roqf77

besides is every war in the world gonna be faught in iraq?

and in a modern war, unless it turned into a nuke fight then yes they would!

panzer 76 that is exactly my point and you have just proved what i said. look at afganistan and you will see a different story. thankyou for proving my point i couldnt put it any better my self.

thankyou zmoney, and vice versa. and john, that is my point exactly. simply shortening the effective range of a weapon to make it marginaly better at close range seems strange. Certainly as i have said many timesin the case of uk v us or v canada or whatever, with equal numbers of troops over a campaign. The troops with the carbine are going to be at a disadvantage. panzer 76 do you know how short a range 200 yards is?

flaming knives, fair point. Panzer 76, i mean no offence but you have firstly said something untrue, it is not researched fact. It may is opinion. it is reasearched, yes i believe you but it is still an opinion. i can tell you for a fact that in iraq british solidiers did engage iraq's at the ranges i mentioned. They did have and use fire support ranging from mg's to whatever. But over mg's you cant get arty support at the drop of a hat. its better to have maximum fire power available. plus your idea that urban areas are typical is also not true, majority of fighting in afganistan was over 200 metres. I believe at least on certain occasions engagments were made over 200 metres. Plus you have missed my point again. In a situation where 2 armies are facing each other with similar numbers of troops and support and quality etc, you would be even less likely to be able to gaurentee the fire support would be availible. Or even urban fighting, what if you cannot keep the fight simply to the city? you point is based on engagements against if not terrorist but under equiped under supplied under supported under trained troops. not against a competant western nation army. in my opinion atleast.

true. but then again i gt fed up with the uber dumb ai in cmbo. which 9 times out of ten if it has the choice out of shooting at the other tank shooting at it or firing at a crew 500 yards away, chooses the crew.

i agree, cmak an cmbb are harder but i find them more satisfying. cmbo is fun but it isnt as good certainly atleast as a simulation.

1. panzer 76. Again this is a matter of opinion. the british army does not agree. If you can engage at 500 metres plus and the enemy cant you will win most of the time. Support weapons plus rifle fire is better than just rifle fire. This is not opinion its just common sense. Plus again recently infantry engagments now are against substandardly trained opponents who cant hit over 100 yards all that much. 2.Zmoney. yes he does and so do all my mates in other units, its basic training. i know people in the t.a who do it and well. A bigger calibre is needed. my brother showed me some info on a rifle the british well mod is thinking of adopting. its 6.8 i think not 6.5 but i may be mistaken. 3. Michael. Again this is because of the opposition, send people from one army with carbines against people with full rifles and you will see what i mean. Besides if its just the length of the weapon, bull pups are shorter and have better performence. Unless the money isnt available. other than being slightly shorter what is the advantage of carbines?

no to just post loads when you are asleep, but if you look at this link. http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_small_arms_in_the_section.htm then you will see despite having plenty of long ranged support, the british army still expects the average riflement to be effective up to 400m personaly. im sorry but what you mean by effective fire is not the same as i do obviously. because as a section sa-80's with susats can effectivly engage untis over 600 yards. so i dont take it personal i guess its a difference of opinion/doctrine. I mean im open to opinion but i dont understand what the benefit of carbines are other than being slightly shorter. compared to there disadvantages i dont see any point. Not just my personal opinion, but the opinion of all the british soldiers i have spoken to. plus most of the americans i have spoken to as well. if its simly the shorter barrel why not adopt a bull pup?

well my brother mentioned all that. but my brothers point is that, even including all that using a sight is better. a carbine is worse than a full rifle over 100 yards. regardless of the downgrading from 7.62 to 5.56 the point still remains that the carbine stopping power is much reduced. as far as training goes your point is irrelevant. the british army has probably the best trained infantry in the world. The practice in the british army is to use the sights as much as possible. Besides over 100 yards an sa-80 is far more accurate than a m4 or c8 anyway. The difference is significant,so troops with full rifles will have superior performence over 100 yards with a full rifle. The benefit of switching to a carbine is non existent. especialy when there are many bull pup rifles that are shorter and have better performence than m4's or c8's either way. And again on the killing power, the wound channel in the m4/c8 is created at up to 70 yards, the m-16/c7/sa-80 is created at up to 200 yards. There is a big difference. And the benefits of the carbine are? even if what you said is true then it would make more sense to adopt a new rifle rather than crippling the one you already have. i believe you when you say the canadian army wanted more c8's in afganistan but what was the equipment level of the opposition? or the training level? wait until carbine troops go up against troops of similar training and equipment and see what happens. I guess its something the us and canada is gonna have to learn the hard way. Certainly in urban fighting there is an advantage to be had over full rifles but again bull pups performe better than both anyway.

okay faie enough again but you missed all my amjor points. one over 100 yards an m-4 is an inferior weapon, it is less acuarate, and has significantly less stopping power. that is not my opinion itss true. secondly in this day and age needs qualification, you mean against substandardly equiped armies. secondly in the british army at least engaging at 300 metres is fine. An m-16 or any bull pup rifle is much better than an m4 or c8 at this range. so its not a case of engaging at 600 metres its a case of engaging over 100 yards. And as far as iron sights goes, my brother laughed when i told him. Iron sights are inferior to a susat which is a times 4. I would take that with a pinch of salt unless the canadian 3.5 sight is rubbish. which in my brothers opinion it would have to be to be worse than the iron sight.

