Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-01-2020, 08:58 PM   #61
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Would really kill to see that post on the CF-104.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 08:43 AM   #62
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by btimbit View Post
Background of the M-16 was always interesting, particularily how the gun got a bad reputation compared to the AK early on because of ammo issues being blamed on the guns reliability, and to this day you still hear people say how reliable an AK is compared to an AR despite not really being true, just based on the early days of the platform
Nobody that has shot both weapons says the AK is better.

The AK is inferior in all aspects, except maybe as a club.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 12:14 PM   #63
MoneyGuy
Franchise Player
 
MoneyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Unidentified Canadian soldier who died late in WWII in the Netherlands has been identified.

https://edmontonsun.com/news/nationa...box=1604342509
MoneyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 12:19 PM   #64
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother View Post
Nobody that has shot both weapons says the AK is better.

The AK is inferior in all aspects, except maybe as a club.
I've fired both. Both had their strong points.

The AK-47 was really designed for a tech poor or poorly trained conscript. Easy to lead and fire, can be heavily abused and still fired. I never found it to be a really accurate weapon, but makes up for it with sheer range and killing power. Easy to dissassemble and clean. But is a pretty heavy weapon to cart around with reloads.

The M-16 to me was pretty accurate even in the days before things like optic sights. It was pretty lightweight. It's springs and small cartridge really made it pretty accurate in burst and single. Really wasn't to me a great in field weapon because of the nature of how its cleaned and how finicky it was when it got dirty. It didn't have the same kind of shoot through killing power as the AK-47.

Now give me an FNC1A1 any day, and I was always happy.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 12:46 PM   #65
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
I've fired both. Both had their strong points.

The AK-47 was really designed for a tech poor or poorly trained conscript. Easy to lead and fire, can be heavily abused and still fired. I never found it to be a really accurate weapon, but makes up for it with sheer range and killing power. Easy to dissassemble and clean. But is a pretty heavy weapon to cart around with reloads.

The M-16 to me was pretty accurate even in the days before things like optic sights. It was pretty lightweight. It's springs and small cartridge really made it pretty accurate in burst and single. Really wasn't to me a great in field weapon because of the nature of how its cleaned and how finicky it was when it got dirty. It didn't have the same kind of shoot through killing power as the AK-47.

Now give me an FNC1A1 any day, and I was always happy.
Love it.

I have also fired both. It is funny eh, that different people have different take aways.

I never had an issue with my C7 and dirt. But the FN I did, hell I recall cracking it and pouring breakfree down to keep the weapon happy.

I always found the AK to be, well "Soviet" if that makes sense, every time I fired. It was designed to put round down range and any/all other components of it's existence were ignored. I mean FFS you rip of a number of rounds and the forestock got hot. It really lacked the refinement of the AR/C7. I knew that a round would go where I wanted it to go the same can't be said for an AK. I reckon you would need 10 AK rounds to 1 C7 round to kill someone based on accuracy. Also, and this is going deep into my memory banks they C7 round tumbled and caused great damage. An AK (like an FN) would blow straight through you leaving a cleaner wound (but that is a hazy memory).

While I, like you, have a fond spot in my heart for the FN the truth is the battlefield left it behind. The AR/C7 is the perfect weapon for today's conflicts, IMO. The ability to reach out and know your round will impact where you want it to impact is more important than ever.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 01:43 PM   #66
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother View Post
Love it.

I have also fired both. It is funny eh, that different people have different take aways.

I never had an issue with my C7 and dirt. But the FN I did, hell I recall cracking it and pouring breakfree down to keep the weapon happy.

I always found the AK to be, well "Soviet" if that makes sense, every time I fired. It was designed to put round down range and any/all other components of it's existence were ignored. I mean FFS you rip of a number of rounds and the forestock got hot. It really lacked the refinement of the AR/C7. I knew that a round would go where I wanted it to go the same can't be said for an AK. I reckon you would need 10 AK rounds to 1 C7 round to kill someone based on accuracy. Also, and this is going deep into my memory banks they C7 round tumbled and caused great damage. An AK (like an FN) would blow straight through you leaving a cleaner wound (but that is a hazy memory).

While I, like you, have a fond spot in my heart for the FN the truth is the battlefield left it behind. The AR/C7 is the perfect weapon for today's conflicts, IMO. The ability to reach out and know your round will impact where you want it to impact is more important than ever.

Good points, remember that there were entirely different design requirements at play here.

When the Ak-47 was designed. The average Soviet Conscript was likely to be poorly educated, most likely a kid off of a collective farm. The length in service was iirc about 2 years, and the training was rudimentary at best. Usually at the end of the 2 year period (a major hole) that conscript returned to the farm or got a job in a factory. The Soviets really struggled with the quality of their conscripts. The Sergeants, the NCO backbone of Western Militarizes, was a completely different thing in the Red Army. He was a conscript who was selected because he was deemed to be a little smarter, but more politically reliable, and went to a Sergent school to receive specialized training in unit tactics and leadership.

Because of this the AK was designed to be a simple weapon to aim and fire, and maintain, and designed to be rugged. This is why its the most successful export weapon ever created. Because poor armies with poor training and discipline suddenly had a weapon that matched their level of training.

The American NCO was different. First of all, because they were better educated, and better trained. The average hitch was twice as long as the Soviet conscripts and lavish dollars were spent on training and gear. Because of that the 16 was deemed as a more technically advanced, more accurate weapon, however because of the higher training it could be more mechanical in nature, and it was acceptable to have a more complex cleaning and maintenance protocol. It was also ok to allow the average solider to be able to handle things like site calibration. The Soviet Solder didn't care about that, they would just fire until the enemy went down (Spray and Pray). What the American's did get was a more delicate weapon that used more advanced materials and didn't have the rugged abilities of the AK-47.

You are right about one thing, the heavier rounds of the AK were through and through. The M-16 using the lighter 5.56 and had a light speed muzzle velocity compared to the heavier rounds of the AK. This did cause a problem though.

The lighter round did tend to tumble, which didn't help in the jungles of Vietnam, where the accuracy of the weapon dropped dramatically as it hit light obstructions that would cause the round to tumble. Meanwhile the heavier rounded AK was excellent at shooting through heavier obstructions in a straight path.

The other important points is in manufacturing. Soviet manufacturing and materials were notoriously poor from the 50's through to the 80's due to the Soviets reliance on factory quota's their quality control sucked. They were way behind on design technologies and while their engineers were top notch, and their designers were as well, the average worker was poorly trained and taught numbers over quality.

The American engineers would work with exotic materials had better design technologies and American manufacturing whether automated or man provided was just superior. Therefore the Americans could manufacture what was considered to be a space aged weapon in the 60's.

Ok, the FNC1A1 - I loved the weapon except for one thing, the weight to carry it. If I remember right a FN weighed about 11 pounds. It was a beast to carry, and because it was long and heavy it was poorly suited to urban combat, it was tough to get the weapons around whereas the AK and M-16 were both excellent at urban and close quarter snap shots. I loved the iron sites on the FN and they were easy to adjust and they had the duel iron site setting (Big hole, small hole). For some reason my accuracy with that weapon was off of the charts. I also found I could disassemble it, clean it and snap it back together in very few minutes. As well I didn't ever worry about losing springs or pieces in the dark.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 01:45 PM   #67
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
Good points, remember that there were entirely different design requirements at play here.



When the Ak-47 was designed. The average Soviet Conscript was likely to be poorly educated, most likely a kid off of a collective farm. The length in service was iirc about 2 years, and the training was rudimentary at best. Usually at the end of the 2 year period (a major hole) that conscript returned to the farm or got a job in a factory. The Soviets really struggled with the quality of their conscripts. The Sergeants, the NCO backbone of Western Militarizes, was a completely different thing in the Red Army. He was a conscript who was selected because he was deemed to be a little smarter, but more politically reliable, and went to a Sergent school to receive specialized training in unit tactics and leadership.



Because of this the AK was designed to be a simple weapon to aim and fire, and maintain, and designed to be rugged. This is why its the most successful export weapon ever created. Because poor armies with poor training and discipline suddenly had a weapon that matched their level of training.



The American NCO was different. First of all, because they were better educated, and better trained. The average hitch was twice as long as the Soviet conscripts and lavish dollars were spent on training and gear. Because of that the 16 was deemed as a more technically advanced, more accurate weapon, however because of the higher training it could be more mechanical in nature, and it was acceptable to have a more complex cleaning and maintenance protocol. It was also ok to allow the average solider to be able to handle things like site calibration. The Soviet Solder didn't care about that, they would just fire until the enemy went down (Spray and Pray). What the American's did get was a more delicate weapon that used more advanced materials and didn't have the rugged abilities of the AK-47.


You are right about one thing, the heavier rounds of the AK were through and through. The M-16 using the lighter 5.56 and had a light speed muzzle velocity compared to the heavier rounds of the AK. This did cause a problem though.



The lighter round did tend to tumble, which didn't help in the jungles of Vietnam, where the accuracy of the weapon dropped dramatically as it hit light obstructions that would cause the round to tumble. Meanwhile the heavier rounded AK was excellent at shooting through heavier obstructions in a straight path.


The other important points is in manufacturing. Soviet manufacturing and materials were notoriously poor from the 50's through to the 80's due to the Soviets reliance on factory quota's their quality control sucked. They were way behind on design technologies and while their engineers were top notch, and their designers were as well, the average worker was poorly trained and taught numbers over quality.


The American engineers would work with exotic materials had better design technologies and American manufacturing whether automated or man provided was just superior. Therefore the Americans could manufacture what was considered to be a space aged weapon in the 60's.


Ok, the FNC1A1 - I loved the weapon except for one thing, the weight to carry it. If I remember right a FN weighed about 11 pounds. It was a beast to carry, and because it was long and heavy it was poorly suited to urban combat, it was tough to get the weapons around whereas the AK and M-16 were both excellent at urban and close quarter snap shots. I loved the iron sites on the FN and they were easy to adjust and they had the duel iron site setting (Big hole, small hole). For some reason my accuracy with that weapon was off of the charts. I also found I could disassemble it, clean it and snap it back together in very few minutes. As well I didn't ever worry about losing springs or pieces in the dark.
And you said you didn't have the time or energy to write an AK v AR article.....

You're welcome.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 01:51 PM   #68
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Thanks, it could go so much deeper, the history of the AK-47 is really interesting including The Russian marketing of the weapon, its wide spread exportation and adoption by every militia and terrorist group around the world.



Also the evolution of the AK-47 to the AKM to the AK-74 to the new AK-12. is interesting as well.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2020, 02:08 PM   #69
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

What was Canadian Cold War doctrine surrounding the C1 and the infantry section? Was it centred around the rifles supporting the C2 or the other way around? Similar to the Lee Enfields and the Bren in WW2/Korea?

Also, I read that we didn't have a genuine GPMG until the 1980s and were using the M1919 as an MMG until the early 80s when we finally got the FN MAG?

Captain, tell me the answers. I would be grateful.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2020, 02:45 PM   #70
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

We always had the C2 to support the C1's. Even though nobody was a fan of the C2 and it was a poor infantry support weapon, it was still effective at keeping an enemies head down and had great range. Part of squad leadership was siting a weapon like that. I still remember getting totally crapped on for my decision in placing my C2 gunner on top of a small hill, and realizing after the fact that his life would be measured in seconds even though he had a great observable position.




When I was in squads had 1 C2, which to me was short. It would work with weapon like the M-60 belt fed that would spray lots of rounds at a high rate of speed.


Yeah, Canada didn't really have a proper GPMG until the start of the 80's. we'll kinda in WW2 they used the Bren, the Victors and the M2, which iirc was an upgraded M19191, but the 1919 was used into the 70's.


The Canadian Forces has in my mind done a piss poor job in terms of personal weapons and kit decisions. A lot of the decisions didn't make any sense at all.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 02:48 PM   #71
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
We always had the C2 to support the C1's. Even though nobody was a fan of the C2 and it was a poor infantry support weapon, it was still effective at keeping an enemies head down and had great range. Part of squad leadership was siting a weapon like that. I still remember getting totally crapped on for my decision in placing my C2 gunner on top of a small hill, and realizing after the fact that his life would be measured in seconds even though he had a great observable position.




When I was in squads had 1 C2, which to me was short. It would work with weapon like the M-60 belt fed that would spray lots of rounds at a high rate of speed.


Yeah, Canada didn't really have a proper GPMG until the start of the 80's. we'll kinda in WW2 they used the Bren, the Victors and the M2, which iirc was an upgraded M19191, but the 1919 was used into the 70's.


The Canadian Forces has in my mind done a piss poor job in terms of personal weapons and kit decisions. A lot of the decisions didn't make any sense at all.
The Bren was a pretty effective LMG - some say the best of the war. To see how important it was, you only have to see how hard American squads had it when depending on the obsolete BAR to support infantry.

That is legit incredible that Canadian infantry didn't have a belt-fed GPMG until the early 80s.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2020, 03:41 PM   #72
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
The Bren was a pretty effective LMG - some say the best of the war. To see how important it was, you only have to see how hard American squads had it when depending on the obsolete BAR to support infantry.

That is legit incredible that Canadian infantry didn't have a belt-fed GPMG until the early 80s.
I reckon an MG42 would piss all over a Bren and not even close.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 03:58 PM   #73
Baron von Kriterium
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Baron von Kriterium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
Yeah, Canada didn't really have a proper GPMG until the start of the 80's. we'll kinda in WW2 they used the Bren, the Victors and the M2, which iirc was an upgraded M19191, but the 1919 was used into the 70's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
That is legit incredible that Canadian infantry didn't have a belt-fed GPMG until the early 80s.
We used the belt-fed GPMG, M1919A4, after WWII. Sometime during the Cold War, they were converted to 7.62mm from 30 calibre. We called it the C1 and C1A1. We then changed the name again to C5 and C5A1. It was affectionately known as the G Pig and I had to schlepp it around the Borden training area in the summer of 1990. When I arrived at my first posting, Jan 1991, the unit had the new C6s already. As per usual Canada turned what was a normally reliable weapon with 30-06 ammo into a temperamental 7.62mm nightmare.

__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Baron von Kriterium is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 04:18 PM   #74
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother View Post
I reckon an MG42 would piss all over a Bren and not even close.
There's an interesting debate over which is more effective. Bren was more portable, spread the ammo load through the section and was more accurate.

MG42 was a suppression weapon, high rate of fire, ate ammo at an alarming pace - the assistant gunner basically lugged around cans of ammo. Great in the defensive, but best when used in a static position as an MMG on a tripod.

There were occasions where Bren teams outfought MG-34/42 teams. The Siege of Tobruk, for instance, where Australian Bren teams used the gun's much smaller beaten zone to basically snipe enemy MG-42 teams.

Last edited by peter12; 11-02-2020 at 04:20 PM.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2020, 04:19 PM   #75
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium View Post
We used the belt-fed GPMG, M1919A4, after WWII. Sometime during the Cold War, they were converted to 7.62mm from 30 calibre. We called it the C1 and C1A1. We then changed the name again to C5 and C5A1. It was affectionately known as the G Pig and I had to schlepp it around the Borden training area in the summer of 1990. When I arrived at my first posting, Jan 1991, the unit had the new C6s already. As per usual Canada turned what was a normally reliable weapon with 30-06 ammo into a temperamental 7.62mm nightmare.

