[jester]

I was thinking of adding anti tank weapons as defensive as they tend to be used more for that purpose than offensive. But, then again, if one wants to ambush an enemy vehicle column well antitank rockets of missiles do work wonders. a narrow aproach a bridge, mountain pass or sunken road, take out the first and last vehicle and everything in between can be destroyed at your leasure or captured intact as they are now trapped and can't manuver or fire really.

And, think of the SMAW, an antitank weapon and its nickname, "BUNKER BUSTER!" So, I can see it being hauled with you as you go over the top, to be used to take out those pesky enemy machinegun emplacements.

I also recall the British in the Falklands using the Javalins to take out the Argentinians bunkers.

Again, the things we don't think of as defensive turn out to be. However, a simple rule,

If it is dug in and has a tripod or stand or mount that is being used it is a defensive weapon.

And here we go, a weapon with a mounted tripod has a longer range and more stable platform.

The same weapons in the assault mode, tend to be hand fired or from a bipod and thus have less range and accuracy.

And now I am thinking mortars too.

Set on its bipod unless it is giving support fire then it is in a fixed posiiton and will most likely fire in a defensive mode. Like that scene in Green Berets where Mr. Beckworth gets to be part of the war.

And then the 60mm mortar fired in the handheld mode, no bipod and fired with its trigger while the gunner is holding it.

Now, we have the fine line between cover or supportive fire and defensive fire.