The_Mac
Member
+96|6649

Bertster7 wrote:

I seem to remember a big part of the victory at Waterloo was due to the terrain. Something to do with a ridge providing great cover.....

But I can't remember properly.
There were a number of reasons. Wellington was a very defensive oriented general, most British generals are, it's a tradition I've noticed starting in the 100 years war. It was their rise to power on the continent, and their downfall too.
At any rate, Wellington was waiting for reinforcements from Blucher, so he could afford to wait. Napoleon with uncharacteristic arrogance overestimated the British, and thought he owned the Prussians for good. Wellington took up position a little behind a ridge, so when Napoleon's famed barrage went off, the British weren't so badly mauled as they would have been in the open. It also slowed up Napoleon's heavy cavalry.
Napoleon was pretty optimistic and slow, Wellington needed all the time he could get, so Napoleon, unknowingly, was playing right into Wellington's hands.
Gillenator
Evils Bammed Sex Machine
+129|6818|Evilsville
You people shouldn't be talking about 'the British' when talkinng about the battle of Waterloo. Instead you should be referring to 'the Allies'. The British didn't even make up half the force Wellington has at his disposal.
Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6657|Albion

The_Mac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I seem to remember a big part of the victory at Waterloo was due to the terrain. Something to do with a ridge providing great cover.....

But I can't remember properly.
There were a number of reasons. Wellington was a very defensive oriented general, most British generals are, it's a tradition I've noticed starting in the 100 years war. It was their rise to power on the continent, and their downfall too.
At any rate, Wellington was waiting for reinforcements from Blucher, so he could afford to wait. Napoleon with uncharacteristic arrogance overestimated the British, and thought he owned the Prussians for good. Wellington took up position a little behind a ridge, so when Napoleon's famed barrage went off, the British weren't so badly mauled as they would have been in the open. It also slowed up Napoleon's heavy cavalry.
Napoleon was pretty optimistic and slow, Wellington needed all the time he could get, so Napoleon, unknowingly, was playing right into Wellington's hands.
its actually a slander, wellington attacked whenever he could, and won when he did. british generals are usually always out numbered so...
The_Mac
Member
+96|6649

Vernedead wrote:

its actually a slander, wellington attacked whenever he could, and won when he did. British generals are usually always out numbered so...
Not really a slander, I thought I said what you did, but yes, it originated in the Hundred Years War because the English were made up of infantry vs huge bodies of well armored cavalrymen. The only way infantrymen can stay alive is to group together and form phalanxes, and yet have an offensive force without endangering their infantry. So that's how the archers turned to play. In Agincourt, Henry opened the battle with a shower of arrows.
So I know I don't think slanderous to call British Generals defensive, because a lot of the time, their tactics worked.

Gillenator wrote:

You people shouldn't be talking about 'the British' when talkinng about the battle of Waterloo. Instead you should be referring to 'the Allies'. The British didn't even make up half the force Wellington has at his disposal.
What I consider the Allies were the British, the Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians, the Italians, the Spanish etc who were against Napoleon.
The Belgian Brunswickers had suffered a severe blow when their leader died at Quarte Brass and many of them deserted on the road to Waterloo. The Dutch had some carbineers and infantry.
The Hanoverans were part of the British Army as "The King's foreign legion" or something of that sort. So I think in this respect these forces were almost commonwealth attached to the British Army. The Prussians of course are different, but that's why they get their own designation.

I mean the British at El Alamien had French and Polish forces in their ranks, and we refer to that army as British.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-07-06 08:15:25)

Vernedead
Cossack
+21|6657|Albion
sorry, it was a slander of the time to call wellington a defensive general, he had a long list of sucessful attacks to his name.
The_Mac
Member
+96|6649

Vernedead wrote:

sorry, it was a slander of the time to call wellington a defensive general, he had a long list of sucessful attacks to his name.
Well, from what I've read he was more of a defensive general, simply because he didn't have enough troops to attack and sustain casualties.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7138|US
Random story:

During WWII, a dentist came up with a way to defeat Japan.  Simply attach incendiary devices to bats and drop them over Japanese cities.  The bats would then roost in wooden buildings and set off the incendiaries in the process.  This could have crippled Japan's industry and caused havoc in the cities!

There were, however, a few developmental problems...
One problem was creating a bomb small enough for a bat to carry.  After developing a tiny incendiary bomb, the researchers ran into several more problems.  It was discovered that the bats needed to be chilled before or their movement would ignite the incendiaries early, either during loading or mid-flight!  So, the US developed special containers to cool the bats and then release them at the proper time.  Problem two...the cooling system worked too well!  The bats were still chilled into sleep by the time they impacted the ground.  Several early tests over the Southwestern US resulted in very small, flaming bat-craters...
The containers were redesigned to release the bats at a more suitable temperature.  Problem three (the straw that broke the camel's back)...Upon testing, there was an accidental release of bats.  This resulted in several bats escaping and roosting in buildings on the Army base.  Needless to say, the generals weren't happy that some incendiary-laden bats had burnt down part of the base!  The program was canceled.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2007-07-06 19:26:21)

The_Mac
Member
+96|6649
Yeah, I heard about that too, lol. While the bats were canceled, the incendiary bombs weren't.
thtthht
maximum bullshit
+50|6754|teh alien spaceshit

The_Mac wrote:

Cutting Edge Aircraft
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6255/typhoonic7.jpg
One of Nato's most amazing pieces of military technology, the Euro Fighter Typhoon, primarily British, but going into service with some European countries as well, the Aircraft boasts heavy armament with agile and speedy performance. The Aircraft is naturally unstable, but this is why it is so manuverable. Fly by wire controls compensate for the instability of the aircraft.
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1374/cannondr7.jpg
Another interesting feature of this aircraft is that its gun is no longer the Vulcan or gatling gun, but a single 27mm Mauser BK2 Cannon. The missile armament includes Air to Air missiles, as well as Air to ground and bombs.
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/8343/ospreyyu7.jpg
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3633 … ionmg0.jpg
On the United States Spectrum, the V-22 Osprey is finally being deployed by at least one US Marine squadron. This aircraft has been grounded for a while, but re-testing and final pronouncement deemed this thing ready to go out in service. For now, the armament consists of a rear mounted m240 machine gunner with his gun primed to fire in hopes of suppressing ground attackers of the aircraft. In the future, concepts point to attaching a chin turret with a 3 barrel 20mm gatling gun with the capabilities of a cobra turret to further deter attackers. Because of the engines location on the wings, the authorities did not want to risk the gunmen shooting off the engines by accident.
http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9574/f35sl7.jpg
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4783/f35ut3.jpg
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4443/f353tv8.jpg
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/3821/f352ok4.jpg
The F-35
This aircraft will replace the F-16, F-15, A-10, and the F-18 from the Air Force, Marines and Navy by 2011. With its combination of laser pin pointing for busting tanks, its 6 barreled Vulcan cannon for helping to crack tanks, and its missiles for giving enemy dogfighters an extra sting, the F-35 will be a single engined Pratt & Whittney design. Using fly by wire controls, the aircraft is very maneuverable, and importantly, the engine can go at Mach 1 without lighting the afterburners, which is a tremendous feat and will help reduce heat signals protruding farther away.  The F-35 will be utilizing for the first time in Aviation history on an aircraft besides the A-10, a 25mm Gau-12 Equalizer. If you'll note, the A-10's Gau 12 is what rips tanks up and out. With this gun in the F-35, it will be more able to crack tanks than originally thought by skeptics.
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2517/gau12rr1.jpg
^^Thats the Gau-12 25mm.
The harrier has a gau 12.
A-10 has a gau-8, an even bigger motherfucker.

It uses 30mm ammunition, which is able to give hell to tanks at over1300 meters.
The_Mac
Member
+96|6649

thtthht wrote:

It uses 30mm ammunition, which is able to give hell to tanks at over1300 meters.
Yeah, that was a mistake, my bad; what I meant with the 25mm Cannon for the F-35 was for the first time, it's going to be a four barreled cannon. No longer a 6.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-07-28 20:03:05)

The_Mac
Member
+96|6649
This is what I've been kind of working on, chugging along, doing a bit of research, etc.
Hueys -- Gunships
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/massie01.jpg
^Scarface UH-1E Marine Gunship;note the nose m60Cs.
Author’s Note: The Hueys are a living example of American engineering at an ever increasing peak of innovation. First introduced in 1962, this helicopter could be outfitted in a variety of ways. Taken from an esteemed position of mededvac to the highly (for the enemy) dreaded gunship role. The Huey was also a transport as well, of course.
The main interest for me is the armament of helicopters. Thus, I have attempted to compile most of the armament I could find from written sources.
Because I am fortunate enough to work at the Flying Leatherneck Aviation Museum, I have contacted people who have seen other armaments and field upgrades (further demonstrating the innovation the service members have, even in the war zones); while I full heartedly believe these sources, as they’re legitimacy cannot be doubted, I have yet to make visual contact with these armaments myself, whether physical, or in a picture of these helicopters in general.
Thus, I cannot quite label them as true armaments, because of the extremely scarce documentation of their existence.
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/SeaWolves.gif
^Sea Wolves, famous Navy Gunship Squadron, flying UH-1Bs, UH-1Cs, and UH-1Hs in that role.
Helicopter Name: UH-1 Series Iroquois
Nickname: Huey
Roles: Utility, Transport, Gunship, Medevac, Assault Transport
Gunship Missions:
Fire support
Tank Busting
Primary Interest: Gunship Role

Gunship designations: UH-1Bs, UH-1Cs, UH-1Es

Service(s) Deployed in: Army, Navy, Marine Corps (UH-1Es were unique to the Marine Corps, the main difference was the fuselage was made out of aluminum, as opposed to magnesium—this helps negate the corrosion, a constant threat at sea).

Known Squadrons to have used the Huey Gunship:
Navy: HA(L)-3 Sea Wolves
Marines: HML(A) 367, VMO-3 Scarface
Army: ____________________

Primary Armament: Quad m60Ds (on racks-.30Cal), two rocketpods with 2.75inch rockets (pod capacity could vary from 9-32 rockets/pod), two m60 door guns
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/20mmCannon.jpg
Figure 1:  This is the 20mm cannon uncropped, it was put into a pod and mounted on the side of a UH-1, but it's possible field modifiers went a little further, and cropped the barrel and mounted it on the Huey nose turret.
Less commonly documented Armament: 2 6-barreled miniguns (7.62mm/.30Cal) mounted on racks—positioned on the outer section, 2 Rocketpods (2.75inch, 7-32 rockets/pod) , (2) Door mounted m60s
In place of the two 7.62mm m60s on the skids, a single .30 Browning m1919 derivative would have been mounted on both sides, instead, on the inner pylon, with rocketpods mounted on the outer pylons.
Rarely documented Armament: M2 (.50 Cal) door guns, Miniguns (6 barreled, 7.62mm) door guns, m197 (cropped down) 3x20mm Cannon door gun.

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/minigun.jpg
Figure 2: a door mounted minigunner unleashes 7.62mm ammunition upon his elusive foes.
Tank Busting (Gunship) Armament: 2xPods of 3 TOW missiles. These TOW missiles were added on and completed testing by Mid 1967. They were added on some UH-1B/Cs in late 1967, just in time to bust the Soviet NVA tanks in 1968.
UH-1E Unique Armament: The marines ordered the UH-1E, which had a TAT-101 turret, similar to the turret found on the AH-1 Cobra, the successor gunship to the UH-1 Gunships.
The Emerson Electric TAT-101 held twin m60cs (7.62mm) with 100 degrees of swiveling, and a 45 degree depression, and 15 degrees elevation (degrees measured when m60Cs are held out straight). There were 1,000 rounds total, while the slew rate of the turret was 45 degrees/second. The TAT-101 was used from 1967 to 1972, solely by the USMC on their UH-1Es. They were dropped in 1972, due to jamming problems, and more effective ways to mount a dedicated forward firing gun on a Huey (e.g. using a gun pod with a 20mm cannon inside).
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/m60C.jpg
Figure 3: M60C machine gun, modified for use on Emerson Electric TAT-101 nose turret.
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/guns_g1.gif
^TAT-101 with dual m60Cs.
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/m5gunpod-1.jpg
Figure 4: (left) m75 grenade launcher with m5 turret
UH-1B/C Unique Armament: The Army and Navy used this Huey as their gunship platform, and similar to the UH-1E, they had a nose turret, but unlike the TAT-101, the m5 turret was used for holding an m75, 40mm Grenade launcher.

The Grenade launcher (pictured at left) was automatic, but due to the massive size of the grenades, possessed a sacrificed rate of fire—220RPM. This is still impressive, considering these were explosive bullets being shelled out, and not just bullets.
Other Armaments:
A 20mm cannon was carried in a gun pod and was carried on a rack next, shooting forward. This was an uncropped 20mm cannon. Although the documentation
was rare, it is known this was used.
Alleged/Source Documentation Armament;
Note: This is where the Hueys are especially interesting, because in the War Zone, the American servicemen crew chiefs, firechiefs, and service engineers were all trying to experiment with as many possibilities as they could.
20mm Canons & Huey Turrets—Field Mods
While it is definitely possible, admitted many USMC Vietnam veterans, and Huey armament enthusiasts, and hobby historians consulted, all have not seen any sort of documentation of this, but because these were field mods, it is understandable. At the same time, the author is compelled to point out, that again, the only time he has heard of these armament mods was orally from a source. The source might have his own sources, but the author regretfully has not seen these.
The first experimentation was done with the 20mm Oerlikon Anti Aircraft gun. Naturally, the gun barrel is large enough, but the whole feeding and powering mechanism is heavy, so engineers cut down the barrel size roughly 32 inches down from the top, and fitted this cannon in place of the two m60cs. The Navy had turrets, as did the Army. It is not known currently if these turrets would have been modified from carrying grenade launchers to carrying cropped down cannon.
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/m197-uh1d20mm.jpg
Figure 5: A cropped m197 pintle mounted door- gun, but it is possible triple barreled cannons like these were used on turrets like TAT-101.
The second piece of experimentation was done with the m197. The m197 itself is a cropped down m61A1 Vulcan 6 barreled 20mm cannon, utilizing three barrels instead the Vulcan’s six, for better hitting power, but for reducing weight.
The m197, a cropped down variant of it’s more powerful big brother, the Vulcan cannon, was in turn cropped down to be a pintle mounted door gun. There is also strong reason to believe that this cropped down m197 could have been used on the TAT-101, in place of the m60Cs. However, it is necessary to point out, while this is fact, these are field modifications, which is why documentation, visual and otherwise is so scarce, some squadrons tried it out, and some didn’t. However, the Author’s main question comes up as to how the Army and Navy were able to test these turrets out—the TAT-101s were UH-1E/USMC only. It is possible that since bases had a variety of parts scattered about, and since bases were close, the Marines, Army, and Navy servicemen could have all been borrowing each other’s spare equipment!
But it’s also quite possible that since the Navy and Army had access to UH-1B/C gunships, they were able to mod the m5 nose turret, remove the m75 grenade launcher, and modify in whatever they wanted.
On the USMC popasmoke website, what one assumes to be a photograph of a UH-1E  USMC Huey, it appears that there might be a (maybe two?) miniguns attached. The title is “Holly’s Dream Machine”, which could mean ‘Holly’ felt like stacking on two miniguns on his nose turret, or he was actually deploying these weapons on his nose turret into battle.
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/Holly4.jpg
Figure 6: Holly's Dream Machine. Funning or Fighting? And is that a minigun at the bottom right of the nose turret? The Marston Matting the Huey is parked on, plus revetments in the background places this picture taken in the early 60’s.  The A/C markings classify it as an Army bird.
    There is good reason to believe it was a possibility—miniguns were used a lot as door guns, so field modifiers would have access to miniguns to tamper with and eventually mount on nose turrets.
The final piece of  field modification equipment is the 37mm M4 cannon, that was also allegedly tested on the UH-1 series.
https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/37mm.jpg
Figure 7: (left) A good AA gun (37mm), but not so much a good nose gun.
Although it is probable such a test was executed, the 37mm fell out of favor due to weight concerns, and if the 20mm and minigun were still being used as a field mod in place of the m75 grenade launcher and the dual m60C setup.

Last edited by The_Mac (2007-08-08 08:26:02)

The_Mac
Member
+96|6649
No one likes the Hueys?
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7138|US
It's great, I just don't have anything to say yet.
The_Mac
Member
+96|6649
Cold War Weapons
Pre-M16

So, it’s spring break, not much to do, I decided to be a little intellectaul, if you will, and do a major bump.

Recently, I have been studying more on World War 2 and the Cold War, and people give this era in time less credit than it deserves, because it is a remarkably bloody and equally fascinating period in time that I, essentially, want to talk about.

During the cold war, the British fought with firearms such as the Lee-enfield which was a bolt action rifle, Bren light machine guns, and Sten guns.

However, after the war, the British were amongst the first, under Churchill, to develop an EM-2 Assault Rifle. This is a true assault rifle. But before we get into it, what defines an assault rifle?
In political land, there is a lot of rhetoric that defines an assault rifle one way or the other. An assault rifle is:
Capable of Selective fire (meaning single shot AND three round burst or automatic, or all of the above)
Intermediate cartridge. This means a round developed to take the place of other rounds, something lighter. For example, while the Browning Automatic Rifle uses selective fire, it is still an automatic rifle because of not only its weight, but it fires a full powered rifle round.

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/Browning_Automatic_Rifle_Cropped.jpg
^ Browning Automatic Rifle
This is not a requirement, as we shall see, but Assault Rifles usually have a hand grip either before or after the trigger. Some assault rifles carry a grip up on the barrel, but that’s a moot point because Submachine guns (which use handgun rounds) can too.

The British developed an intermediate round called the .280 calibre round, about 7 millimeters. This is about .62 millimeters smaller than the round NATO had adopted.

So unfortunately, the round and the assault rifle were cancelled. But, I would invite, for counter factual history’s sake, you to imagine how the world would have been transformed by this rifle.

Keep in mind, the FN-Fal was originally an assault rifle because of its intermediate round, but because it kept NATO’s full rifle round, it is merely a battle rifle/automatic rifle.

What is more interesting is that Britain was planning to essentially reequip its armies throughout its Empire. Proof of this can be found in the General Purpose Machine gun
developed along the EM-2, using the 7 millimeter round as well.

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/EM-2.jpg

^There is the EM-2. Note how it is revolutionary in its bullpup design. While bullpup was picked up by Austria, the British were developing it first, and you can see it also has a 30 round magazine which would have been very interesting to see this weapon applied in a theatre of war, perhaps Korea, or Malaysia and Indonesia for sure.

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/LMG.jpg

^There is the Taden, similar design, only bigger barrel for full fledged automatic fire and bi-pod grip.

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/FN-Fal.jpg

^ FN-Fal, one of the first assault rifles, developed in Belgium, it was designed with an intermediate round in mind. When NATO put their foot down, this rifle was affected adversely. Though not cancelled, the weapon was put at its limit with the 7.62mm round, and could no longer fire fully automatic at a controllable rate; this means it was reduced to a battle rifle, and in Britain, the weapon was produced as a semi automatic weapon solely, which means it can no longer really be classified as an Assault Rifle.

The American Front

The Americans were even slower than the British and their NATO western allies to developing a battle rifle. Part of this was the fact that the Americans felt that their Garands and 30-.06 had won the war on the infantry theatre. Another reason was that they wanted a rifle to replace the B.A.R., the M3 Grease Gun, the Thompson, and the M1 Garand. They decided to put in the M14, essentially an M1 Garand with a 20 round magazine. This followed true to the American doctrine of individual riflemen as marksmen, with each man making a shot count. While this seemed like common sense, in the terrain of Asia where the U.S. would find itself involved, mobility and firepower would be preferable to mobility and simply good marksmanship.

Later on, it became clear the M14 was not good as an automatic weapon, and had a hand grip and some barrel additions implemented. Consequently, it became very heavy, and is classified as an automatic rifle.

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/M14A1.jpg

^ M14, rifle and automatic rifle

Another interesting development was the M1, and later, the M2 carbines. These were lighter rifles, made in the style of the M1 Garand. What is interesting to note here was that the M1 Carbine was using an intermediate round. While of the same caliber, the round was split in half, meaning it lost some of its range and stopping power. In turn, the rifle was almost able to be classified as an assault rifle, until the M2 carbine showed up.

The M2 was used in World War 2 for a while, but it showed itself in Korea. The M2 was capable of selective fire and used banana clips for the first time. It also used an intermediate round, which means the M2 Carbine could be classified as America’s first Assault Rifle.

https://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb289/teh_Mac/M1A1_Carbine_tri_army.jpg

^Here is a paratrooper version of the M1/M2. Note the hand grip before the trigger guard—that was used as a more secure hold to control the recoil, and became common in assault rifles after. It is significant because in the M1’s case it is the first battle rifle to have a hand guard like that.

If it had a real stock and not the folding one, it could truly be argued as 100% assault rifle, provided it was capable of selective fire.



seymorebutts443 wrote:

actually the ruskies had the first assault rifle in service long before the StG, the Fedorov Avtomat was first produced in 1916, granted it was not capable of automatic fire but it is THE original assault rifle.
http://content.answers.com/main/content … a_1916.jpg
I'd like to throw out a thanks to seymorebutts443 who posted this several pages back. It turns out this was one of the first assault rifles, but I'd say
proto-assault rifles because it does not have selective fire.

Last edited by The_Mac (2008-04-05 18:18:34)

MAGUIRE93
High Angle Hell
+182|6618|Schofield Barracks
https://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc223/MAGUIRE93/50calgif.gif
https://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc223/MAGUIRE93/M82_USMC.jpg
https://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc223/MAGUIRE93/800px-USMC_Barrett_M82A3.jpg
https://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc223/MAGUIRE93/Rifle_cartridge_comparison.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle

Last edited by MAGUIRE93 (2008-04-07 17:29:53)

The_Mac
Member
+96|6649
Nice, they're actually bringing in more .50 Cal sniper rifles, including the M110.
argo4
Stand and Deliver
+86|6357|United States
One of my favorites, the 40 mm grenade launcher
Vietnam era:
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m79.jpg

The Mark 19 grenade launcher:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/MK-19_40mm_grenade_launcher_during_MIL-EX_2003.jpg/800px-MK-19_40mm_grenade_launcher_during_MIL-EX_2003.jpg

The m203, uses smaller round than the automatic gl:
https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/M203-1.jpg

The Milkor semi-auto revolver style launcher:


And finally, the XM307, 25 mm :

Last edited by argo4 (2008-04-14 19:35:55)

RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7138|US
Mk 19s are rediculous...I still think the M2 HB .50BMG is a more usefull weapon for most applications.
The_Mac
Member
+96|6649
Mk 19s are good for blowing open holes in things--the M2HB is a nice gun, but try blowing open a door...speaking of which.

argo4
Stand and Deliver
+86|6357|United States

The_Mac wrote:

Mk 19s are good for blowing open holes in things--the M2HB is a nice gun, but try blowing open a door...speaking of which.

coolest.attachment.ever.
me want
Imagine firing this thing at an enemy...
The_Mac
Member
+96|6649
Haha, its meant for knocking in doors. Anyway, just grab an M203 for use against the enemy. Or this
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7138|US

argo4 wrote:

The_Mac wrote:

Mk 19s are good for blowing open holes in things--the M2HB is a nice gun, but try blowing open a door...speaking of which.

coolest.attachment.ever.
me want
Imagine firing this thing at an enemy...
Rag doll physics in action???

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard