zmoney

Panzer76 where do you get your info from. I'm mostly refering to your first post in this thread and how you said US troops were ditching their M16s and takeing up "other" weapons. Like I said in response to your post, the US army isn't allowed to carry anything else but what they are issued(M16,M4 etc.). I'm pretty sure all professional army soldiers are only allowed to carry what there army gives them. The reason for this is because Big Armies want all their troops to carry the same kind of ammo for obvious reasons. p.s. roqf77 and all the rest of my brit brothers out there I want to say sorry for the terrorism crap that is happening over there and I hope you all stay safe. God Bless.

@ Micheal and roqf, a lot of units in the US army especially special operation groups teach marksmanship with both eyes open in cqb situations. Of course at farther ranges one would need to close one eye to get a good bead on the target but the longer the shot the less you'll need peripheral vision. Because you can see a lot in your scope at greater ranges. In closer situations you can keep both eyes open and look down your scope while looking out for other threats. At first its funny to get used to but after you pratice some it becomes natural. roqf ask your brother about that, that maybe how he even trains. Micheal I totally agree us nato brothers need to switch to some bigger caliber. Even 6.5mm would do. A long time ago I heard some talk about switching to 6.5 but haven't heard anything lately.

Yea I'm seriously suprised this thread and others like it haven't blown up. Maybe the community is just shrinking tremendously. But one thing that is for sure I will defenitly miss the site badly.

I just read that message. Man that really sucks. Well good luck in the future and thanks for all the fun you provided in the past.

The M4 is replaceing the M16. Just not enough to go around. So some branchs of the military ie. marine corp still use the M16 because they dont have enough funds to totally replace them.

@ Sergi, you mean like a squire in the mid evil days. The guy who carried around the deferent swords and lances for the knights. That would be cool. @roqf77 M14 was a 7.62 rifle. It was heavy and came out in the fifties after the M1 grand’s and before the M16. The M14 was and still is pretty accurate. Some regular army units still use it in the sniper teams mostly for the spotter’s weapon. The M16 is 5.56 and it came out in the early 60s late 50s. There are many variants of the M16. Like the Car15 which is a smaller version of the M16 and used in Vietnam or the M16A2, which is, the three round burst version rather than the fully auto version and so on and so forth. The M4 is basically the same as the M16 except with a butt stock, which is adjustable. I believe the M4 came out in the mid 90s. It also has other small improvements but is basically just a carbine. Where as the M16 is a long rifle. I like the mag on the bull pup. I like the fact that it is see through so you can see how many bullets you have left. Like I said earlier everyone is basically happy with their own rifle but the other guys is always better. I’ll put it to you this way, say you have a girl friend and your perfectly happy with her, but one day you see another girl that you haven’t seen before and all the sudden your like wow I bet she would be better than my old hag. Even though you have no experience with her you just think she’s better because she’s new. Same with your gun, your perfectly happy with it until you see some one else’s. So I’m sure if the Royal Marines used my M4 and I used there pup we would want to switch back and fourth every week or so just to try the others gun.

Panzer what weapons are you talking about. US troops aren’t allowed to use weapons that aren’t issued to them. I’ve been to both Afgan and Iraq and never saw any US solider carrying anything other than M4 or M16. The bull pup in my opinion is good. But a lot of the royal marines I talked to liked the M4 better. I think its just a case of the grass is greener on the other side.

I think you are wrong about the recruitment in the early years at least. I know for a fact there were height requirements as well as hair and eye color requirements. Most of the atrocities behind the front lines were committed by SS security forces which were scum straight from the prisons of Germany. The waffen SS were the infantry arm of the SS. I don’t think the requirements were so stringent on them but I could be wrong. No doubt they were motivated soldiers and thought of them selves as elite and probly thought they were better than other units. I also believe they probly did commit some crimes. Not to the extent as the security forces though. But the Eastern front was a brutal place to be. Like Peiper or Guderian said when asked if he committed any war crimes he replied “no ones hands are completely clean if they fought on the Eastern front”. Is it right? No, but when both sides are as fanatical as they were that’s what happens. But any way the point is is that no one in this thread has condoned what either side did.

Well look at the title. I've been trying to go there for the past two days. Is it down for maintenance or some thing?

I can take a stab at the second question. Sub machine guns were only good for like 50-100m. I believe most of them were mostly only good on fully auto as well which wastes ammo. Where as assualt rifles are exactly that. Rifles with the option of fully auto. They are in general good to about 300-500m. Plus they can be fired accuratly on semi auto. There are still good uses for sub machine guns. Like the mp5 and other sub machine guns. Like close quarters combat. But in general sub machine guns are only good for special circumstances. So the average infantrymen would carry the better all around weapon type. Hope this helped a little.

