 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:30
|
|
weird. In the IDF SS109s are used by sharpshooters, and the standard issue is the regular bullet. We've been all getting regular bullets.
Oh and you're right about the ability of non-foot soldiers to fight as foot soldiers. For example, in the IDF, Though we all do pass rifle school, we end up as 'Rifleman 02' at graduation, when there are Rifleman 03, 04, 05, 07, and IIRC, 11. Their basic training is a bit longer. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Azazel
weird. In the IDF SS109s are used by sharpshooters, and the standard issue is the regular bullet. We've been all getting regular bullets.
|
We still used the standard ones on the range I think, and they can be optional issue. You guys probably have millions of the other ones lying around, and the M855/SS109 is more expensive to make. It's a mixed bag - if you've got some ******* in a brick or adobe or block building who pops up at a window to shoot at you then ducks down below, you just plink him right through the wall. If you've got some crazy in a street charging at you, it can take more fire to drop him.
quote:
Oh and you're right about the ability of non-foot soldiers to fight as foot soldiers. For example, in the IDF, Though we all do pass rifle school, we end up as 'Rifleman 02' at graduation, when there are Rifleman 03, 04, 05, 07, and IIRC, 11. Their basic training is a bit longer. |
I'd guess your 11's would either be senior NCO's, or maybe specialized like Rangers or commandos or something. Most of the difference is learned on the job. The question is are you learning it from real infantry, or hobbyists. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000 time: 07:30
|
|
quote:
I'd guess your 11's would either be senior NCO's, or maybe specialized like Rangers or commandos or something. Most of the difference is learned on the job. The question is are you learning it from real infantry, or hobbyists |
11 are SO, and so are 07. I don't remember which is which.
This is hardly relevant, since I am going to be in the rear. Only child, must have parents' permission to go to combat. Plus, I am getting a pretty sweet deal THIS way. I am getting education right after school, for free. The trade-off is 6 years in the army, though those will be as an officer, only 3 of those will be on real pay.
About the Galil: After that M16-in-the-sand shock I had, I look forward, though I heard it lags in accuracy, and is heavier.
Fun fact: now I am carrying an antiquity of sorts. One of the rifles that you guys shipped here in 73'.(engraved on it '10-73 ANAD'). Actually, I think it was one of the first M16s produced ever. The writing says 'Colt AR-15 Property of U.S. Government M16', and then a visibly later added engravement says 'A1'.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sava
I'm a little bit disappointed that our military isn't being given the supplies to get the job done. |
They are dear. There is a longstanding BOIP for PDW's for armor pukes, and the BOIP is what it is because it isn't common practice in the grand scheme of things for armor pukes to patrol dismounted.
quote:
I'm also disappointed that the Colt M16 and M4's still are unreliable and require high maintenance.
|
Which is primarily bullshit. My posts here over the years on the subject of military firearms should demonstrate that I'm not a great fan of either weapon, but all weapons require maintenance, and accurate weapons require more under operational conditions in the field. The old style Kalashnikovs can take a lot of neglect and fowling before they misfire, but their accuracy at range and rate of fire is far less than any same-type NATO issue weapon. If you look at what Kalashnikov currently offers, from the AK-74 on to the 100 series, they've dropped the "durable piece of crap for untrained knuckledraggers" legacy of the AK-47 and gone in the same general engineering direction as the US, Europe and Israel.
The unreliability knock on the M-16 series has always been popularly exaggerated, and field maintenance is pretty damned easy.
quote:
Our military should have the best equipment for the lowest price... i.e. most efficient. Perhaps we should rethink this trend towards privatization and using for-profit companies as the main supplier of weapons. |
What "trend towards privatization" and since when has a state-owned not "for profit" company been a supplier to US forces? Any issue weapon design for US forces has to go through the Army Infantry Board before it can be authorized for procurement, and getting weapons designs past the Infantry Board isn't easy. Crap designs don't make it.
There is no "best equipment for the lowest price" - there are a lot of distinct choices out there, and most are considerably more expensive than the M16A2 and M4A1.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Chemical Ollie
|
 |
Bored of this board
Jan 2002 time: 06:30
|
|
I got training for 3 personal weapons during my time in the military.
1) K-pist M/45 B (9 mm sub-machine gun). A very rugged weapon with only a few moving parts. The only reason it ever jammed was that empty cartridges sometimes got stuck in the peace-time cartridge collector (used to prevent red-hot cartridges flying into your buddy's collar and burning him). And that was rare. I liked the accuracy at short range and I was the best shot in my company as long as I had the K-pist. It was also easy to clean. When officers didn't see, I sprayed it with triclorethane, brought it into the shower to remove the dirt and put on some fresh grease. But I read that it was quite useless at long range in real combat. The Swedish UN soldiers in Kongo 1962 complained that it didn't penetrate the wooden shields the Baluba tribe warriors used. This didn't prevent the K-pist to be used by US special forces in Vietnam. It's extreme realiabity makes it a very good short-range weapon.
2) AK 4 (7.62 mm assault rifle) I volontered to get it, but I soon got to regret that. It was harder to clean, heavier and bulkier to carry, more prone to jam and worst of all, the sight did not fit my personal preference at all. I dropped from the best shot in the company to below average and I didn't even qualify for the Marksman Badge. Yuk!
3) AK 5 (5.56 mm assault rifle) My wartime unit got issued these rifles at my first repetition excercise. It was a very sexy little toy, easy to carry, cool looking and extremely accurate. Scoring a headshot on a non-moving target at 300 meters was a piece of cake. On the other hand, it was a nightware to clean and very vulnerable to minor disturbances. One of my magazines had a damage on the magazine lips (is that the correct term in English?) and it jammed all the time.
The K-pist is still my favorite. Given my experience of jamming and non-jamming weapons, I fully understand if the Yanks prefer the reliable AK-47. On the other hand, the "spray and pray" doctrine of the Americans will cause even more friendly and allied casualties if the US themselves start to use the same rifle as the enemy, as some of you already pointed out.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:30
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Go old style and semi auto - the H&K PDW. Small round, but never jams and high rate of fire.
In theory maybe, but in practice, no. Just read 'About Face' or 'Steel my soldier's hearts' both by Colonel David H. Hackworth. That is enough to show that the AR-15, and the M-16 sucks in field conditions. |
Hackworth is well known for his opinions. Experienced infantry are by definition complete troglodytes when it comes to making major switches in weapons types, operational doctrine, etc. More than anything else, though, God help you when you want to change the basic combat weapons, and no cow is more sacred then the infantryman's rifle.
In the late 30's up to the beginning days of WW2, you had a similar sort of thing with the M1 Garand (a great rifle) replacing the '03 Springfield. (God's own rifle, if you listened to most old timers back then). The USMC was even worse, with their "My Rifle" dogma. According to the Marines, although that M1 piece of **** might be suitable for those army pukes who couldn't shoot anyway, the Marines were by God real riflemen, and a Marine with an '03 could keep up the rate of fire and fire with more accuracy than any army puke with that piece of **** kid's toy. Gotta love Uncle Sam's Misguided Children - what they lack in brains they make up for in attitude and style.
The M14 was in most respects a pretty vanilla change from the M1, and it was well received as in most respects. The only downside to it was that the government spec considered the .308 / 7.62 x 51 NATO round to be an "intermediate" round suitable for a full auto capable rifle, because it was cut down from the .30-06 round (which kicks like a pissed off mule on steroids) used in the M1 and Springfield. Except for the fact that in full auto the M14 was pretty wild, to put it mildly, it was a great rifle. It was very much evolutionary from the M1, not a radical change.
Gene Stoner's designs (AR-10, AR-15/M16, the Stoner weapons system that the SEALs used as the M63A1, etc.) were radical changes in every respect. A new round, the 5.56mm x45, new materials (synthetic plastics, leading to the "If it's Mattel, it's swell" putdown), new action type, completely new design philosophy for new small unit tactics, etc.
The inbuilt prejudices against these changes were huge, and just about anything that could be construed to discredit the AR15/M61 design was construed that way regardless of facts. Of all the claims about jams, misfires and general unreliability of the original AR15/M16, the huge majority fell into three areas: bad ammo, improper field maintenance by poorly trained troops in violation of standard procedures, and target fixation leading to excessive full auto firing.
The ammo problem was caused by the rapid change to 5.56 x 45 as the Vietnam war built up. As an "economy measure" ordered by the government, millions of rounds of 5.56 were produced with old powder from surplus artillery munitions, and this powder burned dirty as hell.
In 'Nam, grunts who didn't know better had a tendency to think that WD40 was ****ing liquid duct tape in aerosol form. They WD40'd the hell out of everything, causing in many cases primer seepage and dissolution of the machine oil in various parts of the weapons action, due to WD40 flooding and it's solvent effects.
Other problems included things like taping clips end to end, leaving the exposed end to get bent, dinged, and crap in it. Barrel burn and misfeeds due to excessive full auto fire were also problems, but these were attributed as defects in the weapon design, rather than defects in the soldier and his training.
The difference is that over time, the Army Infantry Board and other review / audit groups who looked into the M16 performance issues got past the myths, rumors and assumptions into the actual facts. Hackworth's opinions have stuck with the initial informal rumor mill perceptions.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001 time: 06:30
|
|
quote: Hackworth is well known for his opinions. Experienced infantry are by definition complete troglodytes when it comes to making major switches in weapons types, operational doctrine, etc. More than anything else, though, God help you when you want to change the basic combat weapons, and no cow is more sacred then the |
I'm not sure about Hack being a troglodytes when it comes to chances in operational doctrine. He pretty much wrote the book on how to beat any guerrilla insurection, and that after fighting a Korea (a conventional war)
In the book, Hackworth states that the M16 didnt have enough power to penetrate the bush that is found in the jungle. It also had to be kept extremely dry, or it would jam. In the jungle, its always wet, and the dirt is very humid, so it sticks to the parts inside. When building a firebase, they found one NVA/VC complete with weapon. It had been buried a few months. Hackworth picked up the AK 47 and fired the gun until the clip ran out.
The fact is that, most of the wars that have been fought since WW II have been guerrilla style. It doesn't matter how accurate your gun is at 600 meters, because most of the time, you cannot see that far - whether its in the jungle, or in the mountains, or in an urban setting. What you need is a gun that wont fail you, can penetrate the bush, and can kill with three shots to the chest.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|