Talk:Realistic Equivalents

As a note, an MP5 is not considered a battle rifle, as it is a submachine gun. http://www.hkpro.com/mp5.htm

GazChap - I also wouldn't really consider the AK-47 to be a realistic equivalent. I've always pictured X-COM as being a very high-tech organisation. I would have thought the AK-47 would be too... raw, for X-COM. Not enough bells and whistles on it. - 21 July 2005 14:05 BST.

Not sure why would anyone use an M-16, if there is M4A1s around. Also back the reccommendation to remove the reference to MP-5, as it is just a submachine gun.--Vagabond 05:16, 1 March 2007 (PST)

I would say the US M4 was the closest equivalent - if I remember correctly that only has single/3RB burst modes; the M4A1 adds a full auto option which we dont have. It is probably the most similar looking - although not particularly close, most of the other examples dont look similar at all, even if their behaviour and usage is - obviously with modern weapons you have quite a few bullpup designs, and then stuff like the AK74 and its variants that have iconic looks and wouldnt be confused with whatever the UFO rifle would look like in real life, even by people with no knowledge of weapons. --Sfnhltb 10:04, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Rocket Launcher

My money is on the 84mm Carl Gustav. The firepower and weight (9kg empty) is about right. In widespread use with Funding Nations in 1999 both in regular and Special Forces. Not strictly a guided weapon but with optical sight and laser rangefinder. HE and incendiary rounds available. Comparing its effectiveness vs contemporary armour (HWPs), the X-Com RL is clearly inferior to a Milan or a Predator (not in service in 1999?). So the"Charlie G" fits. A typical squad-level close assault weapon of the time. For some reason X-Com quartermasters have requested the proximity safety fuses be removed - clearly for classified tactical reasons they did not want the rockets to be failsafe during the first 15-70m of flight.

Spike 14:02, 9 April 2008 (PDT)