Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

User avatar
omega21
Sergeant Major
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby omega21 » Fri 1 Mar 2013 18:22

Old weapons. There was once I was cleaning a GPMG which I had assumed was license-built locally and I found a little "Made in Belgium" imprint on it.

Our army only imported a small amount of those back in the '70s when we did not have local firearms factories. Needless to say, I was a happy man.
Image Image

User avatar
REDDQ
General
Posts: 6906
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 03:13
Location: przy stole.
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby REDDQ » Sat 2 Mar 2013 22:07

Żołnierskie dni

Military excercise (from 24 minute)...

- ZMECH spam.
- SKOT spam.
- T55 spam.
- Mi2 spam.



WEE is very realistic :3

User avatar
Tac Error
Captain
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 20:55
Location: Berdansk
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby Tac Error » Sat 2 Mar 2013 22:55

Do you know the year of the video's production?
SLONIK MARSHAL

"Large mechanized forces always defeat small mechanized forces." - M. N. Tukhachevsky

User avatar
REDDQ
General
Posts: 6906
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 03:13
Location: przy stole.
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby REDDQ » Sat 2 Mar 2013 23:07

It is from 1973.

Bryan
General
Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby Bryan » Mon 4 Mar 2013 12:30

omega21 wrote:TBH, I never really liked AR-15 derived systems. I hear that the HK 416 is God's gift to infantrymen so I reserve comment on that, but M-16s and the like always seem prone to jamming, they are overly long, and the front-heavy barrel screws up ergonomics.

The only advantage the M-16 seems to have in my eyes is that it's relatively light.

This comes from being trained from a bullpup rifle, of course.

I have used M16 and SAR21 before and I find M16 very unbalanced, the barrel is so heavy. The SAR21 I find though bigger is more balanced. I still like the M16 very shiok (comfortable) to hold sleek somemore, SAR21 abit big.
Dunno abt maintenance though, havent enlist yet! But my dad says M16 very reliable. And Ultimax100 is a 'crap' weapon and hopes that it gets withdrawn from service!

2wheels
Corporal
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu 28 Feb 2013 16:31
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby 2wheels » Mon 4 Mar 2013 15:58

Bryan wrote:
omega21 wrote:TBH, I never really liked AR-15 derived systems. I hear that the HK 416 is God's gift to infantrymen so I reserve comment on that, but M-16s and the like always seem prone to jamming, they are overly long, and the front-heavy barrel screws up ergonomics.

The only advantage the M-16 seems to have in my eyes is that it's relatively light.

This comes from being trained from a bullpup rifle, of course.

I have used M16 and SAR21 before and I find M16 very unbalanced, the barrel is so heavy. The SAR21 I find though bigger is more balanced. I still like the M16 very shiok (comfortable) to hold sleek somemore, SAR21 abit big.
Dunno abt maintenance though, havent enlist yet! But my dad says M16 very reliable. And Ultimax100 is a 'crap' weapon and hopes that it gets withdrawn from service!


If anything, most bullpups are "unbalanced" to me. The weight is too far to the rear and it feels wrong. Lets not even get started on mag changes and whatnot... I hate bullpups. Conventional rifles like the M16 do not feel front heavy at all to me and I find them easier to reload, clear malfunctions, etc... (though yes, they are longer than bullpups, makes life difficult in close quarters) But I guess it's all in what you're used to, peoples opinions on bullpups vs. conventional rifles often seems based on what they were trained on.

Anyways, it's a different comparison nowadays. The US Army at least has pretty much switched over to the shorter/lighter M4. And like an earlier poster noted, M4s and M16s are more reliable than some people think.

User avatar
urielventis
Sergeant Major
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 08:34
Location: Equestria/Region parisienne
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby urielventis » Mon 4 Mar 2013 21:13

For the bulpup vs normal rifle, each one has his advantage and problem. What I like with my FAMAS was his long barrelled in a short rifle (48.8cm in 75.7cm). A conventional rifle will be longer for the same barrel.
For people in cramped environment (mechanised troops, ...) it's a good think.
I agree on the reloading part, the move is not so natural, but with drill, the move is acquired.
What piss me of with the FAMAS is that the ejection port is close to your head so sometimes when you shoot powder residue end in your face... Second thing, aiming line is very high above the barrel, so just watch your muzzle, or you can hit a wall just in front of you (this is not linked to bullpup, but to a stupid conception...)
This http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/bullpups.htm is a good summary of the bullpups vs traditional.

And bayonet fight with a FAMAS, you don't have a long reach...

For M4/M16, the recent model are very good and reliable, but a reputation is harder to build than to crush (SA80 anyone ?).
ImageImage

User avatar
panzersaurkrautwefer
Major-General
Posts: 3906
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 16:48

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby panzersaurkrautwefer » Tue 5 Mar 2013 12:21

But I guess it's all in what you're used to, peoples opinions on bullpups vs. conventional rifles often seems based on what they were trained on.


This times infinity for any system, used by any military, anywhere in the world.

Reading the comments on the BMP-2 earlier in this thread, I was just thinking there isn't enough money on earth to get me into a BMP. I've seen what they look like on the inside, while standing outside of them (old wrecks, but someone left an impression on them a few years before I got there). Conversely there's plenty of people who've operated them, and are convinced it's the best IFV out there.

