ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:41 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
well if only you were the head of the American Army, you'd have spotted that one straight off eh? shame that every single person in the armed forces is more stupid that you i guess

(gee, that really is stupid...)

pray forgiveness for your words so we dont' have to go through a forced re-education here please

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 1:12 am 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 23
Location: Mexico
Not to worry, ollie-san. I'm not troubled by what you wrote. What I only hinted was at an historical truth. Like Marx pointed, we humans tend to repeat what we haven't learned from, and play them first as tragedy and then as farce ("history repeats itself- first as tragedy, then as farce"). Since ancient times we see this truth concerning guerilla vs. regular army, depending on the discipline and persistance of the former.I lament that with their brilliant tactitians and their military experience, the US hasn't realized this. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Dingus
PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:07 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1349
Have you bothered to serve in the US Military subaru?
I think not, or you would know that we that actually have use the lessons of Vietnam a great deal. We learned, and do not repeat the mistakes of Vietnam. We have not forgotten as you so insist, so your opion is pretty uniformed, lame, and rather worthless.
I am a Veteran of the US Armed Forces, and was a career soldier until I was medically discharged after 10 years (shit happens), So I do know what the Military knows, has learned, and as a Part time DoD employee, I stay connected with current data, training, and even combat unit staffing strategies.
I say with a very informed opion that has a basis in fact, that you know little about the policies and operations of the US Military.

If we were to be ousted from Iraq, it would have already occurerd, and this is a debate/discussion for another thread. This debate thread is/was about weapons, not political idealogy hocum.

Edit: Shoot, I almost forgot: Auto mag made a variant of their pistol to firee the .357 Mag cartridge, as well as a smaller framed auto to fire the .45 apc round. The .45 pistol was at one point a contender to repalce the 1911. The barreta pistol won out in the end as the 9mm cartridge was a NATO adoptee and in wide spread use, while the .45 was pretty much a US only cartridge. Firearms using a NATO standard cartridge win out in getting adopted 99% of the time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
ok, I've got a little time before the police turn up, you want to be schooled, here we go

the Recent History of Guerrilla Warfare 101



China: Civil War 1927-49

The civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists took quite some time as you can see, it was interrupted in part by the Japanese invasion of China (1937-45) but took up where it left off afterwards. This was a very real civil war fought between 2 regular armies, both only marginally supported by outside agencies, the Soviets were reluctant to kick-start the cold war by helping out fellow communists too much, and the Americans were equally reluctant to further commit to world communist/capitalist war so soon after WW2 ended.

The Nationalist Chinese forces had the advantage in regular troops of 2 or 3 to 1 over the Communists, but the communists equalled that in guerrilla numbers. however, even as late as 1947 it was looking like Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists would win, Stalin himself admitted he was wrong (quite a rare thing) about thinking Mao's forces would win and urged him to seek a peace deal with Chiang, equally the USA gave only about $3,000Million in aid to Nationalist China in the post war period, believing that they were on the verge of a win, only willing to give more aid when a peace was won or negotiated (see Russia's oddly similar view)

After all this the communist forces kicked it into top gear and within 2 years steamrollered down the country and drove the last elements of the Nationalist power structure into Taiwan, Russia laughed and the West groaned, china never really trusted either of them after that for either providing aid to the enemy or not aiding them enough

Conclusion

This was not a guerrilla war, it was a conventional civil war, fought along conventional (if at time highly tactically on the Communists side and somewhat poorly on the Nationalists) lines, the guerrilla forces supported the Communists and aided the army in just about every way possible, as well as being a base of recruits for the full time regular army, there were not the only force available for the 20+ years of war and they certainly were not the most important element at the final stage of the war when the Communists pulled off a surprise (to outside observers at least) win

from this conflict arose Mao's doctrine of guerrilla warfare, to summarise: the discontent of a people in it's government can be, with propaganda, turned into dissent, this can be, with careful control and maximum propaganda exploitation, be turned into active subversion and terrorism. in turn this is then transformed into persistent insurrection and then guerrilla war. when the time is right this is then transformed into a full-blown conventional war

it is a brief summary and one not strictly followed by Mao, but it can be effective if each and every one of the steps is fully fulfilled and moved onto at the right time and if the opposition is as limp and locked into a downward spiral as, in the Chinese Civil War, the Nationalists were. An effective halt to the success of this strategy can be achieved at any stage, the longer it is left to ferment the more chance the so called 'guerrilla war' has to succeed

I say 'so called' as you'll note only one of the stages in the plan involve direct guerrilla warfare, what starts in political dissent ends in uniformed troops marching on the capital, guys hiding in bushed and blowing up checkpoints and bridges is merely the middle part, the name 'guerrilla war' is very misleading, the above history lesson is there to show how small a part insurgents and guerrillas played in direct actions of the war, but what an important feature there were in this civil war, mainly because only one side used them.

Guerrilla Warfare lessons to be learnt

1: Mao Tse-tsung (literally) wrote the book on guerrilla warfare as it provided his 'edge' in the war and while it did win the war for him, it couldn't have done it without his conventional army and large scale open battles (some lasting for weeks or months with hundreds of thousands of regular soldiers on each side)

2: The Communist army was better than the Nationalist army in most respects, the main ones being that the meritocratic (at least for that time in history) structure of the troops and commanders and the greater moral they had played a key part in not only the battles they fought, but also in the big operational events such at The Long March and the number of deserters that the Nationalist army suffered (which often immediately swelled the Communist ranks)

3: China had a relatively self contained civil war, not an 'open' and intensive guerrilla war involving supporting allies and modern, highly trained and equipped armies, it could be said that the Chinese Civil War was fought in a style closer to WW1 than WW2 giving the guerrilla forces very little direct influence in the direct fighting

Europe: Resisting German Invasion 1939+

For the sake of simplicity, only France and Great Britain will be briefly examined

France: La Resistance

Going by Mao's stages of warfare, the Resistance in Occupied France got to the insurrection stage by D-Day and then graduated to full guerrilla warfare in support of the Allies and then (arguably) to conventional warfare with the arrival of the Free French forces. At all of these stages they were assisted by the American OSS and British SOE in supplies, training and moral support. they would have been very hard pressed to do anything more than daub slogans on walls without all this outside assistance before the full allied invasion, also the internal political infighting in the Resistance, though no where near as bad as Yugoslavian Resistance, was still a problem with their overall cohesion

Britain: Home Guard Auxiliary Battalions

These were formed in 1940 to provide a secret guerrillas army to resist at all cost the planned German invasion. (the put off and finally cancelled Operation SEALION) If anything they were formed on reverse lines to Mao's guerrilla warfare strategy, it was believed (in secret, though very realistically) that after the Germans invaded the British Mainland, the conventional army would be defeated in short order and the country would come under full German occupation, at this stage the guerrilla warfare would begin with the remnants of the British Army and the Auxiliary forces untill these were depleted by German anti-partisan operations (as later demonstrated in Russia) to an extent where only brief acts of insurrection and acts of terrorist subversion would remain, until finally the population would be under full 'Vichy' type control with only isolated acts of dissent and unrest with the resistance fully quashed a few years later.

Conclusion

The French Resistance was very well supplied by the allies, the British Auxiliary forces were not counting on any supplies or assistance from anywhere, for instance they were issued with 2 weeks of rations as none were expected to survive much longer than that within occupied Britain. A successful guerrilla movement must have graduated from and work within a base of popular support and have access to supplies and coordinated leadership, not be the remnants of a fallen regime isolated from the rest of the world.

The French Resistance succeeded because of it's outside and internal support and critically the transition to guerrilla and then conventional warfare was very much managed by the Allied command leading to the eventual French lead liberation of Paris. The British resistance effort was destined to fall into a downward spiral in the direct opposite of Mao's guerrilla warfare plan mainly due to the total lack of the assistance the French Resistance had.

These are both examples of a home based force resisting a foreign invasion force using limited guerrilla tactics, again, this is not 'real' guerrilla warfare, but resistance with a guerrilla element.

Malayan Emergency: Counter Insurgency Operations 1950-59

This is one of the classic studies for counter insurgency warfare with two foreign powers fighting over a single country, with on one side the Communist Chinese Insurgents/Terrorists making a series of cross border raids with the intention of further destabilising the government and triggering a popular uprising, and on the other side Mad Mike Calvert's SAS, take a guess who won that one...

The communist forces failed to triggering the full scale guerrilla war stage of their plan due to the harsh counter insurgency operations of the SAS Malayan Scouts (full of veterans of the SOE, Force 136, Ferret Force, WW2 SAS etc) in limiting their movement and ability to build bases and establish themselves in Malaya, also the SAS ran a large number of 'hearts and minds' operations (they coined that phrase) to win over the Malayan people away from the communists, Mao said the people were the water that the guerrilla moves through, the SAS were moving the water away and then poisoning it while aggressively (both secretly and illegally) taking the war to the Communists in deep cross border raids

Malaya eventually came to a peaceful resolve of it's communist/Chinese political minority after the foreign insurgents/terrorists were defeated and became a fully independent nation, well, as independent as you can be in the '60s

Conclusion

This 'emergency' is important as it was, in part, used as a blueprint for the later French Indo-China and USA Vietnam conflict, also as it was another total failure for the 'guerrilla warfare' operational pattern. (Vietnam went off on it's own tangent and the tactics that won this conflict weren't followed for a whole host of reasons) It is also one of the first post WW2 real 'guerrilla wars' with both sides of the fight supplied and assisted by foreign powers and conventional armed forces only used by the occupying government, in this case mainly for internal policing and defence of fixed sites such as fortified villages, key towns, roads and supply dumps etc, with the main anti-communist fighting was conducted by the foreign paramilitary SAS based forces.

Summary

The term 'Guerrilla Warfare' is a misleading and deceptive one, it is often used to name a whole host of operational stages of a conflict and is very politically loaded. most so called guerrilla wars can be slotted into the above examples, the end results coming from the way the 'war' was conducted on both sides, as well as local operational conditions etc

1: Civil War - This is often in relative isolation to foreign support, with one or both sides having guerrilla or para-military forces in operation, the decisive phase of this conflict comes when conventional forces clash in all out war and one side is the overall military winner, usually then symbolically marching on the capital.

Examples would be the Balkans/Yugoslavia, to a limited extent India/Pakistan and a number of African/South American states (though these fall into cat 3 mostly)

2: Wars of Resistance - this type of warfare stands of falls on the help the local resistance forces can gain from outside of their country, they will be a mix of trained former army fighters, trained paramilitary/guerrilla fighters, and, if possible, foreign specialists and trainers. without outside help and against a superior occupying force the guerrilla war will naturally fall apart rather than 'naturally' progress

Examples - Kuwait, Anti-Russian Afghanistan, post-Regime Iraq

3: Counter Insurgency - This is the critical stage in the evolution of a revolution, the first acts of overt armed resistance/insurrection, as such it has to be quickly limited and extinguished before it has the chance to progress to a full revolutionary war

The classic African 'Brushfire Wars' and the South Asian anti-communist 'Domino Effect' conflicts and a number of Cuban/Communist inspired South American conflicts

Some conflicts that have a guerrilla element fall into not one but a number of the above, for instance Beirut, post-Russian Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine etc, these are more complex but still follow a set of rules based on the above examples

So, in conclusion, there is no such thing as a [i[generic[/i] guerrilla war, there are, as i have briefly shown, at least 3 clear types all with very different advantages and disadvantages for all sides involved. In all cases it is by no means a clear cut case of an easy win or loss by one side of the other, again using Mao's stages of revolution as a framework, the process of guerrilla war can be pushed back as well as forward, it can't be fully defeated until it's taken back down to the 'discontent' level which can be addressed with political and social policies alone, equally it can't be a win for the 'guerrilla forces until full scale war and (usually) the capital is captured or the opposition have been captured/killed/driven out.

Now, i hope I've made clear a little "historical truth" here and that the lessons have all been well learned, it's just a matter of putting into operation effectively operations to either forma and operate a guerrilla force or to defeat one, in the end it's down to the political and military skill of both sides to fight over the people or the nation involved, it is by no means a forgone conclusion that all resistance/insurgency/guerrilla forces automatically win

now, any questions at the back?

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:26 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
back on topic, the sidearm was meant to be outmoded with the introduction of the SMG almost a century ago, and hand in hand with the British Army's new version SA80A2 there's a new armoured vehicle crew personal weapon that's just finished trials...

(pics scanned by me thus the text on the grips etc)

Image

Image

this SA80A2 'K' gun will be issued with 2 20 round clips and 2 30 round clips to Challenger 2 crews, the Engineers and the support arms of the Army are also looking at using them in place of some small pistols/full rifles

still in 5.56mm NATO by the way, along with all the upgrades the SA80A2 has recieved, i've seen some official reports and figures of stoppage trials and they look pretty damn good, i for one can't wait to make use of them...

I'm assuming the 'K' comes from the German 'kurtz' meaning short as it's a H&K product, like the MP5K etc.

note the M4 is/was often given to 'support' and armoured troops while everyone else had a M16 version rifle in the US Army, now more and more are changing to M4 varients, prehaps elements of the British army will follow in this respect now we've got a cut down SA80 to compliment the full sized grenade launcher version (see my post in the other future weapons thread)

however armoured recon troops are keeping their full sized rifles as they are often engaged in direct firefights where they make use of them while dismounted, again prehaps they'll take up a few per vehicle/squad once they've been fully combat tested a few years down theline

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Last edited by ollie on Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:22 pm 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:45 am
Posts: 23
Location: Mexico
Just clearing a few things:
a) I'm from Mexico, and live there as well. Why would I have to serve on the US Army anyway??? No one should be serving armies nowhere.
b) Ollie-san, thanks for the enlighting post. Though I hate to disagree considering that the cases you mentioned weren't at all mentioned historically as guerilla warfare examples. Real examples of guerilla warfare are found in Third World conflicts (I hate the use of the term "Third World", but for reference it'll have to do), and in earlier eras of history. That is all I have to say...
c) Back to topic, whatever the weapon, I still find both inventions plain horrible. I'm still surprised that many people accept war as a natural act of man, and more natural to the social groups and institutions we've built. I'll stop here, since it would be going off topic again.
Apologies to anyone getting offended/bothered by the posts. I was just stating my position, and I stand by what I say.

_________________
DNI'd by Zarathustra


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 2:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
I think you'll find that the above examples I used were to illustrate broadly the general areas that the much misused label 'guerrilla warfare' covers, your argument is that because the USA pulled out of Vietnam they will also pull out of Iraq without mentioning that both conflicts are two totally different things, though both with elements of Mao's stages of a guerrilla conflict, I will mention that you now seem to claim generic 'third world' conflicts as the prime example of a guerrilla war, I feel that I covered those with my post, not using them as examples as there really are a great number of very similar confrontations over the last century and I had to chose what I thought of as the best to put my point across

again I would argue that all guerrilla conflicts fall into the 3 categories, in whole or in part, that I have stated, mostly type 1 or 3 (usually a mixture of the two) but if you'll describe the exact conflict(s) you refer to I'll be able to comment further

as for war being natural, i think you'll find that conflict is somewhat older than any, if not all of the 'social groups and institutions' that we have today, many, if not all of which are actually based on human conflict

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:41 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Subaru wrote:
No one should be serving armies nowhere.

Image

OMG ARMY R BAD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 09, 2003 7:47 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
*bursts out laughing helplessly* I think I'll let someone else debate on that point, my view is a bit biased.

As for the new tanker SA80, good god is that thing ugly. It just looks so short and stubby and chopped down.

Oh, and Ollie is correct about the general issue of M4's, we're supposed to be getting ours in March or April, somewhere around there.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 5:45 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
well it's basicly a sawn off SA80A2, there were a number of medals won in Iraq recently for crewmen who fought from their turrets with their rifles after their main gun was either knocked out, or the enemy were trying to swarm them and had to be shot off the tanks. Anyway, it's better to have one of those than *just* a pistol if you're dismounted for patrolling etc (que comments about the US troops having to scrounge AKs) but i'd still like the full SA80A2 if i were spending much timeout of my tank...

i mean just look at the profile of it, it's like the pistols you can get shoulder stocks for, Glock 18s or the old Mauser etc, and firing full 5.56mm, there's got to be some muzzle flash on that...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:29 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Question for any who know:

Whats the origin of that whole "bullpulp" (sic) design, what was the purpose it was made for, and what (if any) are its advantages/disadvantages over your normal rifle configuration?

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:46 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
oddly enough i can provide a few facts and opinions on this, let me get back to it later on, spotty internet access during the day etc, watch this space...

here we go

A Quick Service History of the Bullpup Design

This would really would begin with the French FAMAS, entering service in the mid 70s as the first rear magazine assault rifle to be adopted into an army in the new NATO 5.56mm round, although the French being the French it was actually designed for a French version of the 5.56mm round, but at least they started to move in the right direction rather than having their own national calibres (but I digress) It is still in use with the French and their Foreign Legion in an updated and optimised version today. It is selective fire in semi and full auto, with the ability to activate a 3 round burst (3rb) function, useful as it has a very high rate of fire, 50% higher than most other modern guns. The new versions can use NATO STANAG (M16 style) magazines, but there is a French straight 25 round version that it works best with.

Next up came the Steyr AUG, a classic Austrian arms company designing one of the most futuristic guns around. Adopted by it's commissioning nation Austria at the end of the 70s, it was snapped up by a number of forward thinking nations (without their own arms companies) including Australia and a number of Middle Eastern nations (Ireland did also, but their army's a joke) Again in 5.56mm it included a semi-integral telescopic sight in the carrying handle, as well as being constructed with a lot of plastics, both cosmetically and mechanically. Basic designs fire in semi and fully automatic, with the ability to be upgraded to a 3rb, as well as changes in barrel and even calibre with a small parts kit. A range of magazine are available including the usual 30 and 42 round issue mages.

The British adopted the SA80 in the mid 80s after a long time of testing and innovations in the bullpup field in the post WW2 period but was one of the last of the bullpup nations to actually adopt the gun. The initial production run of guns was flawed due to a somewhat lax factory quality controls, this was addressed and recently the SA80A2 version is being fully issued to troops with stoppage rates of about 10 to 25 thousand rounds per gun, depending on local environmental conditions. Again this has a (semi) integral telescopic sight in the handle and is in NATO 5.56mm, in semi and full auto as usual. The SA80 can use NATO STANAG magazines, but it works best with superior British issue 30 round mages (the magazine was one of the main upgrades in the A2 project)

All the above guns have barrels of around 500mm/20inches, this is the same as the M16 family and 4 to 6 inches longer than the AK and M4 family of guns, all of their rates of fire are about the same apart from the FAMAS, and all have been in service with front line armies and tested in combat with these armies over the last 2-3 decades, the main problem being the early SA80s in desert warfare conditions, all other guns had near spotless service histories. Accuracy and ease of handling have been equally well received in general (ignoring the beef that many people seem to have with the 5.56mm round)

But Why Bullpup?

The driving force behind the bullpup design is the continuing reduction in size of the infantryman's main weapon, both the physical size of the weapon and the size of the bullet it fires. With the adoption of the 5.56mm NATO round, the 'classic' long rifle design was challenged as being no longer needed, this was due the 5.56mm having a far lower recoil and being designed to be fired in much closer environments and short ranges, the success of 'carbine' versions of bolt action and semi-auto guns in WW2 attested to this, point firing accuracy and power of each bullet was of little issue with current infantry storm tactics relying on weight of fire and the general handiness of a smaller gun was of prime importance.

The bullpup design is really the logical extension of the cut down carbine versions of full sized weapons, the butt of the gun is all but removed and the trigger mechanism is moved infront of the magazine, the barrel length is not cut down but the overall gun is reduced by around 10inches when compared to other modern rifles. This is the main advantage of the bullpup design, the barrel length remains but the overall gun is shorter, a great issue when troops find them selves squashed into a helicopter of an infantry fighting vehicle, it also reduces the weight of the weapon.

Accuracy and range of fire comes in part with the length of the gun barrel (the longer the better) and the bullpup design, unlike the carbine (M4 for instance) doesn't sacrifice barrel length for overall shortness. It is said that the NATO 5.56mm round is only really fireable in a 14inch+ barrel, and that's cutting it fine, the stabilisation of the barrel isn't enough at lower lengths and the accuracy falls wildly off at anything other than close combat ranges. Also there is provision in many bullpup designs to, with a small parts kit, covert the ejection port to the left of the gun so that left handed users don't get hot brass in their face.

However, like any design it does have drawbacks, these are limited mainly to 2 areas, the rounds being fired directly next to the users head which while never really reported as a problem by experienced troops, is of concern to new users who don't like the idea of a round 'cooking off' and blowing the gun up talking their face with it, not likely in any modern gun really. Also the placement of the magazine is a problem when firing in a prone position, the whole gun having to be moved around when reloading more than a 'normal' mag fed gun, a big problem when trying to keep your head down under fire, but training and familiarity soon make this little more than an annoyance. Also as mentioned above, if the gun is in use unconverted with a left handed soldier, he will be having more trouble than normal with used cased being ejected at him, again with training he can learn to fire with his right hand/eye though.

Summary

The bullpup has been thought about for most of the last century, designs and prototypes have been floating around in earnest in the post WW2 period but they were only actually put into service (a huge hurdle for a gun) in the 70s. Now a large proportion of the world's professional and active armies make use of bullpup designs for their frontline fighting forces, there is even an AK based Chinese and Russia bullpup gun that has met very mixed reviews, but their current stockpiles will take a time (and a lot of money) to replace yet. The guns bring into use a number of things very important in modern armies, that is a smaller size and lighter weight importantly without sacrificing accuracy or power [I]and[I] being designed around the same NATO standard round as the conventionally laid out assault rifles of the rest of the world.

If anything the bullpup design is, as I said, little more than the next step in the evolution of the infantry rifle, not a leap in technology and design tha a brief look at it might suggest in any way, just a re-examining of the design of modern guns that seemed to be stuck in WW2, not looking forward to the 21st century like th bullpup design is.

(essays are fun)

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2004 5:43 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Stupid. This weapon was not extensively field tested in the country where it was going to be put to use. That in itself is completely fucking retarded. Not only this, It was marketed as self cleaning! The M14 worked, fairly well, the army knew how to use it, and it was reliable. The M16 does offer higher ammo capacity, and better spray and pray capabilities, but if you guys wanted that you shouldve used AK-47's like the rest of the planet. Seriously. They are reliable, they are simple yet effective, they have a 30 round mag, and they sound like VC gunfire so it was a mindfuck to the guerillas. Or, better, PPS's, PPS 41 or 43 wouldve done fine. Or just stick with Thomson submachine guns. Or...you get the point.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:52 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 198
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada. Unfortunately.
Thompsons?! At the range of a rifle?! Are you INSANE?

I love the Thompson just as much as the next person, but it's a close range weapon, ideal for covering fire, room clearing, urban warfare, or anything where fully automatic fire is needed, but a full-sized MG isn't practical.

I do agree, however, that the military should have several different types of weapons for our soldiers. An M16 isn't going to cut it for room clearing, and I don't see MP5s being handed out to our boys (and to a small degree, our girls)...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:20 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
see, you need a bullpup gun, size of a large SMG/small carbine, stoppingpower and accuracy of a full assault rifle etc

IT IS DA FUTRE

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:55 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
I didnt mean NOW. I meant for then. In a dense, frondyass jungle, range isnt an issue.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
a first world national army is not equipped with the same weapons as the enemy, it just isn't done

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:13 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
...So the only reason the US insisted on using M16A1's was cause it didnt want to use the same weapons as the "bad guys"? The M16 shouldve been recalled. Thompsons were fine! They were working! They were fairly reliable, they had a large mag, the soldiers LIKED them, and its not like the US troopers ever hit much anyway: what was the figures of rounds expended/VC casualties? And call me fucking crazy, but they shouldve tested the performance of the weapon in the area they were going to use it, before distributing it to the mainstream troops.

As for now, the M16A2 is of course more effective then an SMG or smaller carbine. But it HAS had its day, and does need to be replaced, and I still think that a lot of weapon manufacturers could take a lesson from soviet bloc weaponry. But then, Im one to talk: Im british, and we use the SA 80. Which would kick the ass of an M16 in any contest, true...err, as long as there wasnt any dirt or snow around...it wont work if we try to fire it in real life conditions, you see.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:47 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
the SA80A2 DESTROYS in all conditions now, i have the results of the recent upgrade live firing tests in various conditions here

Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF) figures from the firing trials for stoppages:

UK (Temperate) - 31500
Brunei (hot/wet) - 31500
Kuwait (hot/dry) - 7875
Alaska (cold/dry) - 31500

even in desert conditions that's still 262.5 30 round mags fired before, on average, a single jam or failure caused a stoppage and almost 4 times that anywhere else

as for th m16, the prototype was extensivly trialed in Vietnam, it's just production model wasn't up to th standards of the prototype (probably been said before, i do hope you're read the whole thread) and as a result the mass produced gun and ammo were't a good combo, see the first wave of SA80s for a comparison, production quality just wasn't up to it due to the wonderful saying "remember that all your equipment was made by the lowest bidder"

adopting a new gun holds huge numbers of costs and restructuring and training effort, you can't turn back once you've done that, product improvement is the only way that can be done

and SMGs have no armour/cover piercing values at all and have poor range/accuracy tendancies, you can't swap rifles for SMGs depending on where you think you'll be fightign that particular day, you train guys to use one weapons system and they do so, most army grunts are not weapons specialists or mechanics, it's hard enough to drill into them the use and maintance of one gun, nevermind 2, 3, 4or more depending on how heavy the cover is, how big the battlefield or how the weather is that day etc

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:01 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Good job driving off Subaru by the way Ollie, and thanks for giving me the picture that this avatar came from.

Rifle Brigade 4eva.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group