Jump to content
GhostdogSw3

Mk 19 in project reality not squad why?

Recommended Posts

Which class would have it or deploy it? Or would this be a deployable at a fob? I really don't think this thing will serve a purpose since the grenadier class exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I see a post about another weapon or gadget for conventional forces, I can't help but chuckle. I'll ask the same question:

 

- If you give this weapon for conventional forces, what will you give the unconventional forces in return to balance this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, GhostdogSw3 said:

Maybe a tow at high ticket rate or more ied bomb suprise attcks

I miss Gary :x

Edited by Phoenixstorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there are full auto 23mm HE, 25mm HE and 30mm HE its not such a wild idea to give the MRAP a MK19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2018 at 6:42 AM, CptDirty said:

Every time I see a post about another weapon or gadget for conventional forces, I can't help but chuckle. I'll ask the same question:

 

- If you give this weapon for conventional forces, what will you give the unconventional forces in return to balance this?

Mosin Nagants.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-07-17 at 3:42 PM, CptDirty said:

Every time I see a post about another weapon or gadget for conventional forces, I can't help but chuckle. I'll ask the same question:

 

- If you give this weapon for conventional forces, what will you give the unconventional forces in return to balance this?

Why would a mk-19 be so much better than the 30mm auto cannons with fragmentation warheads? I think if manually operated mk-19 was better than 30mm, then warrior etc would have one instead of the auto cannons. Conclusion. Mk-19 is an inferior weapon and shouldn't cause much of a balance problem. Just take away a warrior for example. Put the mk-19 on an mrap, that has much less Armour on it as well.

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Why would a mk-19 be so much better than the 30mm auto cannons with fragmentation warheads?

Because the mk-19 fires very similar 40mm fragmentation/smoke rounds (40x53mm) that the grenade launcher do (40x46mm). Currently the 30mm fragmentation rounds damage is inferior to that of the grenade launcher so even if conventional forces forfeit an armoured vehicles in favour of a MRAP mk-19, unfortunately that still doesn't answer the fundamental question:

 

- What are you giving insurgents/militia in return for the conventional forces' mk-19?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CptDirty said:

Because the mk-19 fires very similar 40mm fragmentation/smoke rounds (40x53mm) that the grenade launcher do (40x46mm). Currently the 30mm fragmentation rounds damage is inferior to that of the grenade launcher so even if conventional forces forfeit an armoured vehicles in favour of a MRAP mk-19, unfortunately that still doesn't answer the fundamental question:

 

- What are you giving insurgents/militia in return for the conventional forces' mk-19?

 

 

Yes that's likely true but the 30 mm travels probably ten times faster and longer with a flatter trajectory and because of speed probably has a slightly more of penetrative power as well.

 

Well conventional forces don't have an AA gun for example... Not a big issue.

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 3:57 AM, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Well conventional forces don't have an AA gun for example... Not a big issue.

Because conventional forces don't need AA guns against the unconventional forces since unconventional forces shouldn't have aircraft to begin with. Besides, the AA gun doesn't have any protection for the person operating it unlike an MRAP. 

 

So, again, what are we willing to give the irregular forces in return for the MK-19 the conventional forces will receive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CptDirty said:

Because conventional forces don't need AA guns against the unconventional forces since unconventional forces shouldn't have aircraft to begin with. Besides, the AA gun doesn't have any protection for the person operating it unlike an MRAP. 

 

So, again, what are we willing to give the irregular forces in return for the MK-19 the conventional forces will receive? 

My point again being, we don't have to give them anything. We can take away something from the people who gets the MK-19. For example a Bradley with 30 mm and TOW launchers or one of the upcoming tanks even. Map dependent of course.

 

You might have noticed that conventional forces don't have aircraft yet either. Still unconventional forces have an AA gun at this point. Game works.

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

My point again being, we don't have to give them anything. We can take away something from the people who gets the MK-19. For example a Bradley with 30 mm and TOW launchers or one of the upcoming tanks even. Map dependent of course.

