Piispa
-
Posts
7 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Piispa
-
-
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.
-
As Hoolaman said, Ground Objectives don't mean a thing if there's nobody to hold them or if the remaining forces can be easily swept aside. We've always hated games that pretend that if one side has a dude with a pistol on the objective in the last second of the game they win even though the enemy has a company of able bodied soldiers. We had this philosophy since CMBO and we don't plan on changing that perspective.
Steve
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.
-
Piispa: You've either got WAY bigger hands then most, or you're doing something different then a lot of us to hit the safety on an AK without taking your firing hand off the grip. If you're using your off-hand to hit it, then I understand. Can be quiet effective and fast (seen a lot of folks in 3 gun who run AK's use that style). My main issue with AK mag changes, is that you have to hit the lever and extract the mag out, then rock the new on in. For a "basic" level of skill on the reload, that requires your support hand to: release and strip the mag, grab the new one, and lock it in. Where as an AR requires your support hand to: grab the new mag, and insert and lock it in. As I said with a lot of practice there is probably only a few tenths of second between the reloads, but at the "basic" level there's a little more manipulation for the AK platform. I've been smoked before by a guy using an AK in 1-reload-1 drills, he'd just practiced a whole lot.
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.
I agree the AK is a simpler weapon, and the new push to piston driven AR's is people gravitating towards that. However Stoner designed the AR-180 as using the best of both the M-16 and the Ak-47, to bad it didn't get picked up. Sucker is basically the AR equivalent of an AR, and was dang accurate too (well the 180B model I had was at least).However take a look at something like the M-1 Garand, not exactly an unreliable weapon. It has roughly the same number of major sub assemblies as the AR when broken down, and for a detail cleaning has more. Overall I think the modern AR is as reliable as the solider it's issued to is willing to keep it.
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.
I also agree that in combat ranges over 150-200 yds shooting iron sights are a very rare occurrence. However the AR platform can reach out to 600yds quiet well using irons if you take your time and know how to shoot, USMC qualifications requires 500yds, and High Power shooting goes out to 600yds. ACOG's, EoTech and Aimpoint magnifiers, and the like extend the ability to engage out to 3-400 yards with out it being a waste of ammo if you've got good shooters on the line. The biggest thing the M16A4 has over the M4 is the ABILITY to put rounds down accurately at 300+ yds. If the enemy already knows your there and is hitting you with MG fire, the more lead you can send his way the better. Sure the 240G and 249 are going to put rounds down, but why not have the rest of the squad and platoon get some trigger time too? I'd much rather have the ability for in my opinion a negligible increase in bulk and length then not have it.-Jenrick
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.
-
Next up is ergonomics. The M4/M16A4 platform both allow the use to toggle the safety off and on without difficulty or breaking the shooting grip. Magazine changes can be accomplish swiftly with minimal practice, and extremely fast if you practice. The rifle is easy to shoot and recoil cause very little muzzle rise when fired semi-auto. The AK safety requires breaking the firing grip to toggle, or a lot of practice. Magazine changes are not that much slower if you really practice them, but a basic level of proficiency is going to be about 30-50% slower then an AR magazine change. Recoil and muzzle rise is going to be fairly similar to the AR platform.
Overall at MOUT ranges the rifles don't matter too much. The level of the training of the operator matters far more, and US combat personal receive FAR more MOUT and CQB training then most other basic combat troops. Shoot most US combat troops receive more then most non-superpower special forces units receive.
-Jenrick
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
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.
-
Just curious, did you have M1A1s or A2s?
M1A1s, the Marine-versions.
-
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?
The selector isn't that stiff and hardly requires any force to move from one position to another.
An actual U.S. special forces attack inside Syria
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
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.