Posted on Oct 27, 2015
US + NATO forces unprepared to face Russia in small arms conflict?
7.65K
32
26
2
2
0
From Sputnik News:
Few countries on the planet could hope to dominate the US in tank, air or naval warfare but US soldiers would be easily outgunned in a fire fight, military analyst Jim Schatz wrote in his article for National Defense.
"Yet every bad actor with an AK-47 takes on US and NATO ground forces in a small arms fight. We are no longer suitably armed to prevent it," he wrote. "The current US Army small arms development and acquisition system is dysfunctional and virtually unworkable, even for those within the system."
The problem became visible after the Battle of Wanat in 2008 at Combat Outpost Kahler in Afghanistan. Nine soldiers of the 173rd Brigade Combat Team were killed and 27 others were injured. Their weapons, including M249 machine guns, Mk 19 grenade launchers and M4 carbines, stopped firing due to overheating.
The flaws of the M4 carbine have been well known to military analysts. For example, tests in 1990 and a report by US Special Operations Command in 2001 proved its numerous shortcomings. However, that was ignored by lawmakers as well as by military command.
Billions of dollars are spent to develop high-tech weapons that are never used in modern warfare while the issue of small arms has never been tackled, according to the author.
Small arms are the most deployed weapon systems in the arsenal of the US military, but the eight most numerous conventional weapons in the army were developed over 35 years ago, and have never been upgraded.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151026/ [login to see] /us-army-capability-ak-47.html#ixzz3pmU4RdxL
Few countries on the planet could hope to dominate the US in tank, air or naval warfare but US soldiers would be easily outgunned in a fire fight, military analyst Jim Schatz wrote in his article for National Defense.
"Yet every bad actor with an AK-47 takes on US and NATO ground forces in a small arms fight. We are no longer suitably armed to prevent it," he wrote. "The current US Army small arms development and acquisition system is dysfunctional and virtually unworkable, even for those within the system."
The problem became visible after the Battle of Wanat in 2008 at Combat Outpost Kahler in Afghanistan. Nine soldiers of the 173rd Brigade Combat Team were killed and 27 others were injured. Their weapons, including M249 machine guns, Mk 19 grenade launchers and M4 carbines, stopped firing due to overheating.
The flaws of the M4 carbine have been well known to military analysts. For example, tests in 1990 and a report by US Special Operations Command in 2001 proved its numerous shortcomings. However, that was ignored by lawmakers as well as by military command.
Billions of dollars are spent to develop high-tech weapons that are never used in modern warfare while the issue of small arms has never been tackled, according to the author.
Small arms are the most deployed weapon systems in the arsenal of the US military, but the eight most numerous conventional weapons in the army were developed over 35 years ago, and have never been upgraded.
Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151026/ [login to see] /us-army-capability-ak-47.html#ixzz3pmU4RdxL
Russia
Small Arms
Conflict
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 8
8
8
0
Give me 10 men, M4s, 210 rounds per Soldier and a competent position and I will decisively defeat any enemy element with 3x the men and armed with AKs.
We would put effective aimed shots on them at 3-400 meters, while they would be expending ammunition uselessly until they were at least within 150 meters.
It is more than a gun that determines the winner of a small-arms fight. It is volume and accuracy of fire, the steel will and training of the rifleman, and the use of terrain to gain positional advantage. I like my chances with the equipment and men we have.
Ask the Taliban that were at Wanat how many men they lost, despite positional advantage and surprise. It was a hell of lot more than nine, mostly because the men at COP Kahler had some big brass ones.
The M4/16 family of weapons could be better, to be sure. But they are accurate and plenty lethal. Our crew served weapons are the equal of any.
We would put effective aimed shots on them at 3-400 meters, while they would be expending ammunition uselessly until they were at least within 150 meters.
It is more than a gun that determines the winner of a small-arms fight. It is volume and accuracy of fire, the steel will and training of the rifleman, and the use of terrain to gain positional advantage. I like my chances with the equipment and men we have.
Ask the Taliban that were at Wanat how many men they lost, despite positional advantage and surprise. It was a hell of lot more than nine, mostly because the men at COP Kahler had some big brass ones.
The M4/16 family of weapons could be better, to be sure. But they are accurate and plenty lethal. Our crew served weapons are the equal of any.
(8)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Well 1st Sgt, unfortunately for us "pawns" I was lucky to have M4/203 and 240B, plus 3 magazines of 9mm (yep just magazines, no sidearm) given to me by other Russian in US Army (he was combat medic from the National Guard unit we relieved in Ramadi. He also gave me several mini bottles of Russian Standard, but lets say they disappeared in unfortunate boating accident and no I did not get to drink any of them.) Obviously a lot of soldiers unfortunately do not get side arms as they should. Practice hadn't changed of giving 9 mills to officers and medics first.
Jozef Morávek
i disagree becouse in modern combat you usualli fight at 100-200 meters (snipers not mentioned) and with ak74 you can hit soldier with no problem at 350 meters and i try to watch some videos from warleaks you will see that real combat is not cod you will shot bushes and grass most of time becouse you think that there is enemy and next thing dont compare m16 with ak47 compare m16 to ak74 they are much closer with age
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Jozef Morávek - You may disagree, that's fine.
I was just at the range this week, and I am pleased to report that I've still got it. Didn't miss a target on the 240B (and turned in 80ish rounds I didn't need to do so) and shot 35 with the M16.
I realize pop-ups aren't men on the approach, but if the damn Russians come over the berm, my troops and I will seriously jack them up. Men on the move can't produce accurate fire until they are damn close, regardless of weapons systems.
The friggin' Russians can't even beat the Ukrainians for Christ's sake.
Good luck Ivan. You better hope you are outside my range stakes.
I was just at the range this week, and I am pleased to report that I've still got it. Didn't miss a target on the 240B (and turned in 80ish rounds I didn't need to do so) and shot 35 with the M16.
I realize pop-ups aren't men on the approach, but if the damn Russians come over the berm, my troops and I will seriously jack them up. Men on the move can't produce accurate fire until they are damn close, regardless of weapons systems.
The friggin' Russians can't even beat the Ukrainians for Christ's sake.
Good luck Ivan. You better hope you are outside my range stakes.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Does this mean we're finally going to be issued laser rifles?
All kidding aside, yeah. Anyone who's ever had to deal with a double-feed or a jam in their M16 at a critical moment will heartily agree that there could be some changes. Although I do love those perpetually dirty bastards. Even got a tattoo of one.
All kidding aside, yeah. Anyone who's ever had to deal with a double-feed or a jam in their M16 at a critical moment will heartily agree that there could be some changes. Although I do love those perpetually dirty bastards. Even got a tattoo of one.
(4)
(0)
2
2
0
I think we would dominate them as our weapons are better than thiers. Granted the AK-74M is a very good weapon that is very effective in the close in flight, the current versions of the M16 family are just as good. Our all volunteer force is more leadership centric than the current Russian Army and we are better trained and have current operation experience that the Russians are lacking.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Here is the problem - Apparently DOD does not recognize that other nations can, despite lack of serious budget can also modernize their equipment and confidence instead of caution is serious flaw here, when it comes to modern Russian weaponry and equipment.
First of all the new standard for Russian Infantryman is AK74M, not AK47. AK47s in stock are nothing more than a sale item to some other nation in need of cheap infantry firearm. AK74 is just as reliable as AK47 and obviously if it came to prolonged fight. AK74M's 500 effective range to M4A1's 450 effective range and subpar reliability could be decisive factor.
Russian individual body armor is also rated at least level 4 if it came to NIJ standard.
M240Bs are not as reliable but just as accurate as standard Russian Pecheneg.
There is no comparison of RPG 7 to AT4. Obviously it is much better carrying one launcher with various types of rounds, compared to one shot launcher.
RPK 74M is just a tad worse than M249 due to the ammo count, but the accuracy remains virtually the same.
Russian modernized Dragunov (not the Iraqi crappy version which is NOT Dragunov, even though it looks like one) is about as good as modernized M14.
The worst it comes down to the ammunition. Russian standard 7N6 ammo (and worse 7N24) is capable of defeating standard SAPI or IOTV vest's armor, while 5.56 m855 struggles at doing what it was designed for. - Defeating modern body armor.
Overall though if it was 10 US Army's infantry men vs 10 Russian Infantry men, it is 50/50. Weapons are roughly equal in performance (not reliability though. Alas Russian Federation weapons are built to last as priority), minus some negligible things like modern camouflage (ACUs vs Russian standard Wooden Camo? that's laughable, but in reality camo is not that important when shit already hit the fan or if those 10 infantrymen would use Multicam).
Both sides have night vision and modernized optical sights. Both have modernized body armor. US Army's soldiers have more battle experience though, while Russian soldiers have better reliable modern weapons.
Overall my statement what I don't like is how today many leaders in US forces underestimate other military forces in the world, especially the one who had been arch nemesis of United States on almost every principle. Do not underestimate the enemy and as leader you have to research your enemy without making quick gung ho statement, thinking that the enemy is not prepared either.
Look at 2008 Ossetian conflict and Ukrainian/Ethnic Russian rebels supplied by Russian weapons and military volunteers. They are not some kind of joke to be trifled with, but treated as very real threat with much better weapons and equipment than the one seen just 5 or 10 years ago.
First of all the new standard for Russian Infantryman is AK74M, not AK47. AK47s in stock are nothing more than a sale item to some other nation in need of cheap infantry firearm. AK74 is just as reliable as AK47 and obviously if it came to prolonged fight. AK74M's 500 effective range to M4A1's 450 effective range and subpar reliability could be decisive factor.
Russian individual body armor is also rated at least level 4 if it came to NIJ standard.
M240Bs are not as reliable but just as accurate as standard Russian Pecheneg.
There is no comparison of RPG 7 to AT4. Obviously it is much better carrying one launcher with various types of rounds, compared to one shot launcher.
RPK 74M is just a tad worse than M249 due to the ammo count, but the accuracy remains virtually the same.
Russian modernized Dragunov (not the Iraqi crappy version which is NOT Dragunov, even though it looks like one) is about as good as modernized M14.
The worst it comes down to the ammunition. Russian standard 7N6 ammo (and worse 7N24) is capable of defeating standard SAPI or IOTV vest's armor, while 5.56 m855 struggles at doing what it was designed for. - Defeating modern body armor.
Overall though if it was 10 US Army's infantry men vs 10 Russian Infantry men, it is 50/50. Weapons are roughly equal in performance (not reliability though. Alas Russian Federation weapons are built to last as priority), minus some negligible things like modern camouflage (ACUs vs Russian standard Wooden Camo? that's laughable, but in reality camo is not that important when shit already hit the fan or if those 10 infantrymen would use Multicam).
Both sides have night vision and modernized optical sights. Both have modernized body armor. US Army's soldiers have more battle experience though, while Russian soldiers have better reliable modern weapons.
Overall my statement what I don't like is how today many leaders in US forces underestimate other military forces in the world, especially the one who had been arch nemesis of United States on almost every principle. Do not underestimate the enemy and as leader you have to research your enemy without making quick gung ho statement, thinking that the enemy is not prepared either.
Look at 2008 Ossetian conflict and Ukrainian/Ethnic Russian rebels supplied by Russian weapons and military volunteers. They are not some kind of joke to be trifled with, but treated as very real threat with much better weapons and equipment than the one seen just 5 or 10 years ago.
CPL(P) (Join to see)
No.
The AK-74 and M4 are both designed to be accurate at 300m, but the M4's doctrinal range is 550m (not 450m) and it can be pushed a little further than that, shooter skill depending. By no means is the AK a more modern weapon than the M4. Like the M4, it is a modified, reduced-caliber version of a 1950s-era firearm.
The RPG7 is an old and outdated weapon that has generally been replaced by more modern weapons. A single-shot launcher has its own advantages such as being slightly lighter, cheaper (a significant logistical advantage) and a little more accurate at range, although the primary advantage is unit cost. A reloadable launcher has its own advantages, but you'd be better off comparing the Carl Gustav to the RPG7 or the RPG26 to the AT4.
The Dragunov is a piece of crap that just doesn't match up to modern M14s. It was designed as a squad-level support weapon, not a true designated marksman rifle. While the M14 was originally a battle rifle, US weapons design of the time favored quality long-range weapons and the M14 is no exception. Thanks to its extensive use in competitions, the modern M14 is especially lethal at long ranges.
Russian body armor is inferior to US body armor - heavier, bulkier, less comfortable, and less effective.
Russian small-unit tactics are significantly limited due to the lack of a professional NCO corps capable of small-unit leadership. This is an ongoing problem in the Russian military and the subject of multiple reforms, the most recent in 2008. The Russian army is getting better about NCO development, but still does not have a reliable NCO corps.
10 US troops against 10 Russian soldiers, all else being equal, would wipe the floor with the Russians. Our weapons, equipment, tactics, and training are generally superior. There are situations where these things may not be true - Arctic warfare comes to mind, at least in the case of Russia's new special Arctic brigades - but in general, US troops have the advantage.
I do agree that Russia has come a long way in its force development and is a much more capable army than it was in 2008, during the South Ossetian Conflict. Perhaps its most impressive demonstrated development is its use of SOF in Crimea, which was much more sophisticated than past Russian SOF usage.
However, to portray the Russians as having a force that is altogether superior to American troops is blatantly wrong.
The AK-74 and M4 are both designed to be accurate at 300m, but the M4's doctrinal range is 550m (not 450m) and it can be pushed a little further than that, shooter skill depending. By no means is the AK a more modern weapon than the M4. Like the M4, it is a modified, reduced-caliber version of a 1950s-era firearm.
The RPG7 is an old and outdated weapon that has generally been replaced by more modern weapons. A single-shot launcher has its own advantages such as being slightly lighter, cheaper (a significant logistical advantage) and a little more accurate at range, although the primary advantage is unit cost. A reloadable launcher has its own advantages, but you'd be better off comparing the Carl Gustav to the RPG7 or the RPG26 to the AT4.
The Dragunov is a piece of crap that just doesn't match up to modern M14s. It was designed as a squad-level support weapon, not a true designated marksman rifle. While the M14 was originally a battle rifle, US weapons design of the time favored quality long-range weapons and the M14 is no exception. Thanks to its extensive use in competitions, the modern M14 is especially lethal at long ranges.
Russian body armor is inferior to US body armor - heavier, bulkier, less comfortable, and less effective.
Russian small-unit tactics are significantly limited due to the lack of a professional NCO corps capable of small-unit leadership. This is an ongoing problem in the Russian military and the subject of multiple reforms, the most recent in 2008. The Russian army is getting better about NCO development, but still does not have a reliable NCO corps.
10 US troops against 10 Russian soldiers, all else being equal, would wipe the floor with the Russians. Our weapons, equipment, tactics, and training are generally superior. There are situations where these things may not be true - Arctic warfare comes to mind, at least in the case of Russia's new special Arctic brigades - but in general, US troops have the advantage.
I do agree that Russia has come a long way in its force development and is a much more capable army than it was in 2008, during the South Ossetian Conflict. Perhaps its most impressive demonstrated development is its use of SOF in Crimea, which was much more sophisticated than past Russian SOF usage.
However, to portray the Russians as having a force that is altogether superior to American troops is blatantly wrong.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I never said they where superior, but in comparison from the past going even 5 years, to what it is now there is very stark of the difference.
I got the chance of "playing" with all of the toys mentioned and maybe it is my own prejudice or affinity, but I found AK 74m tad superior, out for the fact when I got to fire that weapon I never had a double feed or a stove pipe jam. True, it is not modern design, but it have been improved on over and over and over. Shooter skill depending, I would suspect that someone who can qualify Expert with M4 on the range can also get an Expert with AK 74m.
We do not carry Carl Gustav launchers everywhere we go (perhaps Marines carry their SMAWS, but the last time I was with US Army AT4 all the way it was). Being 19D though all of our AT4s sat at the back of our Humvees. I don't know what is preferable to certain soldiers, but hypothetically thinking of lugging 5 hollow or tandem charge (modern RPG rocket grenades) or 5 AT4 tubes on the back is a bit of questionable advantage. Even spreading the load between other soldiers doesn't seem to be much of advantage. RPG 7 strength is in "if it is not broken, don't fix it" design and modernized ordinance.
Dragunov came the long way since the Cold War. The modern ones had been upgraded and so far the effective range is no different from EBR stands at 800m. Typical Russian squad have two designated marksmen assigned with such weapon. Even civilian bought dragunovs that I fired in the past, I had no problems hitting targets between 500 and 700 meters.
The rest is quite true though. The training is subpar (not by far though since RF started downsizing and budgeting the military and transitioning to contract based service instead of conscription) and the fact that majority of combat soldiers have never seen the war is also significant setback. There is one thing that seems to be a bit of the notice. Russian infantry men in particular emphasize more rugged physical training regimen, especially when it comes to hand to hand combat and confidence courses. Not it would matter that much since the winner of a firefight is the element that is better trained to move, shoot, and communicate.
The question still also remain about the body armor. Yes, Russian body armor is quite bulky and might be inferior to a degree, but can it stop today's 5.56mm and can our own body armor stop modern 5.45?
Ultimately you are right though when it comes to the conditions. Reliability in extreme locations is very important. Accuracy wont matter much when the rifle keeps jamming like M16s did in the Jessica's Lynch ambush for example (even though that could of been mitigated by keeping weapons clean prior to the mission).
I got the chance of "playing" with all of the toys mentioned and maybe it is my own prejudice or affinity, but I found AK 74m tad superior, out for the fact when I got to fire that weapon I never had a double feed or a stove pipe jam. True, it is not modern design, but it have been improved on over and over and over. Shooter skill depending, I would suspect that someone who can qualify Expert with M4 on the range can also get an Expert with AK 74m.
We do not carry Carl Gustav launchers everywhere we go (perhaps Marines carry their SMAWS, but the last time I was with US Army AT4 all the way it was). Being 19D though all of our AT4s sat at the back of our Humvees. I don't know what is preferable to certain soldiers, but hypothetically thinking of lugging 5 hollow or tandem charge (modern RPG rocket grenades) or 5 AT4 tubes on the back is a bit of questionable advantage. Even spreading the load between other soldiers doesn't seem to be much of advantage. RPG 7 strength is in "if it is not broken, don't fix it" design and modernized ordinance.
Dragunov came the long way since the Cold War. The modern ones had been upgraded and so far the effective range is no different from EBR stands at 800m. Typical Russian squad have two designated marksmen assigned with such weapon. Even civilian bought dragunovs that I fired in the past, I had no problems hitting targets between 500 and 700 meters.
The rest is quite true though. The training is subpar (not by far though since RF started downsizing and budgeting the military and transitioning to contract based service instead of conscription) and the fact that majority of combat soldiers have never seen the war is also significant setback. There is one thing that seems to be a bit of the notice. Russian infantry men in particular emphasize more rugged physical training regimen, especially when it comes to hand to hand combat and confidence courses. Not it would matter that much since the winner of a firefight is the element that is better trained to move, shoot, and communicate.
The question still also remain about the body armor. Yes, Russian body armor is quite bulky and might be inferior to a degree, but can it stop today's 5.56mm and can our own body armor stop modern 5.45?
Ultimately you are right though when it comes to the conditions. Reliability in extreme locations is very important. Accuracy wont matter much when the rifle keeps jamming like M16s did in the Jessica's Lynch ambush for example (even though that could of been mitigated by keeping weapons clean prior to the mission).
CPL(P) (Join to see)
Addressing your points in no particular order.
The -74 is an improvement over earlier models, and it's entirely possible that the newest production runs are on par with the AR platform... but I doubt it, because in every aspect except reliability the AR is superior, and the AR is still a reliable platform. I don't have a whole lot of experience with AKs, but I do have a lot of experience with ARs and I know even a milspec gun (as long as it's been taken care of to standard) can lay down effective fire beyond the maximum range the 7.62x39 and 5.45 are designed to engage at.
The Dragunov may have come a long way, but the problems are initial design flaws - it's designed to be a mass-produced SDM, not a precision rifle. The M14's original engineering is superior and has gotten much better with the vast amount of resources the shooting community has poured into accurizing the system. As a National Match weapon system, my understanding is that the improvements made through 50 years of competition have been integrated into the new upgrades to the system, making it one of the most accurate SDM systems in the world.
Russian training is so subpar they cannot effectively conduct small-unit tactics the way we do. They can operate at a platoon level; we can operate at a fireteam level. This is because of the historical difference in leadership between the two. This is changing, but not fast enough for Russian forces to be doctrinally capable of operations below the platoon level.
No body armor in the world that I'm aware of can reliably stop a highpower rifle range except at long range. This is especially true for designs like the M855, which is designed to pierce obstacles including body armor.
The -74 is an improvement over earlier models, and it's entirely possible that the newest production runs are on par with the AR platform... but I doubt it, because in every aspect except reliability the AR is superior, and the AR is still a reliable platform. I don't have a whole lot of experience with AKs, but I do have a lot of experience with ARs and I know even a milspec gun (as long as it's been taken care of to standard) can lay down effective fire beyond the maximum range the 7.62x39 and 5.45 are designed to engage at.
The Dragunov may have come a long way, but the problems are initial design flaws - it's designed to be a mass-produced SDM, not a precision rifle. The M14's original engineering is superior and has gotten much better with the vast amount of resources the shooting community has poured into accurizing the system. As a National Match weapon system, my understanding is that the improvements made through 50 years of competition have been integrated into the new upgrades to the system, making it one of the most accurate SDM systems in the world.
Russian training is so subpar they cannot effectively conduct small-unit tactics the way we do. They can operate at a platoon level; we can operate at a fireteam level. This is because of the historical difference in leadership between the two. This is changing, but not fast enough for Russian forces to be doctrinally capable of operations below the platoon level.
No body armor in the world that I'm aware of can reliably stop a highpower rifle range except at long range. This is especially true for designs like the M855, which is designed to pierce obstacles including body armor.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There are some great things about the AK that make it formidable on the battle field. First is the round. 7.62x39 is a kick ass round out to about 300 meters then it takes a dump ballistically. The 6.5 Grendel is a much better all around round, but The military is not going to just change calibers. It is a pickup truck of battle rifles. Tough, requiring no maintenance. I used to re-purpose seized AKs to issue back out to Iraqi Police. We would get rifles in that were packed with cosmoline and sand. They were never cleaned from the time they were pulled out of the box. Every one of them worked. They are cheap to make and soldier proof.
Now the bad. They don't have any sight radius. The front sight is way too close to the rear sight. For the Russians it is perfect for their model of rushing the enemy with a larger force. A soldier with an M-4 can engage much sooner in combat effectively at longer ranges. Heat is the biggest downfall of the AK platform. Put 60 rounds through a AK sustained and try to hold it. Impossible to do. The front is hot as hell. A major flaw of the long stroke piston system. How can you engage the enemy if you can't even hold the gun? Last it is not lefty friendly. Well it is not lefty anything. You have to shoot it right handed or
So the AK is not the perfect battle rifle. In some ways it is better than the M-4 and in others it is a dog. Door to door clearing I'll take a AK any day, but on a battlefield the M-4 is a much better weapon.
Now the bad. They don't have any sight radius. The front sight is way too close to the rear sight. For the Russians it is perfect for their model of rushing the enemy with a larger force. A soldier with an M-4 can engage much sooner in combat effectively at longer ranges. Heat is the biggest downfall of the AK platform. Put 60 rounds through a AK sustained and try to hold it. Impossible to do. The front is hot as hell. A major flaw of the long stroke piston system. How can you engage the enemy if you can't even hold the gun? Last it is not lefty friendly. Well it is not lefty anything. You have to shoot it right handed or
So the AK is not the perfect battle rifle. In some ways it is better than the M-4 and in others it is a dog. Door to door clearing I'll take a AK any day, but on a battlefield the M-4 is a much better weapon.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Holy crap! I've been say this for 25 years now! I'm glad somebody is finally backing me up. Look I was using the same T-10 on jumps in 1980's that they were using back in the 1950's! This is nothing new people!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No position is a competent one. The key is TOP leadership inadequacies. Coupled with the fact of a shrinking military. We kicked as because we were able to get the best equipment, best men and moral was at the top. Why? Top leadership was the best and money. Something the Military is lacking these days.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
With all due respect TSgt (Join to see), position in terms of terrain, cover, concealment, and command of avenues of approach is about as important in the defense as just about anything. Poor selection of position has cost many battles, whereas seizing and holding key terrain has proven decisive over and over in history. See Gettysburg for a prime example most of us are familiar with. The best and most adept commanders are very good at identifying and exploiting terrain and positional advantage. Volume of fire is probably the next most important, as once you are able to establish fire superiority and suppress the enemy, you can maneuver and finish the fight through an assault on his flank.
You still have to put steel on target.
Long gone are the days where we lined up in ranks and blasted away at each other in an open field.
You still have to put steel on target.
Long gone are the days where we lined up in ranks and blasted away at each other in an open field.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
SrA Edward Vong
SPC Ilya Arkadiev
Though accuracy is a big deal, I do understand that most engagements happen in pretty close quarters in today's combat environment. Can one say that accuracy isn't as much of a factor as a more reliable weapon system?
Though accuracy is a big deal, I do understand that most engagements happen in pretty close quarters in today's combat environment. Can one say that accuracy isn't as much of a factor as a more reliable weapon system?
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Ask Jessica Lynch or several other soldiers who wished for weapon that could kill and was "reasonably" accurate (250 to 300 is reasonably plenty as long it is not bullet hosing.) So reliability should be priority, with accuracy the second and ergonomics the third. In my humble opinion I'd rather have weapon that can do the job reliably with low maintenance, and not unpredictably unless I keep it clean day after day, sometimes twice a day (and it still could jam).
SrA Edward Vong
SPC Ilya Arkadiev
With all that in mind, seems like a good winner can be between the HK G36 and the Kalashnikov AK-12.
With all that in mind, seems like a good winner can be between the HK G36 and the Kalashnikov AK-12.
(0)
(0)
CPL(P) (Join to see)
The AK has accuracy problems because of loose machining tolerances, not because of a short-stroke gas system. The AK is reliable because it has loose machining tolerances, meaning that dirt in the weapon is less likely to cause jams because tolerances between parts are wider.
More moving parts in general reduce accuracy and reliability. The biggest problem with the HK416 is that if the gas-piston system becomes damaged in any way, maintenance must be performed at the depot level. Just about anything on a direct impingement system can be fixed by an armorer in the field (one of the few benefits to direct impingement).
If you never clean an AK and let it rust, it will eventually quit working. If you never clean an AR and let it rust, it will eventually quit working. If you maintain either weapon, it will probably work when you need it to work. Lynch's unit didn't do any weapons maintenance at all - AKs most likely wouldn't have saved them.
More moving parts in general reduce accuracy and reliability. The biggest problem with the HK416 is that if the gas-piston system becomes damaged in any way, maintenance must be performed at the depot level. Just about anything on a direct impingement system can be fixed by an armorer in the field (one of the few benefits to direct impingement).
If you never clean an AK and let it rust, it will eventually quit working. If you never clean an AR and let it rust, it will eventually quit working. If you maintain either weapon, it will probably work when you need it to work. Lynch's unit didn't do any weapons maintenance at all - AKs most likely wouldn't have saved them.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google