Why didn't Canada swap over the the M60 in the 60's/70's like the Australians? Why did it take so long for us to get the C6? Usual budgetary/procurement story?
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2020, 04:23 PM   #76
Baron von Kriterium
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Baron von Kriterium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Why didn't Canada swap over the the M60 in the 60's/70's like the Australians? Why did it take so long for us to get the C6? Usual budgetary/procurement story?
Beats me.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
Baron von Kriterium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2020, 05:07 PM   #77
btimbit
Franchise Player
 
btimbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW Calgary
Exp:
Default

What really did the FAL a disservice was the Americans forcing 7.62 down everyone's throats. If the FAL fired .280 British it would have been a much more useful weapon. Several pounds lighter, actually possible to fire on full auto, and woulda made the C2 a weapon you could actually reasonably handle.
btimbit is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2020, 05:25 PM   #78
btimbit
Franchise Player
 
btimbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
You are right about one thing, the heavier rounds of the AK were through and through. The M-16 using the lighter 5.56 and had a light speed muzzle velocity compared to the heavier rounds of the AK. This did cause a problem though.

The lighter round did tend to tumble, which didn't help in the jungles of Vietnam, where the accuracy of the weapon dropped dramatically as it hit light obstructions that would cause the round to tumble. Meanwhile the heavier rounded AK was excellent at shooting through heavier obstructions in a straight path.
On the ammo, a big issue here was the US Gov changing the powder at the last minute and issuing relatively untested ammo that essentially doubled the gas port pressure of the M16. This change ended up making it quite sensitive. Made it fire way too fast, for example. Design rate of fire was around 750 but went up to about 900, leading to failures to extract, torn rims, and unstable shooting in general. They never did change the ammo to fix the issues so it was up to Colt to change the design to suit. Adding some weights to the buffer slowed it back down getting it to extract properly. By then the damage was done and the reputation of the gun was tarnished forever

Last edited by btimbit; 11-02-2020 at 07:46 PM.
btimbit is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
Old 11-03-2020, 09:56 AM   #79
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
There's an interesting debate over which is more effective. Bren was more portable, spread the ammo load through the section and was more accurate.

MG42 was a suppression weapon, high rate of fire, ate ammo at an alarming pace - the assistant gunner basically lugged around cans of ammo. Great in the defensive, but best when used in a static position as an MMG on a tripod.

There were occasions where Bren teams outfought MG-34/42 teams. The Siege of Tobruk, for instance, where Australian Bren teams used the gun's much smaller beaten zone to basically snipe enemy MG-42 teams.
You just described the C6, substitute MG42.

I will say that when in a fire fight you want to get the initiative. You get the initiative by getting rounds down range at a greater rate than your enemy. While my memory of infantry section/platoon tactics are hazy, that much I recall.

Regarding load, heavy loads just make the term: Light Infantry funnier.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.

Last edited by undercoverbrother; 11-03-2020 at 10:10 AM.
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
Old 11-03-2020, 10:17 AM   #80
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother View Post
You just described the C6, substitute MG42.

I will say that when in a fire fight you want to get the initiative. You get the initiative by getting rounds down range at a greater rate than your enemy. While my memory of infantry section/platoon tactics are hazy, that much I recall.

Regarding load, heavy loads just make the term: Light Infantry funnier.

The idea is to get the enemy heads down and in a panic situation, Machine guns are not the most accurate weapon out there, though there have been remarkable improvements on that side of things.



But firing a wall of bullets down range and making enemies kick off their self preservation instincts lets you take the initiative.



However in the day and age of mobility warfare and combined arms most of the time machine guns are more effective as a mounted weapon that allows you to unload your infantry from your APC while the gunner keeps their heads down.


Machine guns really hit their zenith as a super weapon in WW1, with the angle trenches.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:03 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021