fair enough. but all i mean is that an 8 man section firing 5.56 at 400-600 yards. is still alot of fire power. It may be beneficial to engage inferior second line troops with your troops carrying a lighter rifle. But against a modern first woirld military it definatly is not. minims are in the us and uk armys as well. as well as lsw's, sniper rifles, mortats and etc in the british army they serve to support the fire power of an infantry section not to replace it. over 100 yards a full m-16 or bull pup will have superior performence over a carbine thusly a section of say uk troops with a sa-80 v canadians with c8's is gonna leave the canadians with a serious disadvantage. The longer the range the bigger the disadvantage. especialy in an infantry unit in the uk gets susats. Especialy if the canadians are only using iron sights.

that was to qoute my brother. Also there is something known as the wound channel, the large wound caused by steel cord nato 5.56 ammunition is dependant on a high muzzle velocity. a full length 20 inch barrel can create this wound channel up to 200 metres. the reduction in velocity means from the m4 carbine only appears up to 70 yards. This significantly reduces the lethality of the gun. So the difference as you stated is exactly that. with the same ammo a shorter barrel does decrease performence. From what i was told from people i know there have been many complaints over the m4, i assume the c8 is much the same. Certainly everyone i have spoken too in the british army would rather have the full length rifle over the carbine. Other than being slightly smaller, there is no other benefit in terms of ballistic performence atleast the m4 and c8 are inferior at all ranges including close.

"It's the same rifle! Same ammo, same damage. The barrel is shorter," An SA80 or M16 or similar with a 20 inch or so barrel will make about 940 metres per second with NATO standard 5.56mm ammunition. The M4 carbine manages 905 or so metres per second with the same ammunition. As anyone knows the simple equation for energy is mass multiplied by the square of the velocity. Dropping the velocity is the best way of loosing energy. From a 20" barrel nato 5.56mm makes approximately 1350 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, whilst the carbine makes just over 1200, which is a significant reduction in energy, as much as a fairly hot .22 rimfire round. Energy isnt the only story. Higher velocity and a longer barrel provides superior stabilisation to the bullet so the weapon performs much better at longer ranges. With a lightweight bullet such as 5.56mm it is important to provide adequate velocity and barrel lenght for it to perform at any significant range and provide good stopping power. Therefore a weappon like the M4 is somewhat inferior to the full length M16 at anything other than close (sub 150 metres) fighting and considerably inferior to bullpup rifles like the Steyr AUG, FAMAS, SA80 or similar which are as short or shorter but still sport full length barrels.

"why keep a rifle that will marginally outperform the carbine at distances generally considered beyond "battle range"?" Well its not just about accuracy, carbines also cause less damge. a complaint i had seen reported was that it sometimes took 2-3 rounds instead of 1. also having mg's and such to engage at at 300 yards plus is not better than having this plus rifle support. if you were engaging a unit with similar support who had m-16's sa80's or the like, then you could find your infantry would have dead ground to close before they could return fire. Also if its purely size that is the matter some rifles are shorter than the m-4 and have better performence at range. i mean simply switching to carbines for the sake of it is stupid.

fair enough.

shepards pie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i once did mgs and arty v all infantry! that was fun!

i only have one problem with qb's. the ammo load out for germans and the amercians is reasonable, but as the british it has a nasty habbit of givving no tungsten rounds as well as giving atg's to much he and he guns alot of ap. but maybe uts just me!

well depends on the model. the sa-80 a-2 was issued with a standard colt magazine. but my brother who had about 3 years experience, including bosnia and kosovo said that the clip is very easy. So no i havnt but infact the a-1 had a different clip to the original. which version did you use?

zmoney. i think its a matter of the situation. the sa-80 is more like the m-16 ive been told. Better for the longer range. up close on full auto it has to be held on the waist and is right handed only. the preference for the m-4 maybe in city fighting due to ease of use not neccisarly performence. im not a soldier so i dont know but a few of my mums friends who were in the us army had some complaints about the m-4, nothing to serious though. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/SA80.htm there is an interesting link. remeber to read all of it though. just another point though, what are the differences between the m4, m-16 and m-14?

hey maybe you should of forgotten about the flag and flanked your platoon round the rear of the enemy infantry.looks like you had an opening.

wel yes that is true. but it also depends how well your supported with arty and such. if you can put enough fire down on one side, and as you say use natural cover to block the los of unsurpresses troops, you can in a sense create a flank. Bsck ups of mg,s and mortars and if your lucky howitzer tanks can move around to engage flanking bodies of enemies troops. even keeping small sections back of your own can be used to destory theirs. Of course this all depends on the equipment you have, and the map. But you are right simply flanking is the best option. But of course your opponent will be expecting this and you will have to engange him eventualy. simply manouvering your troops is not enough. especialy in a fixed area like a cm map.

"it's RTS not FPS." i know its just a crazy rumour i heard!

jason c this is true. but it would also require more suppplies. like fuel and ammunition. where would this come from?

i thought space lobsters was being devleped by gearbox and is being turned into a fps?