Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Howdy everyone, I wanted to propose a new weapon for the U.S. Army faction. The Carls Gustav. The U.S. Army has utilized the Carls G in recent years and has made itself a favorite amongst the troops in current and recent conflicts. The Carls G IS a weapon system used by regular infantry. 

 

Benefits that the Carls G has over the LAW is that it's a reloadable weapon while the LAW as we all know is single use. It also has varying munitions that match the opposing faction's RPGs such as HEAT and frag munitions. 

 

I believe the Carls G would better represent a more modern anti-tank and anti-personnel recoilless rifle than the LAW does in game. However I'm not advocating the removal of the LAW, just the addition of the Carls G for those larger conflicts in game IE Russia GF vs U.S. Army. 

 

This next idea is for a completely different topic but I'll throw it in here as well... I can see the LAW being another secondary weapon for the U.S. Army grenadier. He only has ONE just like a standard infantry man would be realistically carrying, but it would give him anti-vehicular fire power alongside his standard grenade launcher. While the true anti-tank role would be reserved for the Carls G. 

 

I also know that the Carls G has modern air burst munitions that can be set to detonate at certain distances. I can see this as being OP but that's for everyone else to discuss and decide.

 

I would love to hear the communities thoughts on this! Thanks!

 

I can't add pics or URLs so youtube Carls Gustav and check it out on images as well! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now the M3 CG doesn't need to be in the game, but I think it would be a great weapon in the future once the armoured vehicles become closer to a complete state. It would occupy a similar niche to the insurgent HAT kit, which is essentially a less available and more powerful LAT kit, which the US dont need because the armour in the game is pretty sucky compared to what it will be in the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

javelin makes more sense. its the weapon that would be used in the case of a conventional conflict, which squad represents. no carl g pls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cost of 1 Javelin is around $ 246,000 and it is impossible use on distance less than 100 m, yea Carl G would be better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think the Javeline would be OP being that it's a fire-and-forget weapon. Carls G would be on par with the RPG making a more balanced game. Also I think that the U.S. Army anti-tanker carrying two LAWS is a little ridiculous. I don't mean that it's ridiculous that he has two rounds at his disposal, just that he would be carrying two LAWS when they could be carrying one Carls G with multiple rounds of munitions like the RPG anti-tankers. 

 

But to reiterate, I love the light weight compact LAW. Something about compact weapon systems turns me on... But when it comes down to war fighting, it's just not practical. BLAM!!! Done. You'd need every man in the squad carrying one to be an effective anti-vehicular force. That is if the game was utilizing the LAWs realistically IE the anti-tank soldier only has one or his character has two strapped on his pack to show he is in fact carrying two LAWs(from recent memory I can only remember his character model having one LAW strapped to his backpack). Also I have to bring up the fact that the LAW doesn't have frag munitions either being that it's sole purpose is to penetrate objects. 

 

The U.S. Army faction and Russian GF faction are built, and will grow as the developers continue their work, to be technologically advanced with powerful weapons and vehicles. Having the Grenadier armed with a single use LAW along with his grenade launcher would compliment that doctrine that the Squad game designers are going for in my opinion. The United States armed forces have developed an anti-tank warfighting doctrine thanks to the Soviet Unions love for large armored divisions. So having the U.S. Army Grenadier armed with another secondary weapon being a single LAW for Russian GF vs U.S. Army matches would be historically correct as well as being balanced in game if the Russian GF are given their Heavy anti-tank class. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, OXOTHNK said:

cost of 1 Javelin is around $ 246,000 and it is impossible use on distance less than 100 m, yea Carl G would be better

 

what the hell does weapon cost have to do with anything? Why does everyone bring up the Javelin's missile cost, is it because of the Call of Duty 4 death screen? Apaches cost about 60 million a piece, and Abrams are about 9 million. A 250k weapon to destroy a tank worth millions is pretty worth it! Also engagement ranges against enemy tanks will definitely be higher than 100 meters almost always.

 

13 hours ago, XB0CT said:

javelin makes more sense. its the weapon that would be used in the case of a conventional conflict, which squad represents. no carl g pls

 

Firstly, half of the factions in this game are unconventional, and secondly, the CG is still a really useful weapon in a conventional war. It's designed to kill armour pieces and its damn good at that. It makes way more sense to have both in the game than one or the other.

 

The Carl G is not a HAT weapon, its most powerful round has like 500mm of RHA penetration which is weak as shit against MBTs. While I agree that it should be in the game, it's a LAT gunner's weapon, not a HAT. The RPG-29 is already confirmed to be added to the game, and that has 750mm RHA penetration. The Javelin and KORNET or METIS-M (similar levels of portability) are also probably going to be added, which have like 800-1000mm of RHA penetration.

 

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Javelin is essentially an ATGM, you set it up on a tripod or fire it while sitting down, its not like any other portable anti-tank weapons in the game. There is no point in having the Javelin the US Army are gonna have TOW's, which is more comparable to Russian and other ATGM's.

Edited by Chazer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think once the new armor is introduced, all factions will have a hat and lat kits. Russians would get a tandem HEAT or RPG-26, and the US would get a Carl Gustav, AT-4 or maybe a javelin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017. 7. 9. at 9:36 AM, 40mmrain said:

what the hell does weapon cost have to do with anything? Why does everyone bring up the Javelin's missile cost, is it because of the Call of Duty 4 death screen? Apaches cost about 60 million a piece, and Abrams are about 9 million. A 250k weapon to destroy a tank worth millions is pretty worth it! Also engagement ranges against enemy tanks will definitely be higher than 100 meters almost always.

 

Well If you think about it. the cost does effect on the realism. I am no economic personal but I am sure the government will put so much money to the anti-tank weapon itself... I may be wrong but as I see it, the realism does affect on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LAW is fine. AT4 would be the same. Carl G or Javelin with no heavy armor in the game makes no sense right now. Game is fine as is when it comes to AT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Robin Sage said:

LAW is fine. AT4 would be the same. Carl G or Javelin with no heavy armor in the game makes no sense right now. Game is fine as is when it comes to AT. 

I concur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2017 at 10:00 AM, Robin Sage said:

LAW is fine. AT4 would be the same. Carl G or Javelin with no heavy armor in the game makes no sense right now. Game is fine as is when it comes to AT. 

+1 

We don't have proper heavy armour. So no point in having such heavy Anti-Tank weapons yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×