I dont even know what to say to that other than your missing the point. Which is, yes the commisars and SS true believers were and are and always will be scum. To call them anything else would be foolish. On the same note to call everyone who fought for the gaurds or SS units war criminals is foolish as well. Now would it be proper to call all US and colalition forces in Iraq perverts because some idiots at Abu grab screwed around a bit? Or even worse I've heard those brave men from the colalition called war criminals. So is that right to call all of them includeing myself war criminals? The answer is obviously NO.

@ JasonC I’m afraid to say it but you are waaaaaaaaaaaaay over reacting. You just quoted me when if you look at my post then look at your post you will see that they say virtually the same thing. I guess we posted at about the same time because after I posted it I noticed yours and I was like wow we posted virtually the same thing. But if you say this every person nonsense then don’t be guilty of it yourself. As in don’t say every SS infantry member was a believer in the nonsense that Hitler spewed. I agree that the SS that guarded concentration camps and rounded up the poor innocent people were supreme scum. I think everyone would agree with that. See this is the problem with people today. You can’t say anything because it will usually upset the liberals even if it was something as insignificant like this in a WW2 game forum. I haven’t read anything in here that has advocated anything that Hitler or Stalin did. So don’t make it out that way. Also you really need to relax and not go crazy over something like this because it makes you looks silly.

I hate commies and I hate nazis. They both killed tons and tons of innocent people. But I don’t think every member of the infantry on either side knew much about their government’s slaughter of the innocent, if anything. Instead of remembering the dead we could just remember that it was the biggest tank battle of all times. In the words of Saddam “the mother of all battles” except it really was the mother of all battles. So it deserves some note in history because of that.

Cool I love your mods.

I agree its a good rifle on a limited budget. Abbott when are you going to post more battles?

Plus you can tell he’s not Canadian because he’s holding binoculars not a beer.

Also you have to remember war isn’t fair. I don’t really like to talk about what ifs or hypothetical situations cause that kind of stuff rarely happens if at all. So you need to factor in all factors in order to come to a good conclusion. I personally think it’s hard to come to a good conclusion about this. Like I said before both weapons are good weapons for deferent reasons. I guess I am just trying to argue that good accurate aimed fire is normally better than just going on rock and roll fully auto. Because it saves ammo plus is more effective due to it being more accurate weather its an AK or M4.

Well in Afganistan a battle occurred on a ridge called Roberts ridge. It was a so called fair fight except it involved disciplined US Rangers against some Al Queda mixed Chenshian and other troops. The US side used the M4 rifle, M249 saw, and the 240bravo 7.62 machine gun. The terrorist used the Ak47, RPG and various soviet machine guns. The advantage was clearly on the terrorist side seeing as they were dug in, on the higher ground and had more troops. The US side had their chopper crash land right in the kill zone. When the Rangers disembarked two of them were shot immediately. The third guy to exit saw the machine gun nest and shot them with his M4. Well to make a long story short the rangers who had crash landed were pinned due to deep snow separating them and the troops on the hill so they just exchanged fire with the troops dug in on the hill top. A little latter another small group of rangers arrived after walking about ten kilometers over the mountainous terrain and started a push up the hill on a dryer part of the hill where the snow wasn’t as deep. A 240bravo team who was trying to suppress the troops in the trench on top of the hill was covering them. So finally they reached the top routing the terrorist troops. The first group didn’t participate in the attack they were tending to the wounded and were still pinned due to the snow being so deep. So there you have it. A good example of why good accurate fire is better than just blasting away. If I recall correctly the US lost two dead and about four wounded while the terrorist lost about 30 men total. A jet killed some of the terrorists as they tried to flee. You still have to remember what I said in my previous post about ammo. In paint ball you can have thousands of rounds no problem. But in combat the basic load for a M4 soldier is 240rds that equals 8x30rd mags. So that in its self would say you can’t keep up suppressive fire for along time just to suppress.

Matthis, you make a good point. But the things you need to remember are: 1. You might not be able to carry enough ammo to keep up suppression like that. 2.there is no out of bounds in combat, meaning you can always try to flank someone who is blasting away like that. 3. Maybe most importantly you will give your position away. Seeing as US Army units travels with a lot of support of either heavy machine guns MK19 or .50cal and that’s on the light side. To in some situations like in Iraq a lot of units including the Marines traveled with the Abrams or the Bradley fighting vehicle or Lav’s . And every unit is going to have some air cover of some kind. Either helicopters or jets. So it would be pretty easy to identify where the enemy is and take care of them. Plus that’s a tactic the Arabs like to use. Spraying and praying and it didn’t work to well for them.

Aabott, I know this is of topic but I just wanted to say I really enjoy the battles that you have posted at the depot. Big duke I’ll take a shot at your question. I think in the short run the US solider would do fine with the 5.45 Ak. In fact the 5.45 has a bullet that devastated the Afgan solider when Russia fought them. Because it was a hollow tip where as our bullets are all ball rounds. The US would not be allowed to use that round anyway cause its against the Geneva Convention. But the m16, M4 are much more accurate weapons at range. So if you wanted to nail some loser at 250-300m you would have a better chance at hitting him with Uncle Sams guns. Just a thought, don’t you think that if the Ak were better the US would have made a gun similar to it rather than the Ruskies making a gun similar to the M16 (hence the AK74). I wish the US would make the SR25 a standard issue gun. It’s 7.62 and very accurate. Its made by Stoner or at least the originals were. Aabott I’m assuming you were in Vietnam? Did you have much experience with the Stoner? What do you think about the gun.