Disagree big time, how can you not see the imbalance...Replacing 1/3 bradleys with a mk19 mrap doesn't balance anything, it just gives conventional forces more variety of weapon systems whereas the unconventional forces didn't get anything in return for this exchange. So instead of using 3 bradleys to attack Al Basrah, you're just doing it with 2 bradley and mk19 mrap. Now you're able to lob grenades over obstacles....

 

Furthermore the unconventional forces are already at a disadvantage due to the forced symmetrical warfare parameters of the popular game modes. The only attempt made to balance that out was giving irregulars extra tickets (because the devs know irregulars will die a lot more defending their territory against the conventional forces). 

 

At this point neither of us is able to change each other's mind on this topic. I still believe that unconventional forces will need to get something in return for the conventional's mk19 if it's implemented. 

Share this post


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

Disagree big time, how can you not see the imbalance...Replacing 1/3 bradleys with a mk19 mrap doesn't balance anything, it just gives conventional forces more variety of weapon systems whereas the unconventional forces didn't get anything in return for this exchange. So instead of using 3 bradleys to attack Al Basrah, you're just doing it with 2 bradley and mk19 mrap. Now you're able to lob grenades over obstacles....

 

Furthermore the unconventional forces are already at a disadvantage due to the forced symmetrical warfare parameters of the popular game modes. The only attempt made to balance that out was giving irregulars extra tickets (because the devs know irregulars will die a lot more defending their territory against the conventional forces). 

 

At this point neither of us is able to change each other's mind on this topic. I still believe that unconventional forces will need to get something in return for the conventional's mk19 if it's implemented. 

Why should they get 2 Bradley's? Give them 0 is what I thought. A few lorries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Why should they get 2 Bradley's? Give them 0 is what I thought. A few lorries.

So now you're suggesting replacing all Bradley's with mk19 mraps, let's see how many people will back that idea up.........O.o Although now that I think about it, removing some vehicles from certain layers depending on which faction fights who could work.

 

You see what i mean now? Anything new added to the game is just a big balancing act....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CptDirty said:

So now you're suggesting replacing all Bradley's with mk19 mraps, let's see how many people will back that idea up.........O.o Although now that I think about it, removing some vehicles from certain layers depending on which faction fights who could work.

 

You see what i mean now? Anything new added to the game is just a big balancing act....

Yeah that's what I mean. In one map they get mraps in another they only have Bradley's and so on. Yeah its a constant struggle with balancing I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they balanced it in PR they can balance it in squad. It's been over half a decade, there is no reason that all of PR's vehicles and weapons have not be placed into Squad. Post Sciptum and other crap took over priorities. Squad is old news now lol, we will get tanks and 2-3 heli's and that will be it. No CAS, no jets. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
On 7/17/2018 at 9:42 AM, CptDirty said:

Every time I see a post about another weapon or gadget for conventional forces, I can't help but chuckle. I'll ask the same question:

 

- If you give this weapon for conventional forces, what will you give the unconventional forces in return to balance this?

 I realize this is an old thread but the Mk19 would 100% work in Squad as a deployable at FOBs. Insurgents can use the extremely effective ZU-23 they already have. And if you think that's not balanced then they can use the old Russian AGS-17 like insurgent forces irl do.  Brits and Canadians can use the HK GMG like they do irl. Russians can use their AGS-30 or their brand new AGS-40.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/10/2018 at 9:10 PM, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Why would a mk-19 be so much better than the 30mm auto cannons with fragmentation warheads? I think if manually operated mk-19 was better than 30mm, then warrior etc would have one instead of the auto cannons. Conclusion. Mk-19 is an inferior weapon and shouldn't cause much of a balance problem. Just take away a warrior for example. Put the mk-19 on an mrap, that has much less Armour on it as well.

