Project Reality Forums

How about replacing the AA deployment with a recoilless rifle position, or the heavy AT with one instead?

SPG-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I say this would be a good thing to mount on the back of the light truck for the Militia. Maybe give it multiple projectiles? Give it a frag, heat, and a small very small amount of the tandem warheads taht can defeat 400mm of armor behind ERA?

does anybody remember in the movie black hawk down, near the end, when help finally comes to those soldiers who were stuck in that building for so long, a special forces team comes up behind a truck with a cannon in the back, looked like an artillery piece almost, what about that?

thats teh SPG 9 I added. Thats how i found the name for it
Its either the SPG9 or the M40 the western world used

That SPG 9 sounds like a really good idea; however, if a technical gets that thing mounted in the back I'd say definately get rid of the guys hanging off the back of the flat bed.

Oh yeah, this isn't a transport truck like the HMMWV with a 50 cal on it. It's purely a driver maybe RPK on the dash, and SPG9 in back

Tirak wrote:Stridsvagn 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Swiss Design used until the 1990s

Thats not a Swiss tank, its a Swedish tank.

The SPG 9 sounds good.

if Somali pirates can get MBTs.....

if tank destroyers implemented, how would you maintain balance on current militia maps?

or do you think that this is more balanced than what we have now?

I'm attaching my idea to this reply. This is what I'm thinking of.
Driver, Gunner, possibly RPK gunner for defense. No passengers.
15 HEAT and 5 Tandem Warheads

afaik there is already a thread concerning recoiless guns

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... iless.html

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... rifle.html

Yeah, but this is something you can logically see the militia using, no?

DeltaFart wrote:I'm attaching my idea to this reply. This is what I'm thinking of.
Driver, Gunner, possibly RPK gunner for defense. No passengers.
15 HEAT and 5 Tandem Warheads

Thats what they need, not a new tank.

those were some amazing photoshot skills, you can still see the original 50 cal shadow against the wall, i lolled.

Oh yeah it's a crappy image I realize it was just a concept art pretty much

ralfidude wrote:does anybody remember in the movie black hawk down, near the end, when help finally comes to those soldiers who were stuck in that building for so long, a special forces team comes up behind a truck with a cannon in the back, looked like an artillery piece almost, what about that?

That is a recoilless rifle, utterly useless against a main battle tank, but effective against light armour.

I am still waiting for a picture from someone with a current militia faction with a tank-destroyer or rather "self propelled" gun in current operational use. I don't mean howitzers, or arty of any kind.

Things left over from WW2 is one thing, well maintained artillery can last for a long time, and many old pieces fire well.

Tanks destroyers and especially self propelled guns are cheap and cheerful, certainly the ones in WW2 were not built to last.

In a world of IEDs - the modern equivalent of a tank destroyer the M1128 is often not the weapon of choice, just ask a canadian.

You know, you could have an object the militia HAT kit "tosses", and then he has to use a special "wrench" to "deploy" it; turns into a recoilless rifle. Using another "wrench" disassembles it, giving the player 1 new "object" to deploy later.

That would be pretty sweet, only one issue, it takes 2 guys to carry the gun one for the tripod then a bujnch of guys for the ammo. Its just not realistic to have 1 guy carry all that

DeltaFart wrote:
Turkey, and a bunch of Middle East countries use this, so having some of them disappear would not be unlikely here. These are easier to smuggle than Panzers I would think

Being a turkish and my father having served as 2nd LT. as a tank commander some 30 years ago i've never seen/read/heart anything about m40,it is not even in our armed forces inventory.

Second we dont smuggle weapons to illegal terrorist organizations.

And never ever heard of a tank being smuggled,since tanks are big heavy(how are u gonna sneak them,stuff in a truck?) and need maintenance often,and for maintenance skilled personnel required and lots of spare parts required.It is a little bit different than a stinger handed over to mujahideen.

Nice imagination though...


About the topic, isnt militia russian/ex-red army origin,how the hell they are gonna get a tank destroyer?The thing with the after-ww2-era tank destroyers are ;they are designed to fight against the red armys' vast numbers of tanks.It'll be stupid imo,to give them NATO eqipment again,specifically designed to fight against them.

Infact,since they using enfields instead of ak-47s or nagants,anything is possible of course.

Kruder wrote:Being a turkish and my father having served as 2nd LT. as a tank commander some 30 years ago i've never seen/read/heart anything about m40,it is not even in our armed forces inventory.

Second we dont smuggle weapons to illegal terrorist organizations.

And never ever heard of a tank being smuggled,since tanks are big heavy(how are u gonna sneak them,stuff in a truck?) and need maintenance often,and for maintenance skilled personnel required and lots of spare parts required.It is a little bit different than a stinger handed over to mujahideen.

Nice imagination though...


About the topic, isnt militia russian/ex-red army origin,how the hell they are gonna get a tank destroyer?The thing with the after-ww2-era tank destroyers are ;they are designed to fight against the red armys' vast numbers of tanks.It'll be stupid imo,to give them NATO eqipment again,specifically designed to fight against them.

Infact,since they using enfields instead of ak-47s or nagants,anything is possible of course.

Sorry if I misworded that, I meant for it to be lost in shipment. And you cna't say that every quartermaster is going to be a pure person who wouldn't sell a couple of items for extra money if they are in a bad situation
the mention of smuggling tanks was to prove a point I suggest you reread all that I said

Aren't tank destroyers completely out and out obsolete now anyway? Since the advent of the MBT, I was under the impression that any tank destroyers still about would be so old that they weren't remotely capable of taking out modern armour.

Kruder wrote:Infact,since they using enfields instead of ak-47s or nagants,anything is possible of course.

Enfields are very old rifles though (obviously), and it makes sense, due to the British empires presence at the time of their use, that there will be many left in commonwealth countries and other countries such as Iraq and Palestine which we were in control of, or took control of, during WWI. According to Wiki's sources 17,000,000 were manufactured, so that in consideration too it's understandable they got about a bit.