Infantry Weapons

[RubberJesus]

im all for american militarism and all but to be honest several people from around the world have said that the british military is the best trained on the planet. thats the reaspon we dont have many friendly fires. want proof?

there's a lot of factors that go into friendly fire, training being the least of them, I would say a large number of friendly fire incidents represents a lack of a good communications system not lack of training

back when britich empire was in its prime we had a very few troops all of the were very elitely trained. how do i know this to be fact? we conquered 1/3 of world. