They never really thought lobbing Ant tank rockets from a vehicle was an effective idea did they.
They prefered fixing anti tank canons instead, which gave more precition and range.
3 Likes
+1 solely because it would be funny
This solely just carried them to the field.
Wikipedia is not a fully reliable source, but it is a good place to dive deeper into.
This can be true, but I saw from my experience that if Wikipedia pages do contain original links, references and have a detailed description of variants and naming conventions, they tend to be one-to-one with any public source.
Wiki link:
Sources for this wiki page: Bazooka - Wikipedia
Bud… you do realize that while Wikipedia does source where the information comes from.
Sometimes the information may be outdated compared to newer sources, or the source is found to be total BS.
A prime example of this is the Type-4 Chi-To, where one source claims it was planned to house an 88mm. Something the Japanese never used. For their armored vehicles, they were mostly captured rather than produced.
The point I am trying to say is, it is not a reliable source. Even if they state where the info comes from, you, as the reader, should put some time and effort into verifying its authenticity rather than blindly believing it to be factual.
Responding to this statement, it’s plausible, sure.
Except why would the United States Army issue an armored vehicle crew with a Browning automatic rifle?
Answer, they wouldn’t. It’s that black and white. You don’t need one. So they aren’t gonna give you one.
The crew would still be pretty obvious and visible
1 Like
True but low tier players are a little on the noob side. Cant blame them for the madness I see sometimes. Also you might preform well bringing this to top tier as everyone is looking for MBT shapes not little jeeps. Its a brain shape analysis issue not really skill issue.
There’s 3.0-3.7s then get by VERY WELL with just 80mm of pen.
By this point, we could have a Jeep for almost every BR between 1.0 and 7.7. Heck, if we got Humvees too then we could cover 8.0-10.3 aswell.
1 Like
I am fully aware of this, I had to deal with various technical errors as well even in specialised/technical documentation while doing my disertation so I understand your point (i.e. I had lots of inconsinstent masses and Specific Impulse values for each Vostok module and booster).
These errors may also appear when translation from native language is needed and can be more inconsistent if the information was classified in nature or if it is still treated as sensitive information.
Type-4 Chi-To was a limited production vehicle, with limited documentation which was written in Japanese. Plus, Japan has a weird policy regarding their historical vehicles in which they tend to keep their Classified documents as state secrets even if they are 50+ years old. And after capitulation in 1945, lots of official documents were destroyed so they would not fall in the hands of the US Army, so official sources are much more limited if the government does not agree to share it’s official sources. Regarding any Japanese tech, I would not be too surprised if inconsistencies in documentation may appear.
The Bazooka specifications for various models and warheads appears to be very detailed and consistent, which is a good sign and it was so largely produced and used, that technical sources are more available and known (from engineering documents to user’s and maintenance manuals). There’s also the benefit of having them written in English so multiple translations are not needed, plus the US Army has a tendency to release to public access any old tech documentation that is over 50 years old. And most of them (from what I’ve personally checked) mentions the M6A1 and M6A3 warheads, with the same specs and usability by the M1A1 launcher, with the mention that M6A3 was more widely used and delivered with the M9 improved launcher (M6A1 was discontinued in favor of M6A3).
Another good sign in this Wikipedia page is that we have various official sources from the US Army itself, like “Mayo, Lida (1968). The Ordnance Department: on Beachhead and Battlefront. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army”, the " Hoffman, Jon T., ed. (2011). A History of Innovation: U.S. Army Adaptation in War and Peace. Military Bookshop. ISBN 978-1-7803-9289-9" which both are published by the Army itself. And the Jane’s Infantry Weapons 1995-1996 edition, which they’re usually good sources of technical information (though I also found a couple of instances where the information in Jane’s Aviation and Military books to be less detailed or complete).
Good rank 1 battlepass/DTC thingy +1