What a stupid post. The American 40mm MK19 and Russian 30mm 2A42 don't fulfil the same role, so the fact that the 30mm autocannon is fine offers absolutely no indication that a 40mm AGL would be fine as well. The game absolutely should have 30mm and 40mm AGLs, but your reasoning and comparison are asinine because medium and high velocity 40mm HE rounds have 5-6 time the explosive power of the HE autocannon rounds that Squad currently uses:

The 3UOR6 High-Explosive Tracer rounds that the 30mm fires in Squad only carry 11g of explosive filler and a muzzle velocity of 960ms.

The M383/M384 HE rounds that the MK19 and MK47 fire have 57g of explosive filler and a muzzle velocity of 245ms.

In other words, it's going to have a much larger explosion radius and damage, and you won't be able to take cover from it behind walls because it has a plunging trajectory at anything other than very close range, where the 30mm has a largely direct trajectory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vewt said:

What a stupid post. The American 40mm MK19 and Russian 30mm 2A42 don't fulfil the same role, so the fact that the 30mm autocannon is fine offers absolutely no indication that a 40mm AGL would be fine as well. The game absolutely should have 30mm and 40mm AGLs, but your reasoning and comparison are asinine because medium and high velocity 40mm HE rounds have 5-6 time the explosive power of the HE autocannon rounds that Squad currently uses:

The 3UOR6 High-Explosive Tracer rounds that the 30mm fires in Squad only carry 11g of explosive filler and a muzzle velocity of 960ms.

The M383/M384 HE rounds that the MK19 and MK47 fire have 57g of explosive filler and a muzzle velocity of 245ms.

In other words, it's going to have a much larger explosion radius and damage, and you won't be able to take cover from it behind walls because it has a plunging trajectory at anything other than very close range, where the 30mm has a largely direct trajectory.

Yes you got a point. They are different weapons. None is necessarily inferior. My point though was that 30 mm is just as bad ass as MK19, hence MK19 shouldn't be ruled out from the game. MK19 being crap against armour but better against infantry, and vice versa. If you come with a MK19 vs armour it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. It is not possible to say (at least) that MK19 is the better weapon at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Yes you got a point. They are different weapons. None is necessarily inferior. My point though was that 30 mm is just as bad ass as MK19, hence MK19 shouldn't be ruled out from the game. MK19 being crap against armour but better against infantry, and vice versa. If you come with a MK19 vs armour it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight. It is not possible to say (at least) that MK19 is the better weapon at all times.

Sorry dude but that is just incorrect. The Mk 19's standard round is HEDP, meaning it will easily destroy BTRs and BMPs so it is most definitely not crap against armor. The only thing 2A42 has over Mk 19 is velocity because the Mk 19 is capable of penetrating 2 inches of steel. I'm all for AGLs being in-game just like @Vewt but you can't downplay their effectiveness when advocating for them. The only faction that wouldn't have HEDP would be the insurgents but it's honestly no different than them already having SPG-9s instead of an ATGM launcher like the TOW or Kornet. So it's not like it would create an imbalance that wasn't already there before and plays into the asymmetric warfare thing we already have going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Toofless said:

Sorry dude but that is just incorrect. The Mk 19's standard round is HEDP, meaning it will easily destroy BTRs and BMPs so it is most definitely not crap against armor. The only thing 2A42 has over Mk 19 is velocity because the Mk 19 is capable of penetrating 2 inches of steel. I'm all for AGLs being in-game just like @Vewt but you can't downplay their effectiveness when advocating for them. The only faction that wouldn't have HEDP would be the insurgents but it's honestly no different than them already having SPG-9s instead of an ATGM launcher like the TOW or Kornet. So it's not like it would create an imbalance that wasn't already there before and plays into the asymmetric warfare thing we already have going on.

Well BMPs and BTRs are crap armour anyways. Still 2" is quite impressive actually but I bet you could get almost the double using AP sabot 30mm. Also long range MK19 is difficult to hit anything because of low velocity arc trajectory. All being said, weapons have different use cases but were MK19 the omnipotent weapon against all threats you claim it is then would have mounted it on every AFV, APC out there. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

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

×