From what I remember, the Soviet AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher was specifically developed to deal with Chinese human wave attacks. So I would go with automatic grenade launchers as well.
Best anti personnel weapons to deal with large masses of infantry?
- Thread starter Wendigo
- Start date
I simply don't understand the premise of the question - if they aren't in imminent contact with your guys the answer is either "nothing" or to arrange a visit by the B-52s since you have all the time you need. If they are, it's "everything in range which can start firing in the next 30 seconds". That's probably a couple of GPMGs, a couple of LMGs personal weapons, probably some 81mm mortars firing HE, maybe a half battery of tube artillery (again firing HE with VT fuses if you're lucky - no time for anything fancy) and if God really likes you a couple of fast jets with 500 or 1000 lb guided bombs.
The reality is that if you've suddenly discovered 5,000 of Terry Taleban's best infantry in your lap then if you try waiting for a more effective weapons system you're dead. Hit them with whatever you have and hope!
The reality is that if you've suddenly discovered 5,000 of Terry Taleban's best infantry in your lap then if you try waiting for a more effective weapons system you're dead. Hit them with whatever you have and hope!
It's being used to great military effect right now in Iraq on relatively open terrain.
The Russians use it in Syria and the U.S. used it in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Riain
Banned
Its not a totally ridiculous proposition that 1000+ men armed only with light weapons would assault over open ground, it happened to us 4 times within 2 weeks in 1968!
For perspective the NVA assaulted this Australian Fire Support Base in regimental strength twice in mid May 1968 with nothing heavier than 82mm mortars, 75mm RCLs, RPGs and 12.7mm HMGs. They managed to get into a 105mm gun pit and plant satchel charges the first time and overrun a platoon the second time despite splintex rounds fired over open sights, AC47 Spookys and all the other shit the US could heap upon the enemy in 1968.
This area was a battalion defensive position occupied by an Australian infantry battalion, 4 centurion tanks and 2 M42 dusters with twin 40mm guns. It was also subject to NVA regimental assaults twice in May 1968, which were defeated by up to 7 artillery batteries within 5-10 miles as well as canister from the centurions and HE rounds bounced into the ground before exploding.
For perspective the NVA assaulted this Australian Fire Support Base in regimental strength twice in mid May 1968 with nothing heavier than 82mm mortars, 75mm RCLs, RPGs and 12.7mm HMGs. They managed to get into a 105mm gun pit and plant satchel charges the first time and overrun a platoon the second time despite splintex rounds fired over open sights, AC47 Spookys and all the other shit the US could heap upon the enemy in 1968.
This area was a battalion defensive position occupied by an Australian infantry battalion, 4 centurion tanks and 2 M42 dusters with twin 40mm guns. It was also subject to NVA regimental assaults twice in May 1968, which were defeated by up to 7 artillery batteries within 5-10 miles as well as canister from the centurions and HE rounds bounced into the ground before exploding.
Archibald
Banned
LMFAO (I suggest you use the 100 MT full bore weapon, not that ridiculous half-powered variant)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
RODS FROM GOD !!! (or, in Calbear AANW lingua - STETTIN-IZATION)
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Unless it's guarded by infantry and direct-fire weapons the mines will get lifted, some 10-15% of Australian casualties in Vietnam were from mines lifted from our own field laid in early/mid 1967, we had to call off operations in 1970 because of it.
Y'all are getting too complex. With open fields of fire several Vickers medium machine guns properly sited with overlapping fields of fire can do the job. as long as you have ammunition (and water) the reliable guns will deny the area to approaching infantry. You don't need the super high rate of fire of the MG34 or MG42. Being aircooled they need to worry about burning out the barrel. The slower rate of fire combined with the watercooled barrel will allow you just hold the trigger down and sweep back and forth.
Riain
Banned
I don't know if sustained fire MGs will be enough because even in open ground there will be undulating parts where they can't reach. Also MG are able to be taken out by the sorts of weapons carried by light infantry like AT rpgs and rcls, small mortars and the like.
If you have enough ammo, a good position, and an enemy obliging enough to keep coming at you across your killzone... well, it did happen in real life sometimes.
Riain
Banned
Yes but that's a lot of things to go right, personally I would prefer a little more balanced weapon spread.
I know one weapon that can deal with large amounts of infantry: Flame Shot!
Or rather a weapon that can shoot fireballs; yes technically that would count as a "thermobaric weapon" (especially with that RPO-A Shemel thingamabob).
Or rather a weapon that can shoot fireballs; yes technically that would count as a "thermobaric weapon" (especially with that RPO-A Shemel thingamabob).
Looks like an AC-47 or AC-119. The grandfather and father of the AC-130, respectively.