1944 question

[bish777]

Most likely a political decision based on the close relationship between the US an Canada militarily (why Canada chose the AR15 in the first place).

Similar to the forcing of the 7.62mm cartridge and subsequently the 5.56mm by the US. As they are the largest NATO army, what they choose is forced on the rest of us generally. Another good example is the stink the US kicked up when the Germans attempted to get their G11 rifle and caseless ammo made as a NATO standard. The US threw a paddy and the weapon got shelved, even though it was the single biggest advancement in small arms design in the last 100 years.

[ July 25, 2005, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: bish777 ]

[roqf77]

so Afghanistan is an example of two modern armies clashing? [Confused]

no but is an example of when the m4 was found to be substand to the m-16.

"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."

No what you said is so beyond utter nonsense it would be very polite to call it that.

if so is true why issue troops with anything at all? the stg was a step forward or the rest of the world wouldnt of followed suit.

Again your looking at a case where one side had an insamountable superiority over the other side.

"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."

please tell me youll never take lead of anything even vagualy dnagerous ever please for the love of god.

"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"

Vice versa.

"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."

Well maybe in the us army, and it is evident. 30% of m4 users complained about its killing power compared to the m-16. this is not a insignificant number.

You line of thinking is very narrow closed and lacking alot of synthasis. im glad my friends in the army are being led by people who see the decision to change to a carbine as exactly what it is. short ranged and pointless.

"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."

Fair point but the m-16 is superior to the m-16 over 100 yards so even at 200 yards the m-16 is superior. and the benefit of the m-4 is shorter?

I realy think you dont know what you are saying.

As soon as us and canadian troops go up against any one who has even reasponable equipment people are going to die.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

Well, both I guess. But, if Im not mistaken, the iron sight for the WWII rifles were marked up to 500 m or more, I don't think you will find many assualt rifles sights with the same range. Or am I mistaken?

[roqf77]

michael id imagine if the canadian army are making the same decision it would be more than likely for the same reason.the german and french armies are not doing such a thing. Infact the french went to a bull pup. like i said it will be a rude awakening when the truth is borne. any army that will be able to take advantage of this weakness will make the us and canadians pay very dearly.

[roqf77]

"Well, both I guess. But, if Im not mistaken, the iron sight for the WWII rifles were marked up to 500 m or more, I don't think you will find many assualt rifles sights with the same range. Or am I mistaken?"

true but most ww2 rifles werent issued with scopes either. most armies today are. unless the us army has produced some revisionist theory proving there a mistake to.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by roqf77:

Are you saying that small arms made the difference in say, a year or a few months, of the duration of WWII? What I said is very easy to disprove, just dig up the caualties numbers by weapons from WWII.

It might surprise you.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by roqf77:

"Well, both I guess. But, if Im not mistaken, the iron sight for the WWII rifles were marked up to 500 m or more, I don't think you will find many assualt rifles sights with the same range. Or am I mistaken?"

true but most ww2 rifles werent issued with scopes either. most armies today are. unless the us army has produced some revisionist theory proving there a mistake to.

Oh? I think you will find that MOST armies does NOT equip their assualt gun grunt a scope.

[roqf77]

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_small_arms_in_the_section.htm

Check sa-80, effective range 400m

[bish777]

British army does, the German army does. For most other armies its an issue of cost more than anything else.

[roqf77]

actualy all combat in the british army are issued with a sight.

[bish777]

Originally posted by roqf77:

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_small_arms_in_the_section.htm

Check sa-80, effective range 400m

Quick accurate fire out to ranges of around 400 metres, effective section fire out to 800 metres.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by bish777:

British army does, the German army does. For most other armies its an issue of cost more than anything else.

Ofcource it is. Which is why most armies do not equip their soldiers with scopes. You know, in the real wolrd, there may be some resource contrainst.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by roqf77:

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_small_arms_in_the_section.htm

Check sa-80, effective range 400m

There MIGHT be a SLIGHT difference in hitting something on the practise range, and in combat.

And oh, does not this hard-hitting-out-to-400m-wonder-weapon have a 5.56 mm calibre? LOL.

[roqf77]

and yes killing power i also determined by range. wound channel of the m-4, created at 70 yards. m-16 about 200 yards. essentialy for what your saying the average army troop could pbe armed with an smg. but thats the reason why the assualt rifle over took at first place anyway. besides over 100 yards the m-4 is inferior to the m-16 anyway.

and as for your priceless comment i could of qouted everything youve posted in this thread and said that but i thought against it.

i think we need to cool off. you have your opinion and i have mine.

[Panzer76]

And oh, I think Im done with our little "discussion". It also gives you more time to go back to you books and study, which I think would be a VERY good idea.

[bish777]

British soldiers have proven able to hit targets at such ranges (over Iron sights as well). Falklands anyone?

So I assume your some kind of veteran to have come to these conclusions i guess?

[roqf77]

yes it does. im assuming you looked at it and can read? an not realy on the range its qouted to be effective up to 600m.

[roqf77]

im going now have a good life panzer 76 but im to bored and old to keep arguing with you. and to be honest i dont realy care. live n let live, just hope you dont lose someone you care about to this decision.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by bish777:

Most likely a political decision based on the close relationship between the US an Canada militarily (why Canada chose the AR15 in the first place).

The C7 rifle and C7A2 carbine both fire the same ammo, so your "argument" holds no water.

Canada never chose the "AR15" we made the C7 with 144 modifications to the basic Colt design - and made it so well that Colt just bought out Diemaco, the Canadian manufacturer. The C7 outperforms the M16 on every level - accuracy, durability, rate of fire.

Doesn't change the fact the carbine will fire the same ammo(!)

I guess we know how much weight to give to your posts now.

[zmoney]

@ Bish77 it sounds like you are letting your dislike for America jade all your views and points in this thread. I can’t believe you actually said the quality or soldier and the soldiers marksmanship were slipping in the US. Come on man no one in here wants to hear your politics. For one last I checked the good old US still had one of the best trained armies in the world. All our soldiers are volunteers not conscripted so that would tell you right off the bat that most of our soldiers are well motivated. I also believe our troops did most of the fighting in either Afgan of Iraq. I don’t know if you remember the battle of Faluja or not but that was all US marines I don’t remember seeing any German troops there. Oh yea there aren’t any in Iraq.

The reason the US switched to the burst instead of fully auto is pretty obvious. Full auto fire has little to do with marksmanship and a lot to do with luck. I assume you have never fired a weapon before and are one of these inexperienced fellows that loves the idea of fully auto blaze away movie type shoot outs. Well I’m here to tell you that every weapon is more accurate on semi auto fire than fully auto fire. Any 5.56 gun is about as accurate as you can get on fully auto. The reason the top brass of the US changed from fully auto to three round burst is because there is a limit to the amount of ammo you can carry with you in the field. Think about it you could blaze away all 8 of your 30rd mags and not hit a thing. When you could carefully aim your shoots and kill what you are shooting at with less ammo wasted. In fact in basic training the instructors tell you to never us fully auto ever. Last thing on this particular subject, how many other Western countries use fully auto compared to burst?

Again have you ever shot an M4? Where do you get your info about the M4 not being effective in Afgan? I was there and noticed nothing of what you mentioned. Other than the 5.56 I don’t believe any soldiers I ever talked to had a problem with shooting at long range. Even if you shoot at 500m with any iron sight NATO rifle your going to have a problem with accuracy.

I do agree with one of your points. I think NATO needs a bigger caliber.

[JonS]

Originally posted by zmoney:

... Come on man no one in here wants to hear your politics ... I don’t know if you remember the battle of Faluja or not but that was all US marines I don’t remember seeing any German troops there. Oh yea there aren’t any in Iraq.

For the record, we aren't interested in your politics either.

[zmoney]

What about that had to do with politics. I just used the Germans because I am assumeing he is from Germany not because I have a problem with them being in Iraq or not. I assume you dislike the US as well so I expect some one like you to try to nit pick what I have said.

I have nothing against any Western country. I just dont like when people throw little cute remarks in their posts bashing the US. Especially when the remark is based on opion not fact like his remarks are.

[JonS]

For the record, we're still not interested in your politics.

[zmoney]

Uhm whats this record you keep talking about? And for the record why dont you say something to him for even bringing it up. Also for the record I was just trying to let him know this isn't a political view forum. Last thing for the record I haven't stated anything political other than the word political.

P.S. for the record you haven't posted anything to do with this thread so quit spamming and makeing me spam. For the record have a good night.

[roqf77]

actualt zmoney he is my brother. and no he is not german. michael you not in any position to lecture my brother. read your earlier posts you wernt aware of the difference in ballistics of the 2 weapons, which are painfully obvious, so dont get cocky.

again zmoney no he does not hate americans my and his mother are american. and yes he was in the british regular army. he served over a year in bosnia and kosovo, so he has experience and no he isnt into the full auto blaze.