Forum

What is the reason for dmg 7 on the m/48 and dmg 8 on the m/86.
Both have the same range.

From what I have understood the effect of the HEAT from m/48 is more efficient compared to the one from the m/86.
Also I though the sights and ballistics of the m/48 was better then the m/86.

Range is a rough value so maybe 5 is fine for both.

So are these values how they should be?

And if so what is the reason (data) for m/48 compared to m/86.
Both are 84mm but different projectiles/grenades from what I understand.

/Dendron

I don't know much about these weapons and I know less about these weapons in the 90s when this setting takes place. M/86 is a disposable weapon, M/48 is not. They fire the same ammunition. Damage represent the direct hit damage and since M/86 is slightly more accurate, maybe the +1 damage is there to reflect that.

Why do you say that the m/86 is more accurate compared to the m/48.
My understanding is the other way around.

m/86 had a "flimsy" plastic sight system, the m/48 had an optical sight (as far as I remember at least).
m/48 is a lot more sturdy so I would have thought that it had a better accuracy, meaning better effective range.

Even if both fire 84mm "ammunition", it is not the same so I get it that the effect could be very different.

So if someone understands why the choice was made to give the m/48 HEAT less damage compared to the m/86 HEAT I would be interested in understanding that.

/Dendron



It is a game and I try to not get dug into to much details about how much damage A would do compared to B.
It is just that in this case I would have expected the damage to be the same (or possibly +1 for m/48), so the values makes me wonder about why this choice was made.
Yes, I can always change what ever I want, I know

The most likely difference is that the AT4 is rated at 450mm penetration of RHA and the Goose 400. (The 750 series munitions are anachronistic, IIRC.) The AT4 should probably also have a range of 4, based on its 300m effective range.

The recoilless rifle was mostly phased out by the mid 90s. It required two people, a bipod, a pile of ammo, etc. it was replaced by the individual disposable AT4. The AT4 was one shot and has a flip up sight. I once had a black eye from the recoil of the AT4. The AT4 was much less accurate, but quicker to acquire a target, and quicker to deploy.

The recoilless rifle wasn't replaced by the AT4, it was replaced by medium ATGMs like Dragon and Javelin and rockets like SMAW. AT4 is a light weapon replacing things like LAWs. Phase out timelines were also heavily dependent on the force in question. They were in American APS until at least 1998, when I left EUCOM and the need to consider drawing them under the Cold War theory that missile stocks would be heavily degraded by large scale Soviet attacks and recoilless rifle wound be the replacement A/T capability due to their ammunition being easier to produce. (It's also questionable whether any usable ammunition remained in APS at the time or if it had all been deemed expired and disposed of.)

Yeah, light infantry, we had Dragons but rarely used them. Took too long to set up, and the aim by wire system was hokey.

The m/48 was still widely issued in the Swedish Army in 1999. The M203 wasn't as widely available to regular infantry as it became later, so the m/48 had a role as a squad level support weapon, alongside AT4s (or m/86). I can't say much about why they're statted differently since I only ever fired them with training rounds.
I really liked the Carl Gustaf, it felt punchier than the m/86 pskott, but then again, it wasn't my job to carry it.