Infantry Weapons

[Coela Bellatore]

ooh interesting an M14 making it into a DMR? nice tell me the details please XD

I would take an M9 over a Five&Seven any day, that pistol is just mediocre in every way. The 5.7mm is not an amazing miracle round, the Russian's figured it out with the 9x18mm Makorov years ago. I actually like the MP5 better than the P90 anyway, its just is a weird gun to shoot.

As for the M14 we had some Taliban plant an IED like 200m from our gate so I'm going to have someone (probably end up being me) stay up there at night with a rifle and NVG's and pop him or anybody else that tries to dig out there. I don't need an M14 for that but I'll take any excuse I can get to get more cool guns signed off. It is going to be F U N ! !

[RubberJesus]

We lost one battle against the zulu, then wiped them out over 6 months of warfare(we didn't need to, but it happened). They were also the bravest warriors on the planet and outnumbere dth egarrison at isandlewana 25 to 1.

You had bolt action rifles, cannons, and mounted cavalry while the zulu had just come out of the stone age, the fact that you even lost one battle to them is just sad.

And it really doesn't matter if they outnumbered you 25 to one, Coalition forces in Iraq had a kill to death ratio of about 53:1, if we can take a nation that was about 35 years behind us technologically with 53:1 ratio it stands to reason you should have been able inflict a 25:1 ratio an enemy who was over 1,000 years behind your tech with relative ease.

you lost to the zulus for the same reason you lost to us, you were overconfident

And your lot got gubbed to a bunch of farmer with pitchforks in the 1860s until u threw soo many men at them they couldn't kill them all(I believe that's what the hypocritical Union said about the confederacy at the time. Who beat you for 3 straight years before u guys learned to general) and the 1970s, so you can hauld your wheesht mate.

Excuse me did you just invoke the Civil War as an example of how Americans can't fight, I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of what a civil war is
both sides were Americans, all the great generals the south had were U.S. generals before the war and after the war, and the south did really well in the eastern theater for the first two years but got dominated in the west pretty much the entire time, and in the end both sides lost about the same number of troops so I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to prove.

Prime example of quality over quantity. Vietnam. More guys, more technology, more guns. Lot's of death, killings, burning down villages, turnign the locals to the enemy and then withdraw. Nice.

Actually I'd call Vietnam a prime example of quantity over quality the U.S. lost about 50,000 troops compared to 1,176,000 NVA dead, and things might have turned out differently if we were allowed to use our full military power because congress didn't actually declare war on vietnam, infact congress hasn't declared war since WW2 so technically we haven't fought a war since then.

[Major V1125]

I would take an M9 over a Five&Seven any day, that pistol is just mediocre in every way. The 5.7mm is not an amazing miracle round, the Russian's figured it out with the 9x18mm Makorov years ago. I actually like the MP5 better than the P90 anyway, its just is a weird gun to shoot.

As for the M14 we had some Taliban plant an IED like 200m from our gate so I'm going to have someone (probably end up being me) stay up there at night with a rifle and NVG's and pop him or anybody else that tries to dig out there. I don't need an M14 for that but I'll take any excuse I can get to get more cool guns signed off. It is going to be F U N ! !

ehh im a fan of 9mm pistols as well but the berreta M9 isnt what i would want, SIG P226 please or Berretta PX4 please XD
well the 9x18 round your referring to is a high pressured round that the Russians developed for 9mm armor piercing, yet its still far from being perfected, so for now PDWs like the P90 would be on top of my list. the P90's design makes it more compact and easier to control when firing in long bursts compared to the MP5, plus the cartridges eject from the bottom.

oooh NICE glad to hear another soldier still using an M14 variant, are you using a standard M14? or some other? damn IEDS...well you can detonate IEDs with an M14 at that range of 200m, but hell one shot, one kill with that M14 anytime XD props for you man

[Stewart5]

I think you just kind of dissed yourself there.

that was intentional. Both to show that out troops kept the standards despite s**t leadership, and sloa to show the fact I'm not wearing rose tinteds, I know our failings

Yes, but again you outnumbered the insurgents about 20:1. Seriously dude, you keep finding the worst examples.

Yeah, that was a numbers example, that was to show that in a guerrilla war situation against an enemy who knows the terrain and is fighting for the cause shouldn't be dealt with by the 7th cav and all the tanks you can throw at them.
And you're example were any better? at least mine are rooted in fact.

[Stewart5]

You had bolt action rifles, cannons, and mounted cavalry while the zulu had just come out of the stone age, the fact that you even lost one battle to them is just sad.

And it really doesn't matter if they outnumbered you 25 to one, Coalition forces in Iraq had a kill to death ratio of about 53:1, if we can take a nation that was about 35 years behind us technologically with 53:1 ratio it stands to reason you should have been able inflict a 25:1 ratio an enemy who was over 1,000 years behind your tech with relative ease.

you lost to the zulus for the same reason you lost to us, you were overconfident

Tell it to the little big horn, mate.
And yes, we were overconfident. there is absolutely NO ONE who can say we weren't. Then again, the States suffers from that syndrome too.
But let's not forget that the zulus had over 3000 rifles(true, some dated from 1820's) and they also had a grasp of tactics many decades ahead of all other tribes in africa.
And it doesn't matter what rifles you use, when you have no ammo for them, then they're little better than clubs.
there were 2 light field guns that could fire maybe two, three shots a minute, and kill ten zulus at the most with each unless they were heavily packed together.
The zulu could outrun cavalry.
And what cavalry?? We had no regular cavalry. We had a few irregulars, mounted infantry, who dismounted when close to the enemy. We had no proper cavalry.

Excuse me did you just invoke the Civil War as an example of how Americans can't fight, I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of what a civil war is
both sides were Americans, all the great generals the south had were U.S. generals before the war and after the war, and the south did really well in the eastern theater for the first two years but got dominated in the west pretty much the entire time, and in the end both sides lost about the same number of troops so I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to prove.

No, because I'm not stupid. I was using it as an example of how u lot aren't any better than you make us out to be. The Union said the same about the south - the pitch fork thing - and their professional army was beaten by the South for two and a half years. THAT was my point. U guys aren't immune at getting beaten by your (technically) inferiors! That comment was nothing to do with your prowess. That was in response to your dig at Britian.
And nicely said. The Souths general were from the US army. Well done. NO excuse - so were the norths'.

Actually I'd call Vietnam a prime example of quantity over quality the U.S. lost about 50,000 troops compared to 1,176,000 NVA dead, and things might have turned out differently if we were allowed to use our full military power because congress didn't actually declare war on vietnam, infact congress hasn't declared war since WW2 so technically we haven't fought a war since then.

sorry, misworded that. Meant it the other way round.
Let's remeber to factor in that not every vietmanese person GI's torch was actually Cong or NVA.

As for not declaring war, just because you didn't say, doesn't mean you didn't go to war. What a childish outlook! Just because your government never tell the truth about a conflict and like to put spin on it.

As for beating us, it was only partly to do with overconfidence. (cornwallis was a ****, I agree). Think on supply lines, availability of reinforcements from thousands of miles away etc. And I REALLY hope ur not getting ur examples from the patriot. It was no where near that heroic on the American side. Tarleton was not a brutal murderer. British soldiers were not that stupid or ill-disciplined. And there were a great number of colonilas who DIDN'T want to fight.

[Coela Bellatore]

And you're example were any better? at least mine are rooted in fact.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I took a class in Military History in AFROTC and the first thing the instructor told us was don't argue military history unless people are factually incorrect. I stand by that. I have never provided any other examples or argued that you point was wrong. I am merely saying that if your trying to prove that the British soldier was of a better quality and used that quality to overcome the quantity of opposing forces, those are not the examples to use as all of them have the British in a numerically superior position.

I can provide you with such examples but I don't plan on indulging your neopatrotic obsession in this thread.


EDIT: Sorry about the territorials thing, we don't place reserves in active units randomly in the American forces. If your reserve you serve in a reserve unit and if you go to an active duty unit then you become active duty. Still holds true though, all the UK units in Afghanistan are active duty they just have some territorial members in them. You can use the internet all you want but I'm over here right now so I think I can say for sure, and all I see here is that Britain sends its best while America sends everything it has.

[Stewart5]

And for the quality thing: At Trafalgar you outnumbered Napoleon's fleet,

I believe that was both an example and a wrong one

EDIT: Sorry about the territorials thing, we don't place reserves in active units randomly in the American forces. If your reserve you serve in a reserve unit and if you go to an active duty unit then you become active duty. Still holds true though, all the UK units in Afghanistan are active duty they just have some territorial members in them. You can use the internet all you want but I'm over here right now so I think I can say for sure, and all I see here is that Britain sends its best while America sends everything it has.

Wow, and I almost thought you were trying to stop any arguments for a moment.

Use the internet? Mate, i don't need to use the internet. My friends are out there. reservist friends. And once again you're trying to make out some disticntion between to two by saying 'best' all the time. I have no idea how your reservists work, so i won't comment on that, but I know over here they are given EXACTLY the same training as the regulars, and put in the action as well. I don't need the internet to prove that.

As for my neopatriotic-ness, I wear no rose tinted goggles, and i know our (many) faults and would be happy to discuss things that ARE wrong with us. At length.
But I am SICK of american arseholes with the superiority complex and european arseholes with the inferiority one having a dig at both my country and my nation(not to say that all yanks and euorpeans are arseholes.) when they can't see that the points they make about us hold true for them as well.
I believe i also qualified my examples with context. the napoleonic wars, which was far more than just waterloo, you know, Britain and portugal WERE outnumbered. That is a fact. In almost every battle until late 1814.
the crimea was a bad example, but then again, i wasn't facoring in the french, who didn't do as much as the Turks.

[Coela Bellatore]

I believe that was both an example and a wrong one

All right ya got me. We never learned Naval History and I was getting that from my high school history class. I guess that example supports your argument then as the British Navy was the best in the world from then on until 1940.

Use the internet? Mate, i don't need to use the internet. My friends are out there. reservist friends. And once again you're trying to make out some disticntion between to two by saying 'best' all the time. I have no idea how your reservists work, so i won't comment on that, but I know over here they are given EXACTLY the same training as the regulars, and put in the action as well. I don't need the internet to prove that.

I don't believe I said best once in my last post. Besides that, ok, if thats how it works then I guess it makes sense. It still proves my point thought, America gives more training and superior equipment to its Active duty as opposed to Reserve or Guard forces. If the Territorials have the same training, equipment, and serve in Active units then there is literally no distinction between them and their active duty counter-parts.

But I am SICK of american arseholes with the superiority complex

And I am too. But I was never one of those people saying that America was better.

which was far more than just waterloo, you know, Britain and portugal WERE outnumbered. That is a fact. In almost every battle until late 1814.

I don't know about the validity of that. What made Napoleon great was that he could beat larger armies regularly on their turf.

[Stewart5]

All right ya got me. We never learned Naval History and I was getting that from my high school history class. I guess that example supports your argument then as the British Navy was the best in the world from then on until 1940. .

i'm not going to say a word, cause it'll flare the argument again.

I don't believe I said best once in my last post. Besides that, ok, if thats how it works then I guess it makes sense. It still proves my point thought, America gives more training and superior equipment to its Active duty as opposed to Reserve or Guard forces. If the Territorials have the same training, equipment, and serve in Active units then there is literally no distinction between them and their active duty counter-parts.

And I am too. But I was never one of those people saying that America was better. .

The only difference is the fact the territorials are PART time. That is the only major difference.
No, u didn't, but u jumped into an argument that was started on that basis. i think. in fact, i have no real idea why we are arguing.

I don't know about the validity of that. What made Napoleon great was that he could beat larger armies regularly on their turf.

Yes, against the austrians and the russians etc. But he also threw hundreds of thousands of men at an enemy until he battered them into submission. He only fougth the british army once, personally. in spain, britian and her allies never had more than about 50,000 men. Trust me. That's the period I research most. Battles such as Talevera, Salamanca etc. Napoloen was not the genius everyone says he was. For that matter, neither was Wellington

Right, we are not going to agree, so I say we just leave it at that, because I really don't want to argue with someone out risking his arse in the sandbox over trivial things that are long done.

[Stewart5]

As for infantry weapons, no one is paying the blindest bit of attention to the BAKER RIFLE!!!! I mean it! high strength at low range, huge stopping power and calibre! it's perfect.....except for theat whole 3 shots a minute thingie.......

[Coela Bellatore]

As for infantry weapons, no one is paying the blindest bit of attention to the BAKER RIFLE!!!! I mean it! high strength at low range, huge stopping power and calibre! it's perfect.....except for theat whole 3 shots a minute thingie.......

We captured a bunch of those when we raided a Taliban ammo cache. Their left over from America's support of the mujahideen back in the Soviet War. They are fun as $#!^ but have a crazy muzzle flash. Our CO got pissed when we shot them on the range though because apparently they're unsafe or something. Same with the Lee-Enfields and Springfields we got. None of classics are "safe" for military use .

[Womble]

Those rifles are probably Khyber Pass copies. It's not a good idea to fire them, but if you must, don't use standard issue ammo. Use handloads with reduced power.

[RubberJesus]

Tell it to the little big horn, mate.
And yes, we were overconfident. there is absolutely NO ONE who can say we weren't. Then again, the States suffers from that syndrome too.

the indians had lever action rifles and plenty of horses and were better horsemen than the cavalry, they were about as well equiped as the cavalry in that fight too

No, because I'm not stupid. I was using it as an example of how u lot aren't any better than you make us out to be. The Union said the same about the south - the pitch fork thing - and their professional army was beaten by the South for two and a half years. THAT was my point. U guys aren't immune at getting beaten by your (technically) inferiors! That comment was nothing to do with your prowess. That was in response to your dig at Britian.
And nicely said. The Souths general were from the US army. Well done. NO excuse - so were the norths'.

the south only did well in the eastern theater, it was pretty much beaten every time in the west

and the south had almost all of the good military academies because at that time the south was full of pseudo aristocrats who could afford to send their kids to VMI or soome place like that, the only one the north had was westpoint


sorry, misworded that. Meant it the other way round.
Let's remeber to factor in that not every vietmanese person GI's torch was actually Cong or NVA.

As for not declaring war, just because you didn't say, doesn't mean you didn't go to war. What a childish outlook! Just because your government never tell the truth about a conflict and like to put spin on it.

As for beating us, it was only partly to do with overconfidence. (cornwallis was a ****, I agree). Think on supply lines, availability of reinforcements from thousands of miles away etc. And I REALLY hope ur not getting ur examples from the patriot. It was no where near that heroic on the American side. Tarleton was not a brutal murderer. British soldiers were not that stupid or ill-disciplined. And there were a great number of colonilas who DIDN'T want to fight.[/QUOTE]

I was only quoting the north vietnamese regular army casualties the actuall north vietnamese casualties were much higher

and the not declaring war thing isn't a "childish outlook" congress has to officially declare war for us to use our full military power against a nation, so we've pretty much been fighting every war since the korean war with one hand tied behind our back

the patriot? god no I hated that movie, it was pretty much bravehart in colonial breeches with worse writting, I got that from things like your prime minister at the time saying that 4 or 5 friggates could take care of it without any military force, and you lost for a lot of reasons we had knowledge of the terrain, more supplies, washington wasn't a "****", and when you were fighting local units (not affiliated with the continental army) your forces kept trying to fight like you were in open fields in europe (forming lines and such), and by the end of the war most people did want to rebel

[Major V1125]

lol another debate...XD

[Coela Bellatore]

I'm not going to be a part of this one.