Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kev2go

M3 MAAWS for US faction Heavy ANti Tank

Recommended Posts

AS the title suggest, To add  M3 MAWS as an alternate loadout option  to the AT4  for the Heavy ANti tank class for the US  Army faction

 

 The M3 MAWS  is the US adopted designation for the Swedish made Carl Gustav Recoil-less rifle.    Why does the US faction have to be the only one entirely  with single shot disposable launcher when this option exists'?. Why not have the anti armor class have an option for  reusable anti tank  launcher  that can reload tandem warheads?

 

https://ordata.info/ordnance?id=5079

 

public source inf states the current warheads for it can bypass  ERA and still  have  500mm worth of RHA equivalent steel penetration  left against primary armor.

 

 

Before someone says " But its not standard issue" thats no long the case for the . Initially it was just issued to SOCOM units within the US military service , but since 2014 has been approved as a general service weapon and steadily  adopted since  issued to Light infantry units within the regular army.

 

 

980x.jpg

 

 

 "Army is making good on its pledge to make the Gustaf a  fixture of every infantry squad. The service  tripled its annual budget request for the recoilless rifles over last fiscal year, complete with an explicitly approved acquisition objective (AAO) of 2,460 total through fiscal 2023.

The Army has increasingly pivoted to two theaters that seem well suited for the M3E1: Eastern Europe, where service members are increasingly  fielding the Gustaf (and low-cost AT-4 the M3E1 is partially designed to replace) to deter Russian aggression; and the Global War on Terror in Afghanistan, where the system has spanked militants sporadically since  at least  2012."

 

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/m3-carl-gustaf-why-army-falling-love-deadly-bazooka-33051

Edited by kev2go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely agree with this. US HAT can carry multiple munitions like the Russian HAT, and AT4 can be given to LAT as an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Javelin would be good (and I would expect to see it eventually) but will probably require additional development for fire-and-forget system and thermal sight.

Edited by Kothra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for gameplay reasons the fire and forget thing may not be a good idea, yet at least. Maybe if locking on would take a couple of seconds, with a warning system in place for the tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A real Javelin seems to need 30+ seconds to "deploy" since you have to wait for the seeker to cool down before you can use it. I guess it would be a good way to balance the Javelin if the cooling time is modeled. The Javelin would also be hard to use at short range due to its flight profile and that can be a limitation in the game.

Brits should get the NLAW and the Russians maybe the RPG-30 or even the Konkurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Pluto is a planet said:

A real Javelin seems to need 30+ seconds to "deploy" since you have to wait for the seeker to cool down before you can use it. I guess it would be a good way to balance the Javelin if the cooling time is modeled. The Javelin would also be hard to use at short range due to its flight profile and that can be a limitation in the game.

Brits should get the NLAW and the Russians maybe the RPG-30 or even the Konkurs.

My concern is that the purpose of the NLAW in British service is to outright replace the AT4 ILAW (maybe not the M72 in the way it's currently used, though I think the version they use isn't the one they have ingame anyway). So I feel the NLAW is probably a better fit for the LAT class from an authenticity standpoint. Its capabilities can be offset by higher rearm cost. As for HAT, the British also use the Javelin.

As for Russian HAT, the RPG-7 with PG-7VR warhead is fine where it is, though for an alternate more-advanced system I was thinking something like the Metis or Metis-M. With how the game is right now the RPG-30 probably wouldn't be terribly different from the PG-7VR so I'm not sure it'd be worth the effort of including unless APS systems are eventually included.

And the power of both the Javelin and Metis could be offset by setup time and limiting movement (not necessarily completely, though that's an option too) with the weapon deployed.

Edited by Kothra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NLAW for the LAT wouldn't work. The NLAW is more capable than any HAT we have in the game today. It would one-shot any vehicle including the tanks and its much easier to use against a moving target. But an idea is to have the option to choose between the NLAW and the Javelin as a HAT. And since the AT4 is the HAT today i see no problem to have the NLAW as a replacement. The AT-4 could be the new LAT since that is the main purpose of the weapon. A cheap, disposable AT weapon for the infantry.

Metis-M would work for the Russian side as well as the Konkurs. The deployment time is about the same as for a Javelin and they have similar capabilities so it would be a good way to balance it. The RPG-7 tandem is quite decent but very poor ballistic and range and cannot be compared with the Javelin but you are right, It might not be worth add the RPG-30 instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can definitely see that concern as well. We may just have to deal with the Brits still having AT4. I guess they'd probably still keep them in storage anyway and would probably continue to see use in the event of a large-scale conflict like we see in Squad. So yeah your idea of NLAW as an alternate HAT is probably ideal. It might even be preferable to the Javelin with a lack of setup time, though I guess it does lack a thermal viewer.

RPG-7 is comparable to the M3 Carl Gustav which I would like to see added as a US HAT option (the purpose of this thread). I can't speak to the RPG-30's ballistics but some basic internet searching suggests its range isn't much better (maybe 300 meters which is an improvement but I dunno).
 

Let me step back for a second and say that I'm not personally against the inclusion of the RPG-30 or RPG-28 or any similar newer tandem warhead RPG, it's just that, because we already have the tandem RPG-7, I don't think it's as high a priority as adding other different systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess an idea is to have the MAAWS with tandem grenade as U.S HAT and keep the RPG-7 for the Russians. The Javelin/Metis could fill a role between HAT and TOW/Kornet. With the MAAWS you also get the HE/frag rounds so it can be used in a more general support role. You could even give LAT:s the MAAWS, but with the standard HEAT round. Its the same as the AT-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that's basically along the lines of what I was thinking. 
 

I didn't think of adding M3 for the LAT kit but that's definitely a possibility as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 8:47 PM, Kothra said:

Definitely agree with this. US HAT can carry multiple munitions like the Russian HAT, and AT4 can be given to LAT as an option.

I think the AT-4 can be given to the LAT squad role, but it would have the same system the marksmen availability has, where its one per squad but only 3 per team. In additon to this, just give the weak M72 LAWS to a few random regular riflemen. that way, at most you would have 3 LAWS and one AT4 in a squad, capable of disabling and even potentially destroying a full tank, (only from the back). This also more realistically captures nato squad capabilities in reality, as those disposable launchers are issued to lots of infantry, not just two special guys. The same should be done for the Russian faction. In general, just give the disposable launchers to limited rifleman, like they are issued in reality and have HAT be something special like a tandem warhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the idea in the game is that "LAT" (also known as "Rifleman AT" in Project Reality) is just one of those regular riflemen who was issued a launcher. I also don't see the need for a per-team limit for AT4, it can just be issued to the second LAT slot like the Russian RPG-7 LAT. AT4 can also be balanced against M72 with a higher rearm cost (which is probably already has).

Edited by Kothra

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
Sign in to follow this  

×