|
zoux posted:And the worst issued service rifle? INSAS, a Galil style "AK action but not designed like a WWII submachine gun" rifle designed in the 90s to replace the L1A1 (BritFAL) in Indian service, but was so flawed and poorly made it ended up being replaced in combat units by the AK47 in 2017, and the Indians are now looking to replace it with a 7.62x51mm rifle so there's a not-insubstantial chance it might actually get replaced by another FAL.
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
zoux posted:Do helicopter drivers normally fly with automatic carbines in the cockpit Yeah, each crewmember has an M9 and an M4 with them. Apache pilots fancy themselves as gunfighters, so they lock and load when they go on missions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:276 PEDERSEN I scream as logistics experts beat me to death with a shovel whilst I'm turning into a corncob Oh come on. We just got a new thread title like an hour ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
vains posted:i thought you were some variation of staff officer. I was a private and a platoon leader once upon a time
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh also does “parabellum” mean anything special in terms of ammo? I know its Latin meaning Luger called his gun the Parabellum Auto Pistol, and so when you hear about parabellum ammo, it's just ammo for the Luger automatic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:1) not all that significant an upgrade over the Garand. Yeah, detachable magazines are great but the Garand was also pretty fast to load with en-blocs. The gas system was refined but this wasn't some earth shattering thing. 7.62 NATO is cool and all but you can chamber Garands in that. Yeah it had full auto capabilities but this wasn't really a useful feature. It could have full-auto, but the full-auto fire group wasn't always issued with the rifle in Vietnam, at least. bewbies posted:Broadly speaking you're trained to point your weapon at what you want to kill and shoot in full auto and hope for the best. The only guys who really aim and whatnot are DMs and to a lesser extent marines. See I know a guy who spent a lot of time in the US Army and here's what he said when I showed him that statement: quote:.......wat And I know that FM 3-22.9 Rifle Marksmanship M16-/M4-Series Weapons, dated 10 FEB 2011 says that rapid semiautomatic fire is the primary use of the rifle, that semi-automatic fire is what soldiers normally should be doing, and makes it very clear that automatic fire is for a limited number of situations where semi-automatic fire cannot be used effectively and probably never against targets more than 50 meters away. So either doctrine made a 180 very recently or you're talking out of your rear end. LatwPIAT fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Feb 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:So either doctrine made a 180 very recently or you're talking out of your rear end. I did a tour in Afghanistan and two in Iraq. I'm pretty comfortable with where I'm sitting. Let me know if you want to learn more. also "doctrine" lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I did a tour in Afghanistan and two in Iraq. I'm pretty comfortable with where I'm sitting. Let me know if you want to learn more. Doctrine, training, whatever. Either the US Army Rifle Marksmanship manual of 2011 and my friend the US Army vet are both lying to me, or your idea of what US soldiers are trained to do is wildly incongruent with reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:43
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Doctrine, training, whatever. Either the US Army Rifle Marksmanship manual of 2011 and my friend the US Army vet are both lying to me, or your idea of what US soldiers are trained to do is wildly incongruent with reality. Well, poo poo. Thanks for letting me know!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I did a tour in Afghanistan and two in Iraq. I'm pretty comfortable with where I'm sitting. Let me know if you want to learn more. You also stated that all M4s are full auto. I think you're full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Turns out that the plural of "anecdote" is, in fact, "argument"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Turns out that the plural of "anecdote" is, in fact, "argument"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:You also stated that all M4s are full auto. I think you're full of poo poo. m4a1. my mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
bewbies posted:also "doctrine" lol Didn't you previously claim to be a doctrine expert at Leavenworth?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
FrangibleCover posted:Didn't you previously claim to be a doctrine expert at Leavenworth? I write threat doctrine. you can decide for yourself if I'm an expert or not. that said, if anything my current job has made me lol more at doctrine than ever before
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
Blowing your years-long unquestioned online military expert persona act because you forgot to google if m4s were automatic seems like an...unlikely mistake
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:what's commonality of ammunition I say as Russian-paid agents who masturbate when mass shootings happen scream about how MacArthur bad because of the one correct decision he ever made You’re strawmanning pretty loving hard if you actually read the post/follow up conversation. Yes it made sense in 1932, no one said it didn’t. Regardless the Garand and BAR would’ve been better guns in .276 and it might’ve avoided us doing dumb poo poo like making the M14 being married to .30 instead of developing/accepting something closer to a .280 FAL. Hypotheticals, in my history thread!? Also, tangentially, the USSR used a seperate rifle round and MG round from like 1946 to the fall, and still do in many cases. Good lord, how did they manage that? Mazz fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Feb 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:Blowing your years-long unquestioned online military expert persona act because you forgot to google if m4s were automatic seems like an...unlikely mistake Nothing says he can't be a military expert. He just has to be one who doesn't know how the US Army fires its rifles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I have a feeling that he looked up a report on the need for remedial infantry training in 1944 stressing increasing the amount of firing and firing on the move and extrapolated that to a massive psychological argument instead of more reasonably coming to the conclusion that a basic training regime mostly composed of parade drill and long range marksmanship did not do wonders for infantry combat effectiveness. It was worse than that, Marshall had established his view on infantry training before writing his reports. Marshall wrote in his memoir that at Makin Atoll (1943), he observed inexperienced marines open fire on any random old thing, but he didn't want to include that in his research because it didn't conform to his expectations of combat. Just kinda flat out describing his own work as fraudulent  zoux posted:Do helicopter drivers normally fly with automatic carbines in the cockpit The cartridge was just named after the pistol it was originally designed for. That is the Luger btw
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Nothing says he can't be a military expert. He just has to be one who doesn't know how the US Army fires its rifles. I can absolutely believe that there is a significant gap between "what training and doctrine say" and "what a combat soldier has experienced." In fact, I am sure that the two are quite different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
Mazz posted:You’re strawmanning pretty loving hard if you actually read the post/follow up conversation. Yes it made sense in 1932, no one said it didn’t. Regardless the Garand and BAR would’ve been better guns in .276 and it might’ve avoided us doing dumb poo poo like making the M14 being married to .30 instead of developing/accepting something closer to a .280 FAL. Hypotheticals, in my history thread!? Hypotheticals are a dime for a thousand and because of my area of expertise I have to hear morons chanting idiot talking points about Brexit or how NATO is a conspiracy and we wouldn't have lost Vietnam if we hadn't abandoned God's Only Caliber dot Whatever and we should Make America Great by endorsing whatever bullshit Trump spews out. Quite frankly I'm sick of them and I'll willing to say so in whatever forum I can that doesn't prejudice my future employment chances, and if you don't agree you can drat well kiss my pale Irish-American rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Hypotheticals are a dime for a thousand and because of my area of expertise I have to hear morons chanting idiot talking points about Brexit or how NATO is a conspiracy and we wouldn't have lost Vietnam if we hadn't abandoned God's Only Caliber dot Whatever and we should Make America Great by endorsing whatever bullshit Trump spews out. Ok, it hits a nerve, I get that. Happened to me on something else on this forum not too long ago. I do think Mac made the right decision for the time (easy to read my post as otherwise) but also it’s knock-on effects were bad for our small arms choice for a long time after. Not really his fault on that tho. Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Feb 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
How about the British SA80 programme? Holy loving mess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Ok, it hits a nerve, I get that. Happened to me on something else on this forum not too long ago. I do think Mac made the right decision for the time but also it’s knock-on effects were bad for our small arms choice for a long time after. Not really his fault on that tho. No, I agree totally, I'm just jumpy about bullshit because there's a lot of it about. No harm, no foul.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:How about the British SA80 programme? So... the usual for every Brit military project since the Centurion tank or (retrospectively) the Invincibles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
As long as it's "good enough" your country's choice of rifle is unlikely to affect the outcome of a war.  This is even more applicable to handguns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
The one situation, and one situation only where we were trained to use our Valmet M62's on full auto was when we were within like hand grenading distance of the other guy, at that point things you're in a bit of a hurry to suppress/drop them. As seen on this training video, it is mostly the job of the LMG gunner to lay heavy suppressive fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FRhK-KuUy8
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:So... the usual for every Brit military project since the Centurion tank. Hey now, the f35 aircraft carrier hilarity is separate and independent of normal badcav lols
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Hey now, the f35 aircraft carrier hilarity is separate and independent of normal badcav lols Not really. The Brits built the best carriers they could afford but got hosed by the American military-industrial complex in a replay of Skybolt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
BAE kramers into the defense acquisition office and just keeps kramering, sliding off airplanes, bouncing against tanks. you get the feeling it's trying to defraud your military, but it's kramering at such a high velocity you just can't quite make it out. as it finally nails a contract and fails to deliver you think you hear it exclaim "I never even agreed to make the design capable of being CATOBAR, that's what's so CRAZY about this" on the way out the door
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:19
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:As long as it's "good enough" your country's choice of rifle is unlikely to affect the outcome of a war. This. Artillery caused most of the casualties anyway. Knowing this, Red Army went even as far as only issuing one rifle per two soldiers, the other was given ammo. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Not really. The Brits built the best carriers they could afford but got hosed by the American military-industrial complex in a replay of Skybolt. I do feel like they should've just built a CATOBAR on the grounds they could at least buy Rafales or Super Bugs when the F-35B inevitably cost 3x as much as planned. But then again EMALS still kind of doesn't either so it's a lose/lose. (EDIT: I know Steam exists but there was no way they weren't getting upsold on that) Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Feb 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Broadly speaking you're trained to point your weapon at what you want to kill and shoot in full auto and hope for the best. The only guys who really aim and whatnot are DMs and to a lesser extent marines. My goodness, what a ghastly idea. The Ensign Expendable fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Feb 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Cessna posted:I can absolutely believe that there is a significant gap between "what training and doctrine say" and "what a combat soldier has experienced." In fact, I am sure that the two are quite different. Sure. Which is why I checked with my friend before I started tossing strong accusations around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I do feel like they should've just built a CATOBAR on the grounds they could at least buy Rafales or Super Bugs when the F-35B inevitably cost 3x as much as planned. But then again EMALS still kind of doesn't either so it's a lose/lose. Yeah, they should've built CATOBAR ships but they were lied to every step of the way about STOVL.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Yeah, they should've built CATOBAR ships but they were lied to every step of the way about STOVL. I guess there is some hope that between the USMC, the RN, and now Japan the F-35B will eventually get sorted out. As per the more recent SARs, it's numbers are more impressive than you'd expect. A 35B off a 600ft LHD outperforms the 18A-D off a full CVN in terms of range and payload, pretty significantly in fact, and the ski jump should make that slightly better on top. It still has a lot of hill to climb on cost and reliability though. EDIT: A bit old, the new one is soon-ish, but page 18 for the interesting part https://fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR-2018.pdf Mazz fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Feb 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
LatwPIAT posted:Sure. Which is why I checked with my friend before I started tossing strong accusations around. Nothing you quoted your friend as saying - that yes, the Army constantly trains to shoot accurately - is a direct refutation of an observation that in practice the standards of training and doctrine are not lived up to, and that troops in combat "spray and pray.". How did this become some sort of discussion where an "accusation" is even warranted? You know, I'll bet that if I went over what I did when I was in you could probably find some times where I did things in combat that didn't line up with what is printed in FMs or official doctrines. You going to throw some accusations my way when I post about them? Cessna fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Feb 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I guess there is some hope that between the USMC, the RN, and now Japan the F-35B will eventually get sorted out. As per the more recent SARs, it's numbers are more impressive than you'd expect. A 35B off a 600ft LHD outperforms the 18A-D off a full CVN in terms of range and payload, pretty significantly in fact, and the ski jump should make that slightly better on top. It still has a lot of hill to climb on cost and reliability though. I don't doubt the 35B will be an effective aircraft eventually, but the Royal Navy was sold on it being available before the Harrier was retired. The trouble was between Pigfucker Cameron's RAF-friendly defense review and Lockheed's overenthusiasm the RN ended up holding an empty bag than required them to send deck crews to loving Lamoore to practice carrier ops while they waited several years for the first 35s to be delivered. God even knows if the British 35s are combat capable yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Cessna posted:Nothing you quoted your friend as saying - that yes, the Army constantly trains to shoot accurately - is a direct refutation of an observation that in practice the standards of training and doctrine are not lived up to, and that troops in combat "spray and pray.". Because the exact words used were Broadly speaking you're trained to point your weapon at what you want to kill and shoot in full auto and hope for the best. and it's the claim that training is to mainly use full-auto fire that I plainly don't believe. I know I can get really argumentative over small things, but like... I thought this claim was really dumb and misinformed? I can probably try to come out less strong about these things in the future???
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2019 06:08
|
|