GMG - grenade machine launcher (WTF?) and other useless weapons discussion

[Sprafa]

GMG

Why?
For what?
There is no real use for this weapon. It is a white elephant as far as I'm concerned.
For what purpose would you use this? It's huge!
You can blow up a village with this! And for what?
Where are the cirurgical weapons when you need them? A JDAM can easily do the job without so much mess!
But despite of those facts, the US has ordered a shipment of these things.

Just to reflect on our own...

edit - here is a page with a vid

 

[crabcakes66]

If i were a grunt. I wouldnt mind having one of those to back me up. :|

 

[Sprafa]

If you were carrying it and attacked, you would die...

If you were manning it, well, what would you fire at full auto anyway?
My point is that you don't need a grenade hose lk that, individual nades do the job...

 

[crabcakes66]

well it depends

...there might be a situation where a steady stream of nades would be required........even if just for supressive fire.

 

[_-_-SELAS-_-_]

well it depends

...there might be a situation where a steady stream of nades would be required........even if just for supressive fire.

I agree... Ever heard of artillery support? No its not effective when ur walking around alone in Doom3 or something but in a reallife warsituation a little concentrated artillery could be a life saver, ie. where u have 10 guys covering you with m16 rifles you can have one guy with a heavy duty GMG to take out the heavier targets.

 

[Fender357]

Yeah......that thing would work good in the gunners seat on a tank. Probably as an anti tank weapon............but then again, what would you use that big ass cannon for?

 

[A2597]

FINALLY...been waiting for somone to develope one of these.

the next step is to make those propelled grenades, and later add heat seeking to them.

 

[Neutrino]

Once explosion = cool
Two explosions = awesome
Three explosions = awe inspiring

Automatic grenade launcher....need I say more?

 

[The Terminator]

itd be damn fun to shoot

 

[Sui]

yes and imaging if aw tank was trying to get past? set one of those up in a building....

 

[ductonius]

GMG

[snip]......[/snip]

It allows a humvee to mount something heavyer than a .50cal machinegun while being lighter than a TOW missile.

Its for those situations where you need explosives but a rocket is too much. Its called the right tool for the right job.

http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/reports/soldiers6.jpg


In addition, it allows the SEALS to mount a heavy weapon on their rather light attack buggys

http://user.tninet.se/~huv222o/kj/bilder/buggy.jpg

Giving them a quick-fring anti-armour/vehicle/infantry punch.


Im surprised you alredy didnt know about this weapon. The US has been using them for years.

 

[thenerdguy]

It looks like it could be mounted to a hummer.
It could also be a bace defence weapon. I wouldnt mind having one of my own.

 

[Maskirovka]

yes...overwhelming firepower is always necessary in war. it would be like a small artillery strike, but more accurate and directed without the use of a radio or other technology (beacons, etc.)

incredibly useful. the army doesn't waste time using weapons that aren't useful...hence...they USE them.

 

[Sprafa]

Im surprised you alredy didnt know about this weapon. The US has been using them for years.

Not this one!
It's a new edition and only now it started to be mass delivered. And indeed I had heard about it before on HKpro and Worldmodernweapons but it seemed like they didn't actually made them. Only now I've realized they're actually used by the army.

And has anyone seen the vid? The projectiles are way too slow to serve effectivaly as a long/mid-range artillery.

 

[Maskirovka]

uhh...i strongly disagree that they're too slow. the army already uses 40mm grenades...y'know the rifles that have the underslung launchers...same ammo.

 

[Sprafa]

And how fast do underslug nades go?

not fast enough. Just watch the vid if you have a doubt.

 

[Maskirovka]

the underslung nades are the same ammo, just a different launching mechanism...i'd wager that they go roughly the same speed/distance.

i watched the vid before i made my previous posts...i don't see what makes you think they're too slow. you're not trying to hit individual soldiers in the face with them...they have an area effect. this weapon would be highly useful for taking down light structures or light vehicles or supressing and/or annihilating entrenched infantry. why does the projectile have to be fast in order to accomplish its objective?

obviously it wouln't be that great of a defensive weapon vs. fast moving vehicles/helicopters/planes....that's its only real weakness.

i have an idea. you try to charge me while i'm in a humvee armed with one of these things. you get a crowd of people and try to charge me when i'm equipped with one of these. better yet, you get inside a building and try to live while i blow the crap out of it.

i don't see how it's ineffective at all.

 

[Sprafa]

i have an idea. you try to charge me while i'm in a humvee armed with one of these things. you get a crowd of people and try to charge me when i'm equipped with one of these. better yet, you get inside a building and try to live while i blow the crap out of it.

That's my point !!

It is highly destructive! If have a dozen rounds you can blow up a whole building!
But for why the **** would you do that if one men is inside!!! For fun??!?!?!

 

[Maskirovka]

That's my point !!

It is highly destructive! If have a dozen rounds you can blow up a whole building!
But for why the **** would you do that if one men is inside!!! For fun??!?!?!

you're hardly ever only shooting one man in a combat situation...you usually shoot at the other side's "army" or "battle group" i.e. many soldiers or groups of soldiers.

also, what if there's a sniper in a building but you're not quite sure which one? he's already killed 3 of your men. do you:

A: shoot your pistol at the window you think he might be in
B: shoot all your machine guns at the windows
C: lob one nade into the window you think he's in
D: fire many grenades directly into all the windows he could possibly be in.

the answer, unless there are other circumstances (like civilians being in the building) is D. you use overwhelming firepower to solve every situation.

 

[SidewinderX]

It is actually an hugley useful weapon.

1) Defense. You have to defend a road/pass/bridge. Have one of these set of to cover it, then you can stop light vehciles accuratley.

2)Mounted. As said before, mounted on a HMMWV, you have a strong punch, effective against light vehicles and infantry.

3) Supression. Faster and more accuarte than a mortar.

It's a very useful weapon.

 

[Sprafa]

the answer, unless there are other circumstances (like civilians being in the building) is D. you use overwhelming firepower to solve every situation.

Did you think about what you posted?

A sniper. And you would take down the whole building?
thats way overreacted

Cirurgical strikes are the future.

 

[AudioRage]

If you're a small operational force, and a sniper has already killed three of your men, thats in no way overreacting, its called removing the threat by whatever means necessary.

 

[Maskirovka]

Did you think about what you posted?

A sniper. And you would take down the whole building?
thats way overreacted

Cirurgical strikes are the future.

i didn't say the whole building...just firing into possible locations.

it's a good thing you're not a military commander...you'd be like, "oh nos we have to save the buildings...guys...go charge that (possibly booby-trapped) building with an unknown number of men in it so we don't hurt the precious building.

and you "projectiles are too slow" doesn't many any sense. it's a perfectly useful weapon.

of course SURGical strikes are the future...but they're not reality...until you have heat-seeking bullets or something, you're going to have to use a bit more firepower to get the job done.

also, in the past, if you were faced by a sniper or squad of riflemen, you would use tanks to supress the enemy by firing at their location (possibly with FLAMETHROWERS...even more destructive)...if that was a building, so be it. you use firepower because it means it costs you less lives. also in the past, it's possible that an inaccurate artillery strike would be called in on a building. this takes extra time that troops cannot afford, but before this type of weapon, artillery-level firepower was only available at the batallion level. now it's available at the squad level...amazingly good.

artillery demolishes entire buildings and also can easily cause extra collateral damage. airstrikes can miss (even with laser-guided bombs) and can take a long time to call in...if they are available at all.

this weapon IS a step towards surgical strikes. it's a more-quickly-delivered and more accurate version of previous weapons...i.e. artillery.

 

[Sprafa]

Sure a bit more firepower is needed!
But launching 330 nades per minute is way too much firepower in a city!

And what I meant with too slow was for long/medium-range anti-vehicular artillery barrage some ppl suggested. In the vid you see there are a few seconds between the firings and the impact. They would be enough for a skilled tank/vehicle driver to dodge in high speed.

 

[63]

I'd say the GMG would be primarily for defending temporary posts. I would think that it would be to slow and heavy to unpack in the middle of a firefight, 10 secs and it could be over. And back to the sniper thing, wouldnt he aim for the man carrying the heavy weaponry first? and snipers are rarely solo, snipers work with eachother from all sides to confuse.

 

[Direwolf]

Its a niche weapon. If you pick a fight over this one, then theres dozens and dozens of other weapons you'd have problems with too. The point is that its just useful in the right situations.
And for the love of God its "surgical."

 

[Maskirovka]

it just has the CAPABILITY of 330 nades per minute. that doesn't mean that the capability is always used in every situation. having the capability of extra firepower is NEVER a bad thing...you never know when you'll need to use it.

and in the video, the time between the first shot and the first blast is NOT more than 1-1.5 seconds. so what if it's not good against moving vehicles at long range? that's what TOW missiles and Abrams tanks are for. Plus, you keep saying how it would be too much in a city...cities have short ranges!

and a fast-moving vehicle attack would probably be accompanied by troop transports that would have to unload at some point...this weapon would be perfect for laying down fire around the unloading areas. i can't imagine any military commander EVER saying he thinks this weapon is "too much" or "too slow for fast moving vehicles"...."so i don't want it."

and Six Three: blah blah...you can take apart my sniper situation all you want, but the point was...it could be useful for that situation...perhaps another guy jumps on the launcher after the firs guy dies...you can go on like that all day if you want...what if the! and omg what about! :\

and yeah...direwolf is right...nobody said this is the best weapon for all situations...just that it IS useful and better than previous weapons for certain situations.

 

[AudioRage]

Sure a bit more firepower is needed!
But launching 330 nades per minute is way too much firepower in a city!

And what I meant with too slow was for long/medium-range anti-vehicular artillery barrage some ppl suggested. In the vid you see there are a few seconds between the firings and the impact. They would be enough for a skilled tank/vehicle driver to dodge in high speed.

It fires 330 rounds a minute, yet its slow.

Alrighty.

 

[Sprafa]

The projectile velocity, not the Rate of fire....

 

[Maskirovka]

It fires 330 rounds a minute, yet its slow.

Alrighty.

he meant the travel time from shot to impact...but it's still a great weapon that any military commander or soldier would love to have at his disposal.

 

[AudioRage]

But if you're firing it at full auto, the travel time to impact doesn't really matter, you can just walk the grenades into the target. (it its moving)

 

[Sprafa]

If you mean that you can follow the target, calculate it's trajectory and adjust your GMG to its speed so the nades blow him up effectivaly, then I must say that while you try to do that, he already got cover.

And AudioRage whats that in your sig - «Understand that I am a Suender»???

 

[Maskirovka]

but if he's supressed and in cover, you can maneuver...maneuvering = winning. it doesn't seem like you understand combat very well.

 

[AudioRage]

If you mean that you can follow the target, calculate it's trajectory and adjust your GMG to its speed so the nades blow him up effectivaly, then I must say that while you try to do that, he already got cover.

And AudioRage whats that in your sig - «Understand that I am a Suender»???

Sünder=Sinner (according to my limited understanding of the German language)

Cover from my GMG that fires 330 Rounds per minute?

Like what?

 

[Sprafa]

Sure, Maskirovka, if all those things are to your side then you'll certainly win. A guy in cover and supressed doesn't has much choices anyway.

What I'm saying is this - A small tank collum at medium range, at full speed, with a few chances of cover. You fire your GMG. You miss the 1st rounds and aim a little ahead of him so you can hit him sort of directly.
Now how much time would that thing take to turn? Let's be optimistical and say maybe a couple secs.
That gives the perfect trajectory option. When you fire you are able to blow up the leader but the rest start to zig-zag and are able to dodge your nades and get cover behind some hills.

Cover from my GMG that fires 330 Rounds per minute?

Like what?

A hill or a residential building. Even a normal set of unocuppied buildings wold be good. (would you blow up a whole city block to take out a target?)

 

[Maskirovka]

omg dude...this weapon couldn't penetrate a tank's armor anyway. it's mounted on top of your humvee, so you drive away.

but if it's a coordinated attack with infantry and tanks, you'd have at the very least anti-tank rockets, helicopters, or whatever else you might have to take care of the tanks and you could use .50 cal machine guns to hit the light vehicles...then you use your GMG to target and supress the slow moving infantry.

if you couldn't kill the tanks you'd just run away or die.

it's simple...nobody ever said it would be good for hitting tank columns or fast moving vehicles at long range...WE ADMIT THAT. i don't understand why you say the weapon is unncecessary and useless in general.

EDIT: and as far as the enemy going for cover...THAT IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING. like i said...if the enemy is hiding in cover, you can maneuver around and set up your force to take the enemy out in whatever way you see fit. this weapon gives you the ability to supress your enemy in almost every situation....that is an effective and highly useful weapon.

you're naming one situation (fast vehicles) in which it's not good. well an m-16 can't take out a tank either...so what's your point?

 

[AudioRage]

Bah, Maskirovka beat me to it.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

If you were carrying it and attacked, you would die...

If you were manning it, well, what would you fire at full auto anyway?

Ever heard of wars, or violent riots?

 

[AudioRage]

Ever heard of wars, or violent riots?

That gets me wondering if it can be outfitted with teargas grenades...Hmm.

 

[Sprafa]

Tanks are a slow vehicle - that could evade the GMG anyway.
And it could be used as an anti-tank weapon, it depends on the tank.

And not looooooooong-range I think medium-range would be enough to give time to dodge. (in artillery terms)
And some sort of light vehicle would easily be destroyed in short/medium-range, I admit that.