WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
I don't see why this weapon is being developed at this time.
Grenade luncher is better anti personel weapon while AT rifle is better choice for destroying tank.

Both AT rifle and grenade launcher permit the infantry men to carry more ammo and dont have the nasty side effect of signaling your enemy your position after firing.

AT rifle has about the same weight as today GPMG with is a lot.(I carried a PK on a 10 mile long hike,Mechanized Infantry my a** we walk every were)but the combatant can carry about 30 15mm rounds instead of 3 RPG's. As long as wesworld powers don't start building Panzer IV,Centurions, T-34 and Shermans I dont see the reason for fielding RPG or Panzerfaust's.

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
I was thinking that a grenade launcher like the M79 is a better choice allowing the solider too carry more ammunition. Rifle grenade is also a possible, and more in line with what was used at the time.With out the shape charge warhead as in Kaiser Kirk post there isnt much advantage over what is already in service in the late 30's.

Basically I'm saying that If I was in WW Thai R&D devision I be an opponent of this idea.Why have a novel weapon brought in too service when of the shelf idea can already fill is role.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Rockets simple, safe, well understood? In 1938-9????? Most military rockets of the day (what very few there were) were ARTILLERY weapons, where accuracy wasn't expected and the deviations were accepted because enough rounds were fired that the area was still affected even though no rounds ended up where they "should" have. The other major military rockets were air-to-ground weapons, and were lucky to hit a target the size of a tank 10% of the time. The last type of military rockets were the desperate replacement for AA cannon, which were so effective they were replaced as soon as more cannon became available.

Quoted

Historically, infantry rocket weapons were fielded AFTER HEAT rounds became available, not before. HEAT rounds and heavier tank armor gave a reason for these weapons to be developed, not the long-already-existing pillboxes and bunkers. Rocket weapons of the day were too inaccurate to hit the weak points of a pillbox or bunker (early trials of the Panzerschreck had 3 rounds out of 12 hitting a stationary tank target at 100 m), and an HE round, as proposed, wouldn't penetrate (not enough mass or velocity),

Quoted

Originally posted by ShinRa_Inc

Quoted

Originally posted by howard
I know this technology and what it could and can do.

you know this, in 2008. Does anyone in Siam know this, 70 years earlier?

Goddard and Pershing are in the US (And didn't participate in the Great war in WW, to boot), while Congreve, Hale, and Trengrouse are British.

What rationale is there for Siam making these advances when the people and technology are not availible to you?

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10
... just curious. When will the Siamese start aiming that thing into the sky to take on planes flying over their position?

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Trengrouse rockets were simple, yes, plain old black-powder rockets intended to hit the shore from a ship. Not any particular 1m square area of the shore, the shore. A pretty large target, don't you think?

Congreve rockets were, like their later counterparts, artillery weapons: not intended to hit point targets.