Jump to content
O'Conner

New Possible Roles? Whats on the horizon?

Recommended Posts

O'Conner   

If squad has the JLTV then why don't we have the M136 instead of the LAW? Heck even the M3 would be a better option. The M136 CS would help with close quarters as well. I'm just wondering if you are planning to save the M136 for a special role much like the heavy anti tank role but then again why not use the M3 for something like that its not a once fire weapon (can be fired and reloaded) and can use a variety of rounds. It would make a great addition to the specialty role much like the heavy anti tank of other forces and the M136s of the other units would definitely balance it out as you could only carry one M136 instead of the two LAWs. Not trying to hate on the LAWs its just when I look at everything else in the game it seems like a really odd choice (and dated) for AT just curious if it was for balance or what the mindset might have been when the LAW was chosen as the go to for US Anti Tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40mmrain   

Squad doesnt have the jltv. It had the MATV. Also the m72 is very much in service. Also try searching before making threads about shit thats been discussed conclusively before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-MG   

Only significant roles i can see is Heavy AT and AA specialists. Otherthen that, not really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frinz   

You are forgetting breacher (with shotgun, some kind of explosive) machine gunner (m240/pkm/pkp) and combat engineer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frinz   

I guess we could expect those, or they rely on less classes and allow us to switch loadouts with the new inventory system, so the automatik rifleman of the insurgents can switch between pkm/rpk/dp-28 as an example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smee   
53 minutes ago, Frinz said:

And you can expect something better for the american HAT than the m136 or m3javelin.thumb.jpg.f90472e562139e4ab52ecd52bfe63d73.jpg

Sexy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the game really needs any more classes as such, apart from perhaps something to conpliment the addition of brand new game assets such as the implementation of aircraft, MBT's etc...

 

A bigger arsenal of weapons to choose from would be nice though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

look on their kickstarter page. All the roles are there i am pretty sure except for sniper, which is probably not going to happen unless they nerf the all powerful rally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O'Conner   
On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 10:30 PM, 40mmrain said:

Squad doesnt have the jltv. It had the MATV. Also the m72 is very much in service. Also try searching before making threads about shit thats been discussed conclusively before.

get bent JL or ML same difference. you completely missed the point go piss and moan somewhere else. The reference was to the fact that its more modern where as the LAW is NAM era. Where the heck have you seen the LAW in service hell you don't even train on those in the military anymore smart ass.

Edited by O'Conner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O'Conner   
On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 6:15 AM, Frinz said:

And you can expect something better for the american HAT than the m136 or m3javelin.thumb.jpg.f90472e562139e4ab52ecd52bfe63d73.jpg

Ah yes I had forgotten about the Javelin. Been out of the loop for a bit.

On ‎8‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 6:03 AM, beginna said:

Crewman

what do you mean by crewman like crew served weapons teams or are you referencing something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40mmrain   
1 minute ago, O'Conner said:

get bent its the JL or ML same difference the reference was to the fact that its more modern where as the LAW is NAM era. Where the heck have you seen the LAW in service hell you don't even train on those in the military anymore smart ass.

 

the JLTV weighs like half what the MATV does. Completely different vehicles, performance wise.

 

You know the M16 is 'nam era, too right? The LAW was used extensively in afghanistan due to its extremely small profile and weight.

 

Here's the US army soliciting for more M72s in 2014, that apparently extends up to 2018 - "The period of performance for this requirement will be four (4) twelve (12) month ordering periods."

 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=97223ce97503c00f6dd85e1e666b38e3&tab=core&_cview=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O'Conner   
18 minutes ago, 40mmrain said:

 

the JLTV weighs like half what the MATV does. Completely different vehicles, performance wise.

 

You know the M16 is 'nam era, too right? The LAW was used extensively in afghanistan due to its extremely small profile and weight.

 

Here's the US army soliciting for more M72s in 2014, that apparently extends up to 2018 - "The period of performance for this requirement will be four (4) twelve (12) month ordering periods."

 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=97223ce97503c00f6dd85e1e666b38e3&tab=core&_cview=1

not the m16 A4s which are used by marines and national guard today the NAM era 16s are no longer in use. also a contract great doesn't mean much  AT4s and M3s are used on the battlefield not being stock piled somewhere. Just because some CWO ordered them doesn't mean that they are being extensively used on the battlefield or at all.

 

read the fine print ---> THIS NOTICE DOES NOT CONSTITUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)/solicitation. Responses to this announcement are not proposals and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. This is not a guarantee of a future RFP/solicitation or an award. This notice should not be construed as a commitment of any kind by the U.S. Government

Edited by O'Conner
fine print

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O'Conner   
12 hours ago, 40mmrain said:

 

the JLTV weighs like half what the MATV does. Completely different vehicles, performance wise.

 

You know the M16 is 'nam era, too right? The LAW was used extensively in afghanistan due to its extremely small profile and weight.

 

Here's the US army soliciting for more M72s in 2014, that apparently extends up to 2018 - "The period of performance for this requirement will be four (4) twelve (12) month ordering periods."

 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=97223ce97503c00f6dd85e1e666b38e3&tab=core&_cview=1

Just a little bit of advice do more research and read through the stuff you googled don't be so quick to jump on people about a post I didn't see my question asked or answered NOT to say it isn't there I don't want you going nuts trying to find posts just stop. also JLTV or MLTV it was made by the same people and in the end you knew which one I was talking about. there was no need to go through all that. they have multiple Humvee types the m114, m11151, m1113 and in the end they are pretty much the same damn thing but we could sit here and argue semantics all day. All I was trying to do was get a point across about having a dated launcher rather then a more modern one seeing as how the VIC stated the JLTV/MLTV was being used. Also don't sit there and tell people they are used EXTENSIVELY! when most that are using them today are SF. when you don't have a flying clue and the only thing you have to go off is a google search that you were so quick to try and shoot down and validate your point that you didn't even bother to read completely through. good luck to you.

 

Edited by O'Conner
spelling errors

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

×