1944 question

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by roqf77:

other than being slightly shorter what is the advantage of carbines?

They are ambidextrous, which is difficult to achieve with a bullpup.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by roqf77:

other than being slightly shorter what is the advantage of carbines?

They are ambidextrous, which is difficult to achieve with a bullpup. </font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by roqf77:

1. panzer 76.

Again this is a matter of opinion. the british army does not agree. If you can engage at 500 metres plus and the enemy cant you will win most of the time. Support weapons plus rifle fire is better than just rifle fire. This is not opinion its just common sense. Plus again recently infantry engagments now are against substandardly trained opponents who cant hit over 100 yards all that much.

Its not common sense, its researched fact that you do no engange the enemy these days in the rabges you say. You call in fire support.

Originally posted by roqf77:

Again this is because of the opposition, send people from one army with carbines against people with full rifles and you will see what i mean.

Indeed, in a typical engangement range the rifles will be beaten hands down (urban).

[roqf77]

flaming knives, fair point.

Panzer 76, i mean no offence but you have firstly said something untrue, it is not researched fact. It may is opinion. it is reasearched, yes i believe you but it is still an opinion. i can tell you for a fact that in iraq british solidiers did engage iraq's at the ranges i mentioned. They did have and use fire support ranging from mg's to whatever.

But over mg's you cant get arty support at the drop of a hat. its better to have maximum fire power available. plus your idea that urban areas are typical is also not true, majority of fighting in afganistan was over 200 metres. I believe at least on certain occasions engagments were made over 200 metres. Plus you have missed my point again. In a situation where 2 armies are facing each other with similar numbers of troops and support and quality etc, you would be even less likely to be able to gaurentee the fire support would be availible. Or even urban fighting, what if you cannot keep the fight simply to the city?

you point is based on engagements against if not terrorist but under equiped under supplied under supported under trained troops. not against a competant western nation army. in my opinion atleast.

[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.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by zmoney:

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.

Your sorry for it? Why? You didn't do it.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

Small arms engagement ranges has decreesed the last 50 yrs, you are no longer expected to engange the enemy at 500 m, and the majority of inf combat is fought at between 50-150 m. [snips]

Do you have any evidence that the typical range of a small-arms engagements occurring has decreased over the lasy 50 years?

Or do you really mean that the design range of personal weapons has decreased?

There's an important difference.

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

Curiously, both have the same effect

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Curiously, both have the same effect

Nope. One case has the effect of infantry missing opportunities to engage, the other doesn't.

Hence "important difference" rather than merely "difference".

All the best,

John.

[roqf77]

thankyou zmoney, and vice versa. and john, that is my point exactly. simply shortening the effective range of a weapon to make it marginaly better at close range seems strange. Certainly as i have said many timesin the case of uk v us or v canada or whatever, with equal numbers of troops over a campaign. The troops with the carbine are going to be at a disadvantage. panzer 76 do you know how short a range 200 yards is?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

Curiously, both have the same effect

Nope. One case has the effect of infantry missing opportunities to engage, the other doesn't.

Hence "important difference" rather than merely "difference".

All the best,

John. </font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by roqf77:

plus your idea that urban areas are typical is also not true, majority of fighting in afganistan was over 200 metres. I believe at least on certain occasions engagments were made over 200 metres.

US Marines report typical engagement range of 20-30 m

"Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only."

Some more tidbits from same web page

I can find more, but frankly, Im too lazy. Use the google foo.

Originally posted by roqf77:

Plus you have missed my point again.

In a situation where 2 armies are facing each other with similar numbers of troops and support and quality etc, you would be even less likely to be able to gaurentee the fire support would be availible. Or even urban fighting, what if you cannot keep the fight simply to the city?

you point is based on engagements against if not terrorist but under equiped under supplied under supported under trained troops. not against a competant western nation army. in my opinion atleast.

Well, I don't see your point. Seems like the kind og point you try to make and stack all the scarios variables in your favour. Hardly something that reflects the real world.

Like; my point is that in a scenario reflected in Iraq, where Urban combat dominates the combat, you would prefer Carabines, SMGs and pistols to a Rifle.

Further more, if two modern armies where to meet their small arms would play zero role in the conflict.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by 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.

I didnt mean they all ditched the M16. I said they supplemented their weapons with more speicalised weapons because the M16 is not the all round star it's supposed to be.

Like some use personal handguns for close combat, or that some use the good old Blubber again instead of the mounted 40 mm luncher on the M16. Or that the M14 is back in demand. etc.

[roqf77]

panzer 76 that is exactly my point and you have just proved what i said. look at afganistan and you will see a different story. thankyou for proving my point i couldnt put it any better my self.

[roqf77]

and in a modern war, unless it turned into a nuke fight then yes they would!

[roqf77]

besides is every war in the world gonna be faught in iraq?

[bish777]

The point of an assault weapon is to cover as many eventualities as possible.

The problem with the M4 carbine is that it seriously compromised lethality over the M16 and bullpup rifles that its not really that effective a weapon.

The M4 would make more sense if the 6.8mm Cartridge had been adopted at the same time, but as we are still using 5.56mm it is an inferior weapon.

A .357 magnum SMG would be a better close combat weapon as performance would be better with such a short barrel.

[bish777]

Basically I cant wait till they finally reintroduce caseless ammunition and we can have an ambi bullpup rifle and give soldiers the best weapon possible.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by roqf77:

panzer 76 that is exactly my point and you have just proved what i said. look at afganistan and you will see a different story. thankyou for proving my point i couldnt put it any better my self.

So Afghanistan is an example of two modern armies clashing? :confused:

Also, if you read the articles, it was pointed out that these engagment ranges has been common since WWII and before.

Originally posted by roqf77:

and in a modern war, unless it turned into a nuke fight then yes they would!

This is utter nonsense. Take a look at WWII for example, what caused the casualties? Artilliry for the most part.

And with superior MGs, the back bone of the sqd, the germans still lost. And they had the Stg44.

You seem to think that the difference between having a AK47 or M16, or a Carabine or a rifle will really matter in a modern world, on the grand scale. News flash, it won't.

I understand you are very passionate about this, but I find your opinions, and reasoning lacking focus and sense. But hey, it's a free country (some places anyway), so have a ball.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by roqf77:

besides is every war in the world gonna be faught in iraq?

As the article mentioned, the engagemet ranges for small arms has been very limited in every conflict since the dawn of gunpowder.

Seems you confuse your pride for your big brother with objectivity.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by bish777:

The problem with the M4 carbine is that it seriously compromised lethality over the M16 and bullpup rifles that its not really that effective a weapon.

And this lack of lethality is evident in short ranges as well as longer ranges. It's not the long range lack of leathality that matters, heck, you will have serious problems even hitting anyone in such a combat situation.

[bish777]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

And with superior MGs, the back bone of the sqd, the germans still lost. And they had the Stg44.

They lost due to the strategic blunders of their commanders. They held on as long as they did as a result of tacticul prowess and good kit (such as the MP44)

Originally posted by Panzer76:

And this lack of lethality is evident in short ranges as well as longer ranges. It's not the long range lack of leathality that matters, heck, you will have serious problems even hitting anyone in such a combat situation.

Of course your a combat veteran? Thats a very broad, innaccurate and flip comment to make.

I'd rather be issued with a weapon that will put my enemy down without having to empty half a magazine into them.

I dont know about the standards in the US army but every British soldier is required to be able to hit a target accurately at 300 metres.

"Oh dear they seem to be more than 50 yards away i cant hit them" isnt really on is it?

[Matthias]

I really have to argee with Panzer76, combat ranges since and during ww2 were almost always under 300m. and in ww2 the germasn the british used very good long range rifles.

[bish777]

Yes engagement ranges are generally shorter but thats not an excuse to deny your soldiers the option and ability to engage an enemy at range.

An 8 man section armed with rifles firing rapid fire (meant in the TRUE sense- ie one round every two seconds) can provide a withering fire at longer ranges.

Afghanistan required the longer range envelope of the SA80/M16 etc where ranges were more in the 4-500 metre range. Pushing it a little for 5.56'ers in general but the M4 proved almost useless.

The priority is to give your men the best availiable, not limit them artificially.

I dont wish to be cynical but this choice (regarding the switch to the M4) may be more to do with the relaistic assessment by the US armed forces senior brass of their men realising their standards of marksmanship and soldiering have slipped of late. The enforcement of ammunition discipline with three round burst being complulsarily fitted is an indication of this.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by bish777:

I dont wish to be cynical but this choice (regarding the switch to the M4) may be more to do with the relaistic assessment by the US armed forces senior brass of their men realising their standards of marksmanship and soldiering have slipped of late. The enforcement of ammunition discipline with three round burst being complulsarily fitted is an indication of this.

And how would this explain the move in Canada to do exactly the same thing - move from the C7A1 to the C7A2 (in effect, M16 to carbine0