Sheesh - what a bunch of Germanophiles ;-)

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by llama:

The old SLR was a beautiful weapon: very easy to keep operational, a dead easy IA in the rare case of a jam, deadly accurate out to 600 yards with iron sights, a 20 round magazine and plenty of stopping power. I never did understand why they got rid of them.

AFAICT, some of the requirements were:

1) Easier to handle in confined spaces like APCs. Having bongled about in the back of an FV432 with a deactivated No.4 Lee-Enfield and no other kit bar a hard hat, I can see why that might be considered important.

2) Use 5.56mm ammunition to fall into line with the US army and provide more firepower. (more ammo carried, more controllable rapid fire)

3) Easier shooting - Army shooting scores have improved dramatically since the introduction of the SA80.

4) FUBAR up the evil left-handers.

5) Commonality between the individual weapon and light support weapon.

6) Something to wind up the sqauddies with.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The FN (SLR) was, like any military smallarm, only as accurate as the shooter could make it...I did my basic with the FN and couldn't hit a barn door with it. However, I shot a perfect score on the Level II shoot with the 5.56 C7 a few years ago during annual qualification.

The FN was also heavier and longer, as well as being introduced in 1957 or so.

That said, many, if not most, infantrymen I've talked to/served in the same unit with seem to prefer the FN also for some reason. However, there is an advantage to sharing ammo with the squad automatic; the Minimi will put out 900 to 1100 rpm as opposed to the box fed7.62mm FN LMG, or the very heavy FN MAG/C6 which is now a platoon support weapon.

[Andreas]

I think the point that Abbott misses, and that the cattle observer fails to make is whether all other things (numbers,training of the squaddies, support weapons, situational awareness, CCCI, etc.) being equal, a squad with an M16 would have a better chance to walk away the winner of the firefight, compared to a squad with the Kalashnikov?

Since I have only ever fired the G3, P1, and MG3, and managed to miss most of the time, I decline to speculate on it.

[Omni-Max]

Regarding AK/M16 fight/debate:

Very well then, I suppose it is futile to argue the point of AK 47/74/AKM vs. M16/Armalite series, as there are too many variables involved.

Simply a case for different strokes for different folks, depending on what a situtation calls upon.

From hooked to a ball peen. Still does the same basic thing.

I think the point everyone was stumbling across is

why limit yourself to a few single tools? You then must play to a few tool's strengths, instead of playing to many and taking the advantage at every situation you may encounter. The western world is even popular for it. They value and try to give every convenience they can to the soldier so that he may preform better in combat...

I think people saw you as a russian basher, Abbott, which is obviously not the case.

Your first-hand experience leaves you to your choice, much more then I can say as I have no experience. I respect your choice and even agree.

If I was in the same situation, I probably would have done the same and kept my M16A2.

However, saying the AK-47 is an outdated weapon in modern times is very ignorant. It obviously seemed to work for others in 75 total conflicts, including the Vietnamese, and now Iraqis.

[Efraim]

For what it is worth, and after having carefully read this thread, I would like to publicly thank BigDuke6, that tried to open the eyes of some young table-warriors à la Abbot to realities that everyone that has field experiences knows by heart.

In Israel we have VERY good weapons, and yet we would never dream to call the AK47 "inferior quality", nor would anyone with even little experience dismiss the AK47 often enough proved superiority (yes superiority, Abbot clown) as 'urban myth'. Geesh, that Militia rabble has very good and reliable weapons. And cheap. (Not "cheap and reliable": "reliable AND cheap", the other way round, Abbot kid).

Clearly some here do not seem know what they are speaking about.

Geesh. As if "modern" and "frills" would be more important than concrete substance...

No wonder you'r losing the Iraq war.

Sorry for this rant, but I have really read the whole thread and I have the impression that some here pose as experts without knowing **** from shinola, like Abbot, and that younger ones may be impressed by them without sound reasons.

Intersting thread nevertheless.

Regards,

Efraim

[flamingknives]

Efraim, leave the politics out of it, there's a good chap. While you're at it, let's have less of the ad homs, eh?

You can vent bile without it.

[Bonxa]

This thread was heating up for a while but I think the gents have calmed down pretty well now. Quite unneccesary to burst in and call people 'kid' and drag in a lot of politics as well. I was enjoying the arguments and stories in this thread, not the harsh words.

BTW, I think it's a little weak to try and shoot down someones argument on the grounds that it's 'incorrect'. The whole point is to prove, so far as that is possible, ones stand point by presenting some sort of fact and drawing logical conlusions from it. Eg. I have never gotten points for stating that a mathematical theorem is 'obviously' true when the question was to prove it's validity on an exam. Doh!

[Bigduke6]

Efraim, thanks for the kind words. Still, Flamingknives is right, it's better to attack the arguements, not the man. Shalom.

[Code13]

I think 2 points.

1. This is pretty unprovable, those that think the AKx is cheap crap wont be convinced otherwise, those that think the Armalite series is over rated plastic also wont be convinced, proof is irrellavant in a matter of opinion. The weight of argument and hte way it is presented however is paramount (hence it a bad idea in specific terms to embellish your argument with insults)

2. Where were Efraims political comments? I saw a statement of fact with regards to Iraq and nothing else.

[Glider]

Originally posted by von Churov:

...

I was a signal troop. (398. Regiment of Serbia & Montenegro Army)...

I think we served in the same regiment, damn I am not certain about the number any more, the 398 was the signal regiment of the General Staff, was it not?

As far as your experience is concerned it is fairly consistent with what I saw. Our rifles were exposed to war-time conditions, mud, rain etc and it never occurred to us that they might jam. They never did.

I googled around and it seems that among hobbyists the Yugoslav AK version is considered to be of highest quality. Strange, personally I would have expected East German one to be no 1.

[yuvuphys]

2. Where were Efraims political comments? I saw a statement of fact with regards to Iraq and nothing else.

I have a free-energy device I'd like to sell ya'll...

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Code13:

2. Where were Efraims political comments? I saw a statement of fact with regards to Iraq and nothing else.

You can pack it in too.

[Splinty]

Funny, I've been to Iraq twice and I saw no sign we were losing.

[K.A. Miles]

"Winning" and "losing" are relative terms, as is evidenced by a host of historical military engagments, where both sides claimed "VICTORY!"

How about we swing just a little back-on-topic, shall we?

I don't care whether I play as Russians, Germans, Hungarians, etc. I have a soft spot in my heart for weak infantry, e.g.: 1941-42 Russian infantry, Hungarians, Romanians, and especially partisans.

Forget the machine guns, bring up the riflemen!!!

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I think the point that Abbott misses, and that the cattle observer fails to make is whether all other things (numbers,training of the squaddies, support weapons, situational awareness, CCCI, etc.) being equal, a squad with an M16 would have a better chance to walk away the winner of the firefight, compared to a squad with the Kalashnikov?

Since I have only ever fired the G3, P1, and MG3, and managed to miss most of the time, I decline to speculate on it.

Not at all Andreas the point kept changing. Training has everything to do with it. Big duke's lack of is what caused him to post so many incorrect arguments. I have not got into squad tactics, support weapons or hypothetical scenarios. I am speaking from personal weapons experience a lot of which was gained while under fire. I have no desire to educate people whom have already drawn their conclusions based on whims and theories. I will stick with what I experienced while keeping myself alive. If the AK 47’s were what some of these guys dream it to be, I would have used it.

[ July 06, 2005, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Efraim:

For what it is worth, and after having carefully read this thread, I would like to publicly thank BigDuke6, that tried to open the eyes of some young table-warriors à la Abbot to realities that everyone that has field experiences knows by heart.

In Israel we have VERY good weapons, and yet we would never dream to call the AK47 "inferior quality", nor would anyone with even little experience dismiss the AK47 often enough proved superiority (yes superiority, Abbot clown) as 'urban myth'. Geesh, that Militia rabble has very good and reliable weapons. And cheap. (Not "cheap and reliable": "reliable AND cheap", the other way round, Abbot kid).

Clearly some here do not seem know what they are speaking about.

Geesh. As if "modern" and "frills" would be more important than concrete substance...

No wonder you'r losing the Iraq war.

Sorry for this rant, but I have really read the whole thread and I have the impression that some here pose as experts without knowing **** from shinola, like Abbot, and that younger ones may be impressed by them without sound reasons.

Intersting thread nevertheless.

Regards,

Efraim

You obviously have a comprehension problem if you read the thread as you stated. LOL, you like to let your politics cloud your argument just like Big duke does. You guys like to work in crying about Iraq and the United States as much as anything else.

The AK 47 was a good weapon 50 years ago, as all things, time has passed it by. They will continue in service for years to come because of the sheer number produced. They will be around just like rats, cockroaches and you.

[ July 06, 2005, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Bonxa:

BTW, I think it's a little weak to try and shoot down someones argument on the grounds that it's 'incorrect'.

The veterans reading this thread understand where big dukes arguments went off into left field. I did not feel like educating the fellow.

[Bonxa]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bonxa:

BTW, I think it's a little weak to try and shoot down someones argument on the grounds that it's 'incorrect'.

The veterans reading this thread understand where big dukes arguments went off into left field. I did not feel like educating the fellow. </font>

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Bonxa:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bonxa:

BTW, I think it's a little weak to try and shoot down someones argument on the grounds that it's 'incorrect'.

The veterans reading this thread understand where big dukes arguments went off into left field. I did not feel like educating the fellow. </font>

[Code13]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Funny, I've been to Iraq twice and I saw no sign we were losing.

Wasnt that what Goering said about Stalingrad?

[Bigduke6]

Abbott,

In my opinion, you "grow weary" because there are people on this forum that just don't buy your line. You are upset because some of us do not accept your statements as gospel, just because you made them.

Your only arguement, as far as I can tell, is "I Abbott would not prefer a Kalashnikov in a war, and my buddies think the same way - so every one thinking a Kalashnikov is a preferable war weapon is wrong, as they disagree with me Abbott and my buddies."

You are far from the only war veteran, if in fact that's what you are, contributing to this thread. If your definition of "veteran" includes people with actual service time then that has to be a good 90 per cent of contributors to this thread.

Announcing "Well, I was under fire, and this is what I think, and therefore that's the truth" is not going to impress many people on this forum.

It certainly doesn't impress me. I was under fire in my day. So was Nidan1. (And from what I gather his combat experiences are long sight more valid than yours or mine.)

I am pretty sure that one could extend to a certain extent (at least) the term "combat veteran" to Splinty, Glider, von Churov, and Efraim - all those guys live in countries that were/are war zones, and I am assuming every one of them served in their country's army.

Does that mean you must accept every one of our opinions as the final word on small arms? You are not the only guy here who has been shot at. So who do you pick, considering we disagree among ourselves.

The only solution, as Code13 and Flamingknives point out, is to debate facts using systematic arguements.

You have failed, thus far, to refute any of the arguements in favour of the Kalashnikov as a infantry weapon, including:

1. Utter reliability

2. Low cost

3. Reasonable accuracy

4. Simplicity

5. A high practical rate of fire

You have similarly failed to show how more modern families of weapons are demonstrably superior to Kalashnikov's design. You say "time has passed them by", but you give absolutely no grounds to back up that claim.

Be specific. What is so bad about Kalashnikov?. Are you aware, for instance, that the bolt, barrel, and carrier in the Kalashnikov is a superior grade of tool steel, according to the company the best in the world used for a small arm, while the dust cover etc is crummy stamped steel?

What is so much better about (for instance) the M-16? What is it about the M-16's three-round burst that makes it superior in a firefight to a Kalashnikov, which can fire on full automatic? An M-16 last time I checked costs about 3-5 times as much as an AK-74. Is an M-16 3-5 times better than an AK-74? How?

I say, either come up with some better arguements or admit you're wrong.

Your point of view and the way you defend it is - so far - too simplistic to handle sophisticated arguements. So when confronted with a sophisticated arguement, you brand it "changing the subject."

That's sloppy debating technique on your part.

Here's a specific example: I have repeatedly asked you (three or four times I think) how much worse a U.S. infantry unit in Iraq would be, if it was armed with Kalashnikovs instead of M-16? I ask this because in my opinion the difference would be marginal either way. I think (as you do by the way) the main thing that determines infantry effectiveness over the short term is training, and over the long term is training and morale.

I think infantry needs a decent automatic rifle, but more than that is bells and whistles that have next to zero impact on how infantry performs.

I think you are avoiding answering my question because the moment you concede a U.S. unit would not perform appreciably worse or better in Iraq if armed with Kalashnikov, the bottom would fall out of your arguement that the Kalashnikov sucks, and that modern weapons are demonstrably superior to Kalashnikov.

Instead of dealing with the logic of that question, you are ignoring it, obliquely accusing me of changing the subject, and then claiming you don't feel like "educating" me.

Your behavior, my virtual friend, leans dangerously close to intellectual cowardice.

[Glider]

I spent some time under fire (under bombs would be a better description) and I have fired an M-70 (aka AK-47) both at firing ranges and after the rifle spent months in trenches and rain. However, I never fired another military rifle so I have no point of reference.

There is one fact I could contribute, since my signal unit was attached to a special forces brigade, I had an opportunity to see what kind of rifles special forces soldiers were using. Most of them had years of combat experience during infantry-intensive Yugoslav wars. Now, I found it a bit strange at that time, but all units that were allowed to choose their own weapons, among various Heckler&Kochs, Desert Eagles, Western sniper rifles etc always had an inordinate amount of AK-47s. To be more precise, they preferred to use the Yugoslav AK-47 LMG version, with a longer barrel, bipod, and some other alterations that made it heavier and, I guess, more accurate and reliable.

Obviously, the LMG version was capable of firing longer sustained bursts and I think this was the main reason why it was popular. I think this fact supports Bigduke's argument that infantry units have a significant advantage if they can fire more bullets in the general direction of the enemy.

[ July 07, 2005, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Glider ]

[von Churov]

Originally posted by Glider:

I spent some time under fire (under bombs would be a better description) and I have fired an M-70 (aka AK-47) both at firing ranges and after the rifle spent months in trenches and rain. However, I never fired another military rifle so I have no point of reference.

There is one fact I could contribute, since my signal unit was attached to a special forces brigade, I had an opportunity to see what kind of rifles special forces soldiers were using. Most of them had years of combat experience during infantry-intensive Yugoslav wars. Now, I found it a bit strange at that time, but all units that were allowed to choose their own weapons, among various Heckler&Kochs, Desert Eagles, Western sniper rifles etc always had an inordinate amount of AK-47s. To be more precise, they preferred to use the Yugoslav AK-47 LMG version, with a longer barrel, bipod, and some other alterations that made it heavier and, I guess, more accurate and reliable.

Obviously, the LMG version was capable of firing longer sustained bursts and I think this was the main reason why it was popular. I think this fact supports Bigduke's argument that infantry units have a significant advantage if they can fire more bullets in the general direction of the enemy.

What Glider here refer to is M72. It's a sort of AK 47...and it really is more accurate and deadly than ordinary M70. I'm not sure about the rate of fire...I believe that it's the same as that of M70 (or AK 47 if you like). But it really is capable of firing more sustained bursts, not only due to longer barrel but also the barrel is quite heavier, and being so tends to overheat less than ordinary M70.

M72 has a longer barrel and a bipod,it has effective range of 600m (or even more), and it's deadly accurate. And none of you would like to face it at those ranges with only M16 in your hands. Not even you Abot.

It's only drawback is that is quite heavy for a assault rifle. But it's only 5% more expencive (or better said: less cheap) than M70 (AK 47).

Being in signal unit I had no direct expirience with it (since it is primarily infantry weapon) but I saw the infantrymen using it and they had 30% (or more) better results than their squad mates with M70.

Good weapon...but a bit heavy. (I even heated carryng my folding stok M70a, I could only imagine how it is with M72 in your hand)

[flamingknives]

The M72 sounds like a version of the RPK. Might be a bit unweildy in close quarters, but I'll bow to someone with first-hand knowledge of the subject.

[Splinty]

Originally posted by Code13:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Splinty:

Funny, I've been to Iraq twice and I saw no sign we were losing.

Wasnt that what Goering said about Stalingrad? </font>