How do you know so much about those weapons? I mean your right about what you say but I'm just wondering if you are in the US army. Yes H+K make excellent weapons. Look how much they improved the bull pup. And yes the problem consisted of the weapon had a tendancey of some parts breaking because it is a fragile weapon. I personally have never so much as held one so I can not say much other than what I have heard second hand. But I am guessing what they meant by maintance being a problem, is that it collected a lot of sand and dirt in hard to clean places. I can say though that the M4 is a rugged weapon. Far superior to the old M16. The M4 would shoot even if it hadn't been properly cleaned for a good while. I'm not saying that it is as rugged as the AK but its rugged for a modern US military weapon. On the same note I read somewhere the Military is going back to the .45 as the promient side arm. I think that is a great idea for the male portion of the Army, but for the gals I think they should stick with something smaller. Because if you cant hit what you aim at the bang isn't going to help you.

Sorry I was haveing a brain blank. I should have said it was the SCAR. I was in the 2/75 Ranger Reg. here in Ft Lewis. I currently work for them as a civilian. We were supposed to get the xm series last fall but it fell through. On test that our sister battalion conducted on the 5.56 xm showed the gun just wasn't rugged enough and demanded to much time in the upkeep department. The thing that is good about the xm series is its weight. Which anyone who has ever been in the infantry feild in any country can truely appreciate their rifle being light. Also in the xm series they have planned a .50cal model and a MK19 model which is the gerande laucher machine gun. I'm sure they also have a few more on the board. I read an article last year about all the deferent xm models they were planning. It was in one of our army magazines. Then I didn't hear anything more about them. So I asked our batt. armourer and he told me the test showed they were junk. So thats why we didn't get them last fall. I think the M4 is ok. The only reason to change weapons in my opinion is to get a bigger caliber. I don't think we need some fancy, expensive, space looking gun just to do it. After being in the Army I can suggest thousands of ways to save tax dollars and this is a big one.

Cannon my understanding is they scraped the xm series cause it proved to be junk. My unit already received a deferent machine gun to replace the 240 bravo and a deferent automatic rifle to replace the Saw. Both of the newer models are really light and easy to carry. They are designed to make CQB (close quarters battle) easier with those types of weapons. You can now actually shot our 7.62 machine gun from the shoulder while standing up. Of course I was in an all male unit so I don’t think the chickies in the big Army would be able to. On the same note the new guns aren’t as accurate at distances as the older heaver models so typically we would carry at least one of the 240s in the platoon for greater suppression range. Since everyone seems to be focusing on creating better CQB weapons I wish they would make a bigger bullet. Like 6.5mm for instance. I think that is what NATO should change to. I’ve heard stories from people about the 5.56 just going strait through folks without stopping them on the first couple of rounds. You typically have to get 2-5rds in someone body (unless it’s a head shot) to make them go down.

To Eifran, we are losing in Iraq for the same reason you in Isreal are loseing your country to the Palistineans. Its because our politicians are spin less and not cause the Arabs like to use the AK.

Really interesting conversation. Now for my two cents, I just got out of the US army a little over a month ago and to be honest I carried a machine gun most the time instead of a riffle. But I have shot an Ak and M4 a lot. I think semi auto is the best for a rifle in any situation. I carried the fully auto version of the M4 when I first got in and only fired it on fully auto when we were trying to use up all our ammo at the range so we could go home quicker. Think about it. You can pull the trigger pretty fast say for example 400rds per minute compared to 600rds per minute on fully auto. And all 400rds are going to go where you aim them and you don’t have to fight the gun much. Where as the 600rds, the first one or two are going to go where you want then the gun especially the AK is going to fly all over the place. The Ak47 isn’t that accurate to begin with, and then if switched to fully auto forget about it. I think the Ak is so popular because its so easy to get. They’re everywhere. Plus they’re easy to maintain. They are also very rugged. That’s why they are so popular with groups that don’t really have a lot of money to spend on weapons. They’re cheap, rugged, easy to maintain and easy to use. Plus a lot of people like the fact that the AK47 is 7.62. I personally like the 7.62 and wish the US would switch back to a bigger caliber. But the 5.56 is a lot lighter and you can carry more rounds so it’s a trade off. Now in my experience the people who I fought only sprayed and prayed on fully auto. They didn’t hit anyone just rattled people. They on the other hand were receiving accurate fire from better aimed shoots. Look at the stat’s. We hardly lost anyone in the ground fight even in Falujah where it was mono e mono. So in conclusion they are both good guns for deferent reasons. But both are better used on semi auto.