Conversely, I liked the M3 well enough when I worked with it (I'm a tanker by training, you're not going to get me to ever "like" something that's not a tank). I think it's rather easily the best IFV, and the best by far Cavalry vehicle (in the US doctrine's use for the Cav that is) available. Conversely there's plenty of BMP-2 crewmen who just look at how big it is, and have seen what they look like post-IED blast, and wouldn't want anything to do with it.

I think it's that in part that makes a lot of the "M1A2 SEP TUSK vs T90 which is better?" pissing matches kinda funny. The majority of people in those sorts of discussions come across as morons. They're some dork who's read lots of Tom Clancy, so of course the Abrams could kill every Russian ever (to include ones not yet born, Sabot bends time and space to kill things in the future) without any problems. Conversely there's plenty of idiots out there convinced Soviet built tanks couldn't possibly be anything but the best thing ever, because how could the Motherland ever screw up a tank design (ANYTHING NOT DRIVEN BY NOT RUSSIANS DOES NOT COUNT. ALL MONKEY MODELS. DRIVEN BY NOT RUSSIAN. CLEARLY IS NOT SAME AS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MODEL OPERATED BY CONSCRIPTS WITH ABOUT 12 MONTHS IN UNIFORM IN RED ARMY)?

Conversely, people who've operated all these platforms generally have pretty favorable opinions of what they used with rare exceptions (one of those being mechanized infantrymen. I've never met someone happy to be stuffed into the back of an IFV or APC for hours). They know their system pretty darn well. They more likely than not do not especially know the ins and outs of the competing vehicles beyond what it looks like, and how to hypothetically kill it though.

Could a T90 with all the bells and whistles hold up to hits from a 120mm/L44 weapon system? Dunno. I don't think anyone has had the chance to shoot it yet. Is the M1 Abrams series pretty good? Sure looks that way, but it's battle history is limited to either very favorable conflicts, or in the counter-insurgency environment, which is a bad gauge for tank employment.

We have limited windows on just what each system does. And invariably, video games will get it wrong. I think Wargame vastly overrates how good vehicle mounted ATGMs are (rate of fire being obviously totally wrong) and the availability of MRLS and the 203 MM range artillery in the sort of fight that the game portrays is just nuts. I could go on for a few pages about what's "wrong."

In no way should ANYONE WITH A BRAIN argue the Wargames series is realistic, or a simulator. It's a realism flavored game, there's aspects that encourage using real tactics, and playing smart, but it's so far from how command actually looks (staring at a paper map, pen in one hand, radio handset in the other/on the mic switch for the CVC) that it's just, it's a game.

And that's not bad at all! I love the game. I've spent hours playing it, and affectionately refer to it as "tanker porn." I bought the game on premise alone, and stayed up way later than I should have just to get a few more hours in the first day I had it. I will preorder ALB and anxiously await it's release (also, Ruse was pretty cool too).

But yeah. You all can look pretty silly when everyone is talking about what is "real." Hell I can look pretty silly too. I'm just happy there's a game like this because it requires way more brains and tactical skill than Command and Conquer style games, and less tedious realism than the Combat Mission series demands (although I do dabble in that series too). I'm glad I get to play with all the various bits of hardware that I know from recognition manuals only (seriously. As much as I prefer the US Army, I've got a German and French deck that gets lots of playtime too. Brits every now and then, but their lack of ADA, and that their tanks work better with more mobile friends keep me from getting too deep into them). I play Pact too, and take great pride in talk like bad stereotype, and speak of wrestling with the bears and drinking with the vodka on steppes like real mans.

This has certainly gone into a ramble. But to wrap it all up, I do wish we'd all chill with the national dick measuring contests that pop up from time to time. It's just a game. Your precious M1/T80/Leopard 2/whatever is safe out there in the real world, doing whatever it is that it does. It's by far more important that the game play "fun" than reflect your impression of what your favorite tank can do.
Do I look like a reasonable man to you, or a peppermint nightmare?

User avatar
omega21
Sergeant Major
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri 15 Feb 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby omega21 » Tue 5 Mar 2013 16:58

panzersaurkrautwefer, very well said, man. That's gold right there, I wish the mods would sticky this post.

BTW, to share about armoured/mechanized infantry - I don't think armoured infanteers don't mind being cooped up so much as being powerless. I mean, sitting down and chilling and sleeping is good. But not knowing what the hell is happening outside and not being able to talk over the noise sucks.
Image Image

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12362
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Military men and women: tell us about your stuff!

Postby orcbuster » Tue 5 Mar 2013 17:13

omega21 wrote:panzersaurkrautwefer, very well said, man. That's gold right there, I wish the mods would sticky this post.

BTW, to share about armoured/mechanized infantry - I don't think armoured infanteers don't mind being cooped up so much as being powerless. I mean, sitting down and chilling and sleeping is good. But not knowing what the hell is happening outside and not being able to talk over the noise sucks.


Try saying that after being cooped up in one for 10 hours straight in -30C. And no, sleeping in them is just about impossible. You can try but I never managed it. It tires you out like you would not belive.
Image
Viker for ingen!

Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests