NationStates Jolt Archive

CMN News
John Bobaganeusch reporting
In a disturbing chain of events, Crazed Marines Defense Corp (CMDC) has declared that there have been a number of barrel explosions, commonly known as Kabooms or KBs, and that the barrel of the CM99 base model is to blame. The company spokesman said today in his press conference that, "Undue neglegence has taken place on the part of CM citizens who place CM99a rounds into stock CM99 rifles. The CM99a shoots a different round than the CM99 because of a different propellant and added chamber pressures. As such things canot be prepared for by the manufacturer, we are phasing out the CM99 and only manufacturing the CM99a from now on. Also, we are recalling all CM99 barrels and lock mechanisms for regular CM99's. Anyone who owns such may disassemble their guns and take the parts to their nearest CMDC dealer. The replacement parts will be free of charge." This news is very distressing to those who own a CM99 and shoot the round in question, which is normally restricted to military use. Back to the newsroom, John...
~~~~~~~
Thanks Bob. In other news today, anti-Chinese activits clashed with pro-Chinese activists and a riot erupted. From what we understand, however, the most serious injury was a Pro-Chinese getting a pair of chopsticks up the rectum................

bump for responses

[ooc: Barrel... that your name for tanks?]

OOC: No, the CM99 is an anti-tank rifle. Its the rifle barrel that is not withstanding the chamber pressure of negligence. We call our tanks, simply that. The CM99 is arguably the most powerful firearm on the market, and there's a NSWiki article about it.
Link to wiki:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki
Go to hardware and look under "weapons" then "Anti-material rifles". They deleed the ATR article.

OOC: To be honest I still doubt the claim (in regards to the anti-"tank" rifle) that it can "destroy any tank used by the major warring powers", when considering that the armour level of many of the NS tanks (most tanks has an KE RHA value that is much more than 625mm/25 inch) greatly exceed this, and that such round - considering its size overall - is still too weak to be used against heavily armoured vehicles in general. I could see this being used against thin-skinned APCs or even light IFVs, though to be truthful rocket launchers (disposable or not) can generally do a better job and are more versatile (meaning it can also be used against targets such as bunkers). Against tanks, targeting a specific area might work (for example, targeting optics), but then again, targeting a specific point on a moving target is a very difficult thing to do especially when considering the size and range of the weapon. This is also part of the reason why anti-tank rifles are growing to be less and less common during and after WWII, as rocket-propelled weapons, such as the Panzerfaust or the Bazooka, were much more capable at defeating the medium and heavy tanks during the era. Even with the development of newer anti-materiel rifles in RL, advanced rounds such as the 15.2mm APFSDS of the IWS-2000 can only penetrate around 40mm RHA.

As well, with that much capability, I also have concerns about the price. $3000 is closer to the price of an assault rifle than a fully-capable anti-materiel rifle. So you might want to change the price.

Most people doubt the claim of "Most tanks", but I need to add that it is only talking about RL tanks such as the T72, Abrams, and Challenger. It is just a simple bolt-action, so it is cheap to make (used a close MSRP to the Barrets M99 since I used a lot of my hometown's gun manufacturer's more popular range guns). My two main reasons for ATRs are 1) no smoke trail towards the shooter so SpecOps will be safer engaging armor, and 2) utterly demorialising against infantry. You also have to remember this was the first weapon system I designed, so it has had a lot of problems which I admit. However, ATRs are coming back. Look at the Barrett's M82, M83, M99, XM107, XM103, and others. The M82 had a few confirmed tank kills in Desert Storm against T72's, and many against APCs and IFVs at well over 1800 yards. Also, the shell is similar to that of a M60 Patton's KE shell.

OOC: I would still cast my doubts on the supposed capability of this weapon to do harm against newer tanks such as the Abrams and Challengers, especially considering their protection level and the relatively small size of the weapon (when compared to other anti-tank weapons). Similarily, the IWS-2000, one of the newest and most capable anti-materiel rifles (though never went beyond the testing stage I believe), could only penetrate 40mm RHA - an APC maybe, but far, far from a tank. Similarily, even when using DU rounds, you still need to provide justification of how it can penetrate the armour of a modern tank, where KE protection runs in the range of hundreds or even one thousand milimeters.

With the second statement, things like the M82 and the XM107 were never designed to be "anti-tank" rifles, but rather anti-materiel rifles - targets largely being light skinned vehicle, electronics and fuel storage, and dangerous munitions/ordnance (Though personnel is still a possibility). With the claim of the M82 "killing T-72s", I'm afraid that I must question your claim (if by "killing" you mean "destruction", though you could still most certainly disable a tank's targeting optics and other delicate parts with a .50 round straight through - making it a "mission kill"). The .50cal, while having a lot of power, is only suited against light skinned or very lightly armoured targets such as trucks, utility vehicles. Maybe something like one of those trucks so commonly used by insurgents in urban fighting, but I'd seriously doubt that the .50cal can penetrate anything beyond that. Even against older vehicles such as the BMP-1s and MTLBs seen in Iraq and elsewhere ,the .50cal simply doesn't have the power to do so (considering its size and the velocity it travels at). However, things like HEAT warheads (either on rocket-propelled anti-tank weapons or tank rounds) and other larger anti-tank rounds such as tank-fired APFSDS and HESH rounds, do.

Even with something like the new Barrett XM109 (a 25x59mm weapon), it is more of an anti-materiel rifle rather than an anti-tank weapon. While it certainly has its origin traced back to "true" ATRs (meaning, the WWII and pre-WWII ATRs that can defeat the tanks of its era), it doesn't mean that the round can defeat anything beyond a light armoured APC (though "defeat" doesn't mean "complete destruction" anyways).

With the points raised, I'm not trying to question the weapon as a whole. The thing does seem like an excellent anti-materiel rifle; however, the claim of its anti-tank capability raises many concerns, and the concerns highlighted above are probably my biggest. *Fades off beyond to nowhere*

Your points are well taken. However, the claim against a T72 was a kill because the sniper hit an external fuel tank and the fuel penetrated inside the turret and sparked a fire. Also, I consider a kill disabling a tank (such as shooting the turret mount to where it can not traverse) in a way where it can not effectively make war and is a low-risk mission for those who are out to finish it off. If it is not finished off, than it is just a disablement. To further clairify, if the shot leads to the destruction of the tank, it is a kill. CM snipers are trained to shoot for tracks, fuel cells, turrets, optics, or the actual round the tank shoots if it is a dead-on shot. And the XM103 shoots 40mm HE rounds in a bullpup design. It is meant as an ATR/AVR.