Jump to content

Piispa

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Piispa's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

10

Reputation

  1. Sure, which were the final push to make European leaders understand that that path had no future. But what I ment was the imperialistic period of European history, which the US is mimicing currently, spreading its influence sphere globally by force. Europe learned the hard way the errors of that kind of world politics, US is still learning.
  2. It just happens to be that the United States is going through the same belligerent period Europe went through a few hundred years ago. USA is a teen needing to show off a bit while Europe has matured and learned the lessons that nothing can be gained by war of aggression. The US is led by fear, while Europe has found the co-operation and co-existance in EU and is consentrating on that ideology on the world politics instead of trying to "get the world on the right track" as Steve put it. You can't force anyone to change their ways of life. Operation Liberty Freedom Justice League - Failed.
  3. What about if the defenders' objective was all the time only to delay the enemy by keeping the objectives long enough (=scenario time) so that something else on a strategic level can be gained? They still don't mean a thing if all of the heroic defenders got swept aside in the prosess but it took the attacker long enough not to reach the objectives? Objectives are what they are and if they are not reached in due time, the objectives are not met and results can be imagined on a strategical level.
  4. As Secondbrooks explained, you can slide the selector with the tips of your fingers while keeping the hand on the pistol grip. No effort, nor requirement of bigger hands. I assure you, my hands are quite the ordinary size The selector isn't that stiff and hardly requires any force to move from one position to another. And of the mag change, I hardly see if there's any effect on the overall performance of the soldier if it takes 1.8 or 2.2 seconds for an untrained recruit to change his magazine, as I think we can assume every soldier in the world recieves at least some training on switching the magazine on his personal weapon. Sure, but the more moving parts you put in to an equation, the more chance of an error there is. Basic logic and AK-family has less. Of course, I didn't mean I wouldn't fire if the position was already compromised. The weapon is well effective on the longer distances but I doubt, with iron sights, the ability of an ordinary rifleman to put the bullet on the target accurately over a few hundred metres. Thus, opening fire with distances more than some 100-150 metres, I'd call tactically stupid. Depends on the terrain of course... It's different on the desert than in thick woodlands. And if continuing the accuracy discussion, the RK-family uses the same basic type of a rear sight as the AR: AR15: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/AR15_Sight_Picture.jpg RK62: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/RK_62_MILES_2002.JPG which differs from the standard open sights -style, which AK-47 uses, although the RK-62 rear sights can be overturned to reveal similar type of sights as the standard AK-family. Now, the AR-style is definately more accurate on basic fireing range practise shootings, no queston about it. But I feel, and I've heard others state the same, that on a quick combat situation, like CQ and urban warfare, the open style is actually preferable. Main reason being that, although AR-style is more accurate, the AK-style is quicker: quicker to bring about on the target and quicker to reacquire the target after the shot, for it gives more view on the surroundings. And in the close distances of urban warfare you don't need the extra accuracy of the AR-style sights, but you sure do need the extra speed that the open rear sights gives, which makes them more preferable. And we're talking of the iron sights now, I do know reflex sights address the issue.
  5. Having served with RK-95 and RK-62 (AK-47 variants, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62) as personal firearms, I must disagree with the points above. Using the safety switch without any difficulty nor breaking your grip takes no effort. Really, no effort. And switching a magazine? Please... There's one lever you push to remove the empty and, after the removal, a slot where you place the new one. You can train a recruit to switch magazines in 2 seconds during a single afternoon. Accuracy and reliability is where the differences between the RKs and AKs is supposed to show the most, but after they both are of the same family, I can't see how there could be any dramatic differences. The last point I agree with, it's always more of the training than the weapon when talking of accuracy. Give me any modern assault rifle and I'll score a bullseye in 150 metres after a few sight-correction series. So which weapon would I want as my personal firearm in a conflict? The most reliable one. The one you can have a tree growing inside it and it will fire. And AK-variants have a total of five parts after disassembly For comparsion: M16: http://www.nicolausassociates.com/images/GTA07-01-045-M16A4-Rifle-Disassembly.jpg RK62: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Rk62_disassembled_transparent.png/800px-Rk62_disassembled_transparent.png EDIT: For the effective range discussion above, any discussion for any effective range for an assault rifle over 300 metres is completely bull and useless. You can hardly spot any target over a few hundred metres, let alone hit it. Effective combat range is some 100-150 metres, I wouldn't even allow my platoon ever to open fire over 300 metres and give away our position.
  6. I just played my first scenario with the highly expected T90 to give an opportunity to face the Abrams on equal grounds. In short, it didn't go as I expected.. pretty badly. Well, screw equal grounds, I ambushed the Abrams (two abrams against my four T90) on city streets separately. First I put two T90s on each side of a crossroad as the sucker-to-be Abrams approached. Two clean hits later on the sides of the Abrams I witnessed as it turned its mighty main cannon first on the right - BAM! One T90 burning. BAM! third hit on the side of the American war machine. SKREEEEEEET! As it turned its weapon 180 degrees against the another Russian export. BAM! And it was burning along its brother. What the...? Yeah, that was me stunned, but no worries! I've still got two and apparently the American beast at least lost its paws. Now, my third tank was ambushing the second Abrams on another street. With little luck I expected as it shot its first round on the side of the American tank, but apparently the crew got stunned by the sudden shell as it took awhile for them to react. Another blast on the side before it started to turn its turret. After the second reload the Abrams got its turret aligned but my lucky bastard got the third round flying before the Beast got his. The third did the trick and the crew bailed. Phew! Three rounds with a T90 in about 50 metres to knock one late 70's-era American made warbeast! C'mon! And how did the remaining two T90s of mine fare against the last Beast who had lost his paws? Well... Surely I thought one could do the trick from behind and approached with little care. Foolish of me. I came out from the corner, facing the Abrams from its behing - fired - BAM! - turret turning - reload, reload, reload! God damnit, RELOAD! - BAM! - T90 burning.. CHRIST! Last T90 crusing the streets - frak, it spotted me! Turret turning 180, my crew already panicking! BAM and its history.. The T90 that is. Seriously, dudes. Is T90 (the flagship of Russian military engineering) really that sucky or did you think you a liiittle bit overdid your totally loveable pride and joy, the M1 Abrams?
×
×
  • Create New...