Defensive weapons

[headquarters]

yeah

This post makes me remember that in the Spanish army, the R-41 (the standard hand grenade) has a different configuration depending if you use it in a defensive or offensive role. Basically the defensive grenade is an offensive grenade inside an special envelope that contains 3500 small steel balls to increase the damage in the burst area. The idea of the increased frag. power is that the soldier who uses a defensive grenade is throwing it from a cover. It is thought that the offensive configuration of the R-41 is better to prevent damage against the rest of the squad, immediately advancing to take profit from the grenade effect.

No idea if in others armies this difference between defensive/offensive grenade types exists.

We trained for assault using concussion grenades and defence using frags in the Norwegian Army in the 1990s..The frags were german made plastic ones with thousands of little steel balls in them - the concussion ones were more like a smokegrenade type only they gave little smoke but quite the walloping bang ..

[headquarters]

Chemical weapons

Altough once used to gas people in positions you were about to attack -I seem to remember that modern use of these weapons also play on the defence ,meaning that gas and chemical agents can be used to deny an enemy use of a certain piece of terrain ,since its temporarily toxic /poisonous ..The same gas/aerosol weapon could of course be used to attack someone ,but it would slow you down some if you had to move through country were everything was potentially /actually covered in a fine spray of nervegas droplets or some such.

[jester]

Yes, gas is an offensive weapon but can be used as a denial weapon as well. Especialy something like CS since its base is a crystline chemical that is persistant. So toss in a CS grenade in the bunker and yes it will disapate, but it will still affect you for sometime, weeks and months later depending on the weather conditions and how it breaks down.

[copeab]

Guard dogs. Ducks. Geese.

(animals as alarms)

Brandon

[chico20854]

AT missiles! Not exactly the sort of thing you want to be dragging with you when you go over the top.

And to second Jester's statement, tripod-mounted GPMGs. Interlocking fields of fire make defensive positions oh-so-much fun!

[jester]

I was thinking of adding anti tank weapons as defensive as they tend to be used more for that purpose than offensive. But, then again, if one wants to ambush an enemy vehicle column well antitank rockets of missiles do work wonders. a narrow aproach a bridge, mountain pass or sunken road, take out the first and last vehicle and everything in between can be destroyed at your leasure or captured intact as they are now trapped and can't manuver or fire really.

And, think of the SMAW, an antitank weapon and its nickname, "BUNKER BUSTER!" So, I can see it being hauled with you as you go over the top, to be used to take out those pesky enemy machinegun emplacements.

I also recall the British in the Falklands using the Javalins to take out the Argentinians bunkers.

Again, the things we don't think of as defensive turn out to be. However, a simple rule,

If it is dug in and has a tripod or stand or mount that is being used it is a defensive weapon.

And here we go, a weapon with a mounted tripod has a longer range and more stable platform.

The same weapons in the assault mode, tend to be hand fired or from a bipod and thus have less range and accuracy.

And now I am thinking mortars too.

Set on its bipod unless it is giving support fire then it is in a fixed posiiton and will most likely fire in a defensive mode. Like that scene in Green Berets where Mr. Beckworth gets to be part of the war.

And then the 60mm mortar fired in the handheld mode, no bipod and fired with its trigger while the gunner is holding it.

Now, we have the fine line between cover or supportive fire and defensive fire.

[TiggerCCW UK]

Jester, it was Milans, not Javelins, but you are exactly right. One of the instructors I worked with years ago was a Falklands veteran, who told a story about them using Milans to pop bunkers, and then his Troop commander got pulled up when they got back for using too many expensive missiles!

[jester]

Lovely! Missiles are more important than men, ya gotta love the budget minded commanders in the rear.

[TiggerCCW UK]

IIRC He was bollocked for 'being excessively profligate with resources'. Words to that effect anyway. Really endeared the brass to the men!

[jester]

It never ceases to amaze me. A missile costs depending on the ordinance used anywhere from 10k to 1 million.

But, how much does it costs to recruit, train, pay and then burry a soldier, give his widow/mother his indemnity, then recruit and retrain his replacement

Speaking purely financialy it is a better deal to use a piece of hardware still. But, alas, the brass doesn't think ahead.

[headquarters]

hmm

It never ceases to amaze me. A missile costs depending on the ordinance used anywhere from 10k to 1 million.

But, how much does it costs to recruit, train, pay and then burry a soldier, give his widow/mother his indemnity, then recruit and retrain his replacement

Speaking purely financialy it is a better deal to use a piece of hardware still. But, alas, the brass doesn't think ahead.

probably less than one million it would seem

[kato13]

Reminds me of the fact that during peak production RPG-16 rounds were manufactured for the equivalent of something like 75 cents (US).

"Quantity has a quality all its own" - Joseph Stalin

[headquarters]

..!:

Reminds me of the fact that during peak production RPG-16 rounds were manufactured for the equivalent of something like 75 cents (US).

"Quantity has a quality all its own" - Joseph Stalin

wow!!

how many millions did they make

[kato13]

I don't have solid numbers on how many they made but on the current international market they go for about 14 dollars. I was reading about a firing range in Lebanon where you can shoot them off for 25 dollars a shot.

[kcdusk]

Its 99% of accountants that give the rest of us a bad name.