4 ms·
It's the "grade" that makes the headline ridiculous for me. I can imagine military and non-military rocket launchers, but "military-grade rocket launchers" make
by bloak 7y ago
It's the "grade" that makes the headline ridiculous for me. I can imagine military and non-military rocket launchers, but "military-grade rocket launchers" makes it sound like there's a QC stage at the end of the conveyor belt where someone says: "This one's a bit wonky. The army won't take it. We'll sell it to a motorcycle gang instead."
- mschuster91 7y ago> makes it sound like there's a QC stage at the end of the conveyor belt No, the QC stage is at design/purchase level. Different armies, different needs, different rockets. Some like the Palestinians are happy with utter crap, as long as it gets the job done (it's a common guerilla tactic, minimal expense to oneself, but great expense to the other side). Some only need to defend against car bombs meaning a "cheap" version is sufficient, some need to defend against old Russian made tanks and some need to defend against tanks with active armor. Some armies need, for different scenarios, all the variants - and cost-effective, which means it doesn't make economic sense to deploy ultra-modern tankbusters against terrorists in Toyota Hiluxes, just as it doesn't make sense to target US tanks with a WW2 panzerfaust.