Smoke Dischargers, And Fragmentation Grenades Fired From These

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

When I saw these posts yesterday out of town I just had to walk away shake my head and smile so as not to influence my mood with a evening with CINCLANTHOME.
I REALLY WISH SOME PEOPLE WOULD TAKE A DEEP BREATH OUT HERE AND JUST READ THE POST AS SLOWLY AS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND IT. Please just give it one more go around. But for those not so inclined and for clarification here you go.
Tank grenade launchers primary purpose is to act as part of a defensive suite to protect armor. They generally use the following defensive grenades; conventional smoke grenades, anti-IR aerosol/smoke grenades, anti-Laser aerosol/smoke, chaff aerosol/smoke or a combination of the last three. Examples of weaponized grenades (Weaponized was used in my last post and as quoted.) would include Stun/Flash Bang grenades, HE Frag and HEAP grenades. Back to GALIX...

1. GALIX is only one example of many such systems.

2. All those countries still have GALIX.

3. Only SWEDEN to date is known to use weaponized grenades along with the defensive ones carried as part of their GALIX system. I'm still looking into the other countries but to no avail so far. Also it looks like SWEDEN is also using weaponized grenades on their CV-9030's as well ,BUT, I'm not satisfied with the amount and to some degree the source material to support this claim at this time.

Also in no manner am I talking about mortars here which have nothing to do with this discussion as carried on the Turkish M60T and a number of Israeli tanks SABRA and MERKAVA's. And because I know SOMEONE will ask, that issue is in many threads in the forum to include the MBT one but since I'm in a good mood...we don't have the weapons slots to include them-I'd personally rather have the main gun and MG's anyway.

And "shame on you" that someone who spent a career in the NAVY and worse on SUBMARINES should have to point this out!?! It's almost embarrassing-where's gingertanker when I need him!?! got it, so I'll just for awhile but not before we have some and and maybe even a yeah skip the last and just know I'll be . Sorry Don (He really doesn't like these things except these (This a rare and collectible one!!) for other people like me once in awhile.) just couldn't resist.

Regards,
Pat

[shahadi]

Yes, I agree, everyone ought to slow down and take a deep breath. The question I asked merely, and I'll state it here again, "Is the French Leclerc no longer fitted with the Galix anti-personnel system or vehicle protection system?" Please note "anti-personnel," which as I understand the term weaponized as used in this thread, is weaponized, i.e. it can kill. Clearly, an "anti-personnel" system as discussed in this thread is weaponized.

Please see: https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/...ocs/3aps98.pdf. Scroll to page 4, middle column or search document for The Galix System. Therein it is stated: "It can fire 80mm smoke rounds, anti-personnel rounds, or decoy rounds out to 30-50 meters."

Fastboat Tough assets that only Sweden has a weaponized system, although Galix is manufactured by the French company, Nexter. Again we find in Army Technology the following: "The Galix system can launch smoke or anti-personnel grenades or infrared decoys."

Again, a little civility please in our discussions.

Abraham

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

OK-There are about only six countries that use the GALIX system. France, Italy and UK the primary larger armies that do use GALIX. GALIX offers about ten different grenade options that can be used with the system as covered in my last post. It is up to the individual country to determine which grenades it wants to use. As I clearly stated in my first post (And elsewhere.) in this thread; SWEDEN is the only one I could find documentation on that again clearly states that they use the weaponized/anti-personnel grenades. Again as noted in my first post and with further explanation; SWEDEN is the only GALIX user in Europe not burdened by NATO or EU Treaties that might (As I don't know.) ban the use of these weapons or it could just be they violate that individual countries military doctrine on the use of them. All I know for sure is they don't use them except again, for SWEDEN. This could change if SWEDEN, NORWAY and FINLAND form a "NORDIC PACT" as has been discussed recently. It's purpose would be similar to NATO.
If I may make a comparison, India a couple of years ago was mulling the use of the STUN/FLASH BANG grenades on their armor for suppression purposes. It was heavily debated within the government at the time. I believe the use was finally allowed but I'm not certain.

It's important to note that most weapons and defensive systems provide ammo options but, it doesn't mean all are used by a particular country.

Regards,
Pat

[gila]

Originally Posted by shahadi

Again, a little civility please in our discussions.

Abraham

Yeah, cooler heads is good idea.
It's just inane topic about smoke dischargers,which has almost none effect on game playabilty after all.
Too much time spent discussing on nothing at all, IMO.

[Suhiir]

One thing that really needs to be kept in mind is units have only four(4) weapon slots.
This imposes a number of constraints on what can be done.

Take for instance the average USMC Rifle Squad (13x men):
9x M16A4 Assault Rifle
0 to 3x M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle
0 to 3x M249 SAW
3x M203 40mm GL
1x M39 Enhanced Marksman Rifle
3 to 13+x AT4 LAAW
13+ M67 Fragmentation Grenade

So we have 7 distinct weapons and 4 slots.
Often you have to pick and choose what weapons a unit will use simply because the game cannot handle what it really uses.

[Imp]

Simple terms what Fastboat Tough is saying is the weapon system is identical & can fire all ammo types designed for it.
Sweden however is the only country with documented proof that it uses the weaponized/ anti-personnel ammo.

This could be a simple choice based on the terrain they operate in or an imposed restriction.
Most countries think the decoys are a priority, Sweden has a lot of woods/forests so they may well feel close defence is more of a priority.

There are many weapons that follow this format if they have multiple ammo choices, the weapon system is capable of firing all its ammo types but for one reason or another that country does not use or have access to all of them. Tank main guns is an obvious one.

[Griefbringer]

I would presume that most modern tankers would prefer keeping some distance to enemy infantry, thus limiting need for such close defense systems. Also, if you are operating in close proximity to friendly infantry (eg. providing close support in urban environment) such systems could result in friendly casualties.

On the other hand, with prominent access to LAWs, RPGs etc. modern infantrymen have less interest in close assaulting vehicles than their WWII predecessors.

[dmnt]

Originally Posted by Griefbringer

I would presume that most modern tankers would prefer keeping some distance to enemy infantry, thus limiting need for such close defense systems. Also, if you are operating in close proximity to friendly infantry (eg. providing close support in urban environment) such systems could result in friendly casualties.

I believe that the reason why Sweden would employ such close proximity defenses is evident when you try and look a satellite picture over North Europe. It's not like Central Europe where you have patches of forest between the fields but the opposite. And the norther you go the worse it gets. That's also why Nordic countries aren't exactly tank heavy and (partly) why Soviet Union failed in their mission to reach Helsinki in 2 weeks in WW2. Map generator doesn't work that well for either, but you could of course imagine that the meeting engagement or anything is in such a spot because nobody wants to charge with tanks in the forest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Sweden
Arable land: 5.80%
Permanent crops: 0.02%
Water: 8.7%
Forest: ~55%

Finland:
Water: ~10%
Forest: ~69%

Aaaand (off-topic) this just in: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...tary-pact.html
No surprise to anyone who's been looking into what goodies are the Swedes buying and what Finns are. They seem to have the same helicoptres, MBTs, IFVs, APCs, SP-mortars etc etc.

[gila]

I really should let this go,
But i have to say,if you really rely on grenade launchers to get your MBT out a pickle,then you are serousily wrong.
MBT's should never be in that situation,they are best used as stand off,on a hill picking soft and hard targets, never on the front line Rambo style without infrantry close support.
Also to mention MBT's are very expensive,therefore losing one or two would make a big difference to your final score as well.
Combined arms warfare,patience and good judgement will get you better results,than rushing in as fools do.

[Suhiir]

The days of armored charges pretty much ended with the invention of the bazooka, panzerfaust, and RPG.