161
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by pumpchilienthusiast@hexbear.net to c/the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DefinitelyNotAPhone@hexbear.net 21 points 8 months ago

...wait, can those things not be reloaded? Did the US MIC seriously make the antitank equivalent of a disposable razor? lea-huh

[-] SorosFootSoldier@hexbear.net 20 points 8 months ago

Yeah they're single shot so yeah

[-] Barabas@hexbear.net 19 points 8 months ago

No, they buy it from Sweden. It is the low cost alternative to the reusable ones. Also easier to use due to the lower weight.

China and the Soviet Union also use/used disposable anti tank weapons, before everyone gets on their high horses about capitalist inefficiency.

[-] wopazoo@hexbear.net 19 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Only designing for a single use lets it be much more lightweight, durable, and cheap (the components need to only withstand a single shot). It's not a new concept either, the original Panzerfaust from WW2 was a single use anti-tank gun.

[-] wtypstanaccount04@hexbear.net 4 points 8 months ago

Maybe basing your military tech off of an evil military that also absolutely ate shit is not a good idea

[-] axont@hexbear.net 15 points 8 months ago

Not defending fascists, but most assault rifles today can trace some design lineage back to the StG 44. Which is usually regarded as the first practical assault rifle.

[-] wopazoo@hexbear.net 13 points 8 months ago

Yeah, the design of the AK-47 was strongly inspired by the StG 44. Just because a technology originated in a fascist country doesn't mean that it's necessarily shit.

[-] RyanGosling@hexbear.net 12 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yeah they’re good for gun and run missions for lesser skilled/guerrilla groups

[-] Tunnelvision@hexbear.net 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Yes but it makes more sense when you realize nato is inherently an aggressive and offensive force. You want lightweight and disposable AT because your doctrine is defined by mobility and the reliance on air dominance on the assault. This is in contrast to Russia who mostly relies on multi use anti tank weapons because their doctrine is primarily more defensive based.

this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
161 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15908 readers
700 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS