Army orders ALCOTAN Shoulder Fired Anti Tank Weapon System

[Arsalan]

The picture is from IDEAS 2016.

Well I would still suggest that Alcotan 100 and weapons like these are best in situation like what we have at LOC right now but in case of full scale war reusable weapons are the ones to be used.

This too is disposable system.

 

[WaLeEdK2]

This too is disposable system.

Lmao @Zarvan please concede defeat to the argument. As a spectator reading through the posts it's been a delight

 

[Danish saleem]

its mean we got rid of Anza MK1, MK2, and MK3?

 

[Army research]

its mean we got rid of Anza MK1, MK2, and MK3?

Anza is anti air this is anti personal

 

[Zarvan]

Lmao @Zarvan please concede defeat to the argument. As a spectator reading through the posts it's been a delight

I will if this weapon replaces all RPG 7 but it won't these weapons are not replacement for RPG 7 or Carl Gaustav

 

[Arsalan]

Lmao @Zarvan please concede defeat to the argument. As a spectator reading through the posts it's been a delight

It not about win or defeat really
all i want him is to just think about a simple fact that i presented here, WHY all those countries choose such systems. WHY? Just think about the possibilities. I though all of us are here to LEARN, dont this sounds interesting to you? A weapon that caan used just once but still there are dozens of systems on similar pattern, millions of examples made, 50 60 user countries, all the BIG powers like US, Germany, England, France all of them investing in these, WHAT CAN POSSIBLY BE THE REASON!!
Mujy tu bahi but dilchasp lagta ha, this is how i learn here.

I will if this weapon replaces all RPG 7 but it won't these weapons are not replacement for RPG 7 or Carl Gaustav

And where have i mentioned it is replacement of RPG7?

its mean we got rid of Anza MK1, MK2, and MK3?

Anza is MANPAD. An anti air missile,
these are ground to ground anti tank or anti bunker/people rockets.
DANISH bahi!

 

[PAR 5]

Ah! while the Spartans here loudly battle out the viability of ALCOTAN 100 for Pakistan Army, the superseded Major General and his agent backers break out Champagne and Cigars to celebrate the onset of super commissions ensuring a teddy retirement plan in some luxury Island in Greece or South of Spain.

 

[Arsalan]

So @Zarvan have you though about it or are you sure that the thoughts in you mind are divine and there is no point in thinking about the matter any further, the system is a crap and the world is a foll for investing in it.

Do you have any idea about anti tank rocket systems? You suggest that a system is useless because you THINK it is useless to get a single shot system? These are the kind of judgemental remarks and "verdicts" that you keep giving that i find impossible to agree with and quite stupid to be honest. Do you have any idea that the world famous

FGM-148 Javelin
American LAW72,
The Swedish AT4 (millions of examples produced and in use with over two dozen countries, some 300000 used by US where it is license produced),
the French APILAS (over 150000 examples produced and in service with over a dozen countries),
the new Israeli/Singaporean MARADOR,
The LATEST German Panzerfaust 3,
RPG 30 (introduced in 2012),
American M141
and last but not the least by ANY MEAN,
the British MBT-LAW (there new anit-tank weapon)

are ALL single shot weapons systems. All these over 50 user countries are not idiots only because YOU THINK A DISPOSABLE SYSTEM IS NOT WORTH IT.

EDIT: @Zarvan are you aware that the US army NEXT GENERATION Urban Assault Weapons system under development is also going to be a single shot system?

Please, do some research, look up for some information from actual internet articles and sites rather than "sources" before passing judgemental remarks and passing them as verdicts.

Let me ask you think, do you know why all these stupid countries opted for such a system? What advantage you think they went for when choosing these systems? You can look at the internet and will see that there are some 50-60 military services using these systems. So what can possibly be the advantage? ANY IDEA?

 

[Zarvan]

So @Zarvan have you though about it or are you sure that the thoughts in you mind are divine and there is no point in thinking about the matter any further, the system is a crap and the world is a foll for investing in it.

If it turns out that Alcotan 100 and other similar disposable weapons has more rate of fire per minute as compared to RPG 7 and Carl Gaustav than I would accept your argument but if not than sorry I better stick to Carl Gaustav or RPG 7 during full scale war.

 

[Army research]

If it turns out that Alcotan 100 and other similar disposable weapons has more rate of fire per minute as compared to RPG 7 and Carl Gaustav than I would accept your argument but if not than sorry I better stick to Carl Gaustav or RPG 7 during full scale war.

Do you have any idea about modern warfare little keyboard warrior.

 

[Arsalan]

If it turns out that Alcotan 100 and other similar disposable weapons has more rate of fire per minute as compared to RPG 7 and Carl Gaustav than I would accept your argument but if not than sorry I better stick to Carl Gaustav or RPG 7 during full scale war.

So what do you think why American and all those countries are investing heavily in such a crappy system them? What can be the reason? They don't know something that you know?
Do you think there are:

1. all nuts
2. know some benefits of such systems that you are not willing to learn about?

What do you say @Zarvan ?

 

[Zarvan]

Do you have any idea about modern warfare little keyboard warrior.

Yes I have and I am not going to trust a weapon which fires only two ammo in a minute as compared to the one which fire 6. Even in modern times the more you are able to hit your enemies with the more you have chances to survive and win. These are most basic things of war which will never change

 

[Army research]

Yes I have and I am not going to trust a weapon which fires only two ammo in a minute as compared to the one which fire 6. Even in modern times the more you are able to hit your enemies with the more you have chances to survive and win. These are most basic things of war which will never change

You ignorant bluff, tell me of a single crew who can fire six aimed shots in one minute. With disposable you grab weapon(2 second, fix sight 3 second, aim 2 second and fire ) that make it about eleven shots a minute. Stop it, you've lost all respect on this forum go low for a while

 

[Zarvan]

So what do you think why American and all those countries are investing heavily in such a crappy system them? What can be the reason? They don't know something that you know?
Do you think there are:

1. all nuts
2. know some benefits of such systems that you are not willing to learn about?

What do you say @Zarvan ?

Sir do they have replaced Carl Gaustav with disposable weapon the answer is no. In fact USA itself is modernizing RPG 7. I have posted pictures before it's also buying latest Carl Gaustav and also producing new version of Bazooka. Also most of the other countries still use disposable weapons and in seriously large numbers. Sir my point is simple when I am in a war where enemy is moving forward and in massive numbers I would trust a weapon which is more reliable and has more rate of fire specially when the ammo is of same category or almost same.

You ignorant bluff, tell me of a single crew who can fire six aimed shots in one minute. With disposable you grab weapon(2 second, fix sight 3 second, aim 2 second and fire ) that make it about eleven shots a minute. Stop it, you've lost all respect on this forum go low for a while

I am not going on any where Sir issue is simple when several enemy Tanks are moving in my direction I want a weapon with more rate of fire so I can hit as many Tanks and IFV and there soldiers as I can.

 

[Path-Finder]

Sir do they have replaced Carl Gaustav with disposable weapon the answer is no. In fact USA itself is modernizing RPG 7. I have posted pictures before it's also buying latest Carl Gaustav and also producing new version of Bazooka. Also most of the other countries still use disposable weapons and in seriously large numbers. Sir my point is simple when I am in a war where enemy is moving forward and in massive numbers I would trust a weapon which is more reliable and has more rate of fire specially when the ammo is of same category or almost same.

Hazrat Why is one more reliable than the other? Do all reusable systems fire at target but the disposable systems simply fire backwards? I and many others have explained it in detail but you just have to argue for the sake of arguing.

Yes I have and I am not going to trust a weapon which fires only two ammo in a minute as compared to the one which fire 6. Even in modern times the more you are able to hit your enemies with the more you have chances to survive and win. These are most basic things of war which will never change

Hazrat are you in active military service or were you in military? you say you know about modern warfare. How have you come to be educated in modern warfare please share.