumb fire light system that we had to yomp about with as well as our kit and a rifle) and we are vehicle borne for mobility. We will still carry our SA80s (although in ex's we'll no doubt leave em in the wagons...) all the time was well as man packing the Javelin systems. - thank you very much. can i post this any where there is a similar argument.

Dark Ewok · Post by **Dark Ewok** » 2006-05-03 17:29

SiN|ScarFace wrote:Thats like comparing an m16 to an m4. Its based off the same parts but its not the same weapon.

In that case the MP5-SD is not an MP5 either I suppose

The MP5K-PDW is an MP5 variant even named so by the producer of the weapon so how is it not an MP5 if even the manufacturer calls it one????

The M4 has it's own unique designation; M4
The MP5 family has a lot of brothers and sisters with different characteristics but they are still MP5s.
Why?
Simply because the manufacturer designates them with the MP5 prefix.

Would you say an M16A2 is not an M16?

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-05-03 17:47

Dark Ewok wrote:In that case the MP5-SD is not an MP5 either I suppose
The MP5K-PDW is an MP5 variant even named so by the producer of the weapon so how is it not an MP5 if even the manufacturer calls it one????

The M4 has it's own unique designation; M4
The MP5 family has a lot of brothers and sisters with different characteristics but they are still MP5s.
Why?
Simply because the manufacturer designates them with the MP5 prefix.

Would you say an M16A2 is not an M16?

Common dude. In reference to this thread and the use of a PDW the mp5k is not the same as having a standard mp5. Do you disagree?

Dark Ewok · Post by **Dark Ewok** » 2006-05-03 18:03

Ofcourse I don't.
But that doesn't mean the MP5K is not an MP5, that was the whole argument. Other than that I'm with you 100%

~WPN~ Buggies · Post by **~WPN~ Buggies** » 2006-05-03 18:07

'[R-DEV wrote:Eddie Baker']Yes, it does have to do with realism, but it is also balanced with what we are trying to accomplish with PR; improved teamplay. And having to rely on your fellow Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines for support is reality....

Thats why I love PRMM... thanks for your time in researching all the bad *** features of PR!

SiN|ScarFace · Post by **SiN|ScarFace** » 2006-05-03 18:22

Dark Ewok wrote:Ofcourse I don't.
But that doesn't mean the MP5K is not an MP5, that was the whole argument. Other than that I'm with you 100%

Ok good, and I dont want to argue about what is or isnt a different weapon.