-7

Proposal: Weapons

I just spit balling here but Weapons would be great place to discuss all types of weapons on the level of the individual fighter soldier. Adding in Nukes, battleships, and everything possibly used in war is far to broad. Keeping it on the level of the individual whether as a lone wolf or part of a bigger unit provides plenty of range and discussion. Topics in the spectrum could include: -Firearms: which is best, best caliber or disadvantages of certain calibers in certain situations, modification of firearms, technical questions and cleaning of them. -Hand to Hand Weapons: From knife to improvised, tactics with weapons in CQB (close quarters battle) -Tactics as individual or unit in any setting and against any foe you can imagine. -Means to disable mobile armored vehicles, drones, and all other sorts of mechanized foes. I could go on but you get the picture. What is everyones opinion for this as a direction for the weapons proposal?

  • 1
    Any kind of suggestion that "which is best?"-type questions should be an accepted topic, is more than a little suspect. As for it being too broad, there is little enough activity already, and there is a much more well-reasoned suggestion of merging this along with the Firearms proposal into Arms & Armour. – Nij Jan 24 '17 at 11:28
5

Naw.

Take Stack Overflow as an example. They are about every programming language under the sun. Just because there's a lot of info doesn't mean that we need to have separate sites for it.

Counteroffer: let's have a few different tags instead, to sort things out. E.g. , (for the nukes :) ), , (missiles, etc), , etc.

  • Absolutely. Splitting StackOverflow into C#.se, Java.se, C++.se, HTML.se, etc. would not give anyone any benefit of any kind. Tags can be muted. If you are purely interested in learning more about firearms, then I suggest following tags like firearm or rifle – MechMK1 Dec 29 '17 at 19:18
-2

Again, it is difficult to separate weapon(systems) from their tactical use or from their enabling systems. Example: US land forces use 3 “machine guns”; that is guns which are intended to be used in automatic firing mode, as opposed to either semiautomatic or switchable guns which are capable of firing automatically for short bursts. These three are: 1. The M240 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) is a single operator light machine gun in 5.56mm or .223. Its intended use is to provide suppressive fires for a maneuver element. 2. The M60 General Purpose Machine Gun is typically a crew served weapon, classified as a medium machine gun in 7.62x51mm NATO. Its intended use is a mix of anti personnel and anti material. It has a lower cyclic rate than the M240, but the rounds are much more powerful. In Iraq, where cinderblock masonry is the common construction, M60 rounds had no problem penetrating the block and causing casualties behind the walls. 3. The M2 Heavy Machine gun is either crew served in a foot infantry role or is vehicle mounted. It uses the 12.7x99mm NATO. While a useful antipersonnel weapon due to its long range and powerful projectile, it is better suited in the antimaterial role. Depending on range and type of round, it can penetrate up to 25mm of armor. In Iraq, M2 rounds would not only penetrate block construction but also inflict structural damage and additional casualties by spalling. I could go on, but in general I think it is less than useful to try to consider a weapon out of its tactical context.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .