Sheesh - what a bunch of Germanophiles ;-)

[Abbott]

[ July 14, 2005, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Splinty]

I suspect if Ole Duke was in the military it was a Laundry and Bath Company or some other REMF type unit.

[Gpig]

Well, THAT was worth staying UP for!

Thanks!

GPig

[Bigduke6]

Abbott,

Wow. That's a whole lot of really mean names!

I am not trying to school you, I just have a point of view different than yours. Sorry if that upsets you. If you think I was denigrating your war injuries, I apologize.

I assume it was a Kalashnikov-series bullet, fired at short range, that hit you. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If you do decide to answer, maybe you could also respond to the question I keep asking: If you armed the entire U.S. force in present-day Iraq with AK-74 (and necessary logistics) instead of M-16, would that force perform appreciably worse in combat?

Splinty, I did a 3-year tour in a Regular Army U.S. infantry battalion. Scouts and intelligence. So not laundry and bath, no, you would be wrong there.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

...I assume it was a Kalashnikov-series bullet, fired at short range, that hit you. Please correct me if I am wrong. ...

Nah, that lousy excuse for a weapon would never be able to wound our resident superman here. The bullets would just bounce off, you see.

[zmoney]

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.

[Matthias]

Originally posted by Glider:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

...I assume it was a Kalashnikov-series bullet, fired at short range, that hit you. Please correct me if I am wrong. ...

Nah, that lousy excuse for a weapon would never be able to wound our resident superman here. The bullets would just bounce off, you see. </font>

[Abbott]

[ July 15, 2005, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Matthias:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

...I assume it was a Kalashnikov-series bullet, fired at short range, that hit you. Please correct me if I am wrong. ...

Nah, that lousy excuse for a weapon would never be able to wound our resident superman here. The bullets would just bounce off, you see. </font>

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Abbott,

I apologize.

I owe you one as well I apologize. This thread in no way takes away from the fact that I often find your posts in other threads of good interest. It is foolishness to argue so, damn this Internet communication; lets go have a beer where politeness and manners are the order of the day.

[ July 14, 2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Matthias]

Originally posted by Abbott:

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

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

...I assume it was a Kalashnikov-series bullet, fired at short range, that hit you. Please correct me if I am wrong. ...

Nah, that lousy excuse for a weapon would never be able to wound our resident superman here. The bullets would just bounce off, you see. </font>

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Matthias:

Sounds like a great idea mate, i might just do that.

Good. I hope Glider enjoys it.

[Glider]

I might

We enjoy our fun where we can find it, we ordinary men

[Bigduke6]

Zmoney,

Good question. My answer on why the U.S. military has opted M-16 rather than Kalashnikov would be based on this logic:

U.S. studies of WW2 infantry combat concluded what the next war needed was an automatic rifle that was light, simple to operate, accurate to maybe 500 meters in range conditions and 250 meters in combat condtions, and could spit out a ton of ammunition fast.

M-16 does all of that. Also, it is my understanding Colt firearms needed the contract to keep its plant in New Haven going for a while longer.

Kalashnikov differs from M-16 in that it is a bit less accurate, cheaper, and an awful lot more rugged. It is simpler to operate, harder to break, and virtually impossible to jam. On the other hand its early marks especially suffer from barrel climb when fired on full automatic. So basically the trade off between M-16 and Kalashnikov is some degree of accuracy for a lot of reliability and simplicity.

Clearly, American designers valued some degree of accuracy more than a lot of reliability and simplicity. Their decision no doubt was driven by U.S. military experience which assumes that weapons and soldiers will always have sufficient time and supplies for proper maintenance. Further, that decision assumes, obviously, that the war the rifle is used will not place demands on the rifle not foreseen by designers.

Abbott,

You misunderstand me, I agree with you aimed fire is more effective in a firefight than blasting away on automatic. My point is, if you look at all of the infantrymen in the world, relatively few soldiers are well-trained and disciplined enough to manage aimed fire in a firefight. From what I have seen, the more scared soldiers are, the more likely they are to just blast away on automatic.

The lesson I take from that is that the more even the fight, the less likely any one is going to be aiming their shots. That's my impression from watching people shoot at one another. Clearly yours is different.

Factor in that as wars go on infantrymen are injured and die and you need to replace them, the fact most armies have neither the resources nor the intention to train infantry to a NATO standard, and then ask me what's the best overall rifle, and I keep coming back to the basics. You want something cheap that will allow more or less accurate fire at short ranges, and is absolutely soldier-proof as possible. That'll allow you to feed the maximum number of warm bodies into the war.

Our basic disconnect, I think, is that when you say "best rifle" you are thinking in terms of a single firefight. I am thinking in terms of a war.

[Matthias]

When i am not spending my time enjoying Glider and work and other stuff, i play paintball (i know i am going to get some, HA! but paintball isn't war so you don't know what your saying)

but in paintball there used to be two choices of high end paintball gun, Auto cocker (like a M16, works great if you look after it, shoots as accurate as a paintball gun gets, and fires fast enough if you can),

and there was the Angel (just like a AK, its a tank, it can sit in a river for a few weeks then work, aims where you fire, but maybe not as good as the autococker, but can shoot really quickly for a long time).

Basicaly most people got the autococker because it could be more accurate, but in day long games it turned out the Angel was a better choice because it could just keep going and going, where some auto cockers didn't and rate of fire mattered more then accuracy because you can denie the other team lanes of movement and then slowly advance of them (surpression).

also it turns out then when the best teams met each other, they didn't just wipe each other out with there better aimed shots, o no, they were too smart for that (coz they knew they whould be dead just as quick) they exposed themselfs less and used more surpressing fire.

Right i know its not war, but i am just saying that sometimes volume and realiabty is just as good as accuracy, and when well trained "troops" meet there not going to just aim there shots better and win, because the others can aim just as well so thats to dangerous. (it takes more then just good aim to be elite, you got to be smart too)

[zmoney]

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.

[Matthias]

yeah but, you have tanks, planes and inf, they just have inf, nothings is really going to work for them. don't matter what rifle they have its not going to stop a plane or tank (in that enviorment), i was talking more about a fairer fight.

[Abbott]

[ July 15, 2005, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[zmoney]

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.

[zmoney]

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.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by zmoney:

Also you have to remember war isn’t fair.

Tactics is the art of producing an unfair fight.

[Matthias]

yes, war isn't fair, but we are comparing two rifles, not how the US army can uses a M16 and a few tanks and planes and helicopters to liquidate some rebels with a few AK's and RPG's, i am just saying the AK isn't a bad rifle for a war against a even enemy.

[zmoney]

I agree its a good rifle on a limited budget.

Abbott when are you going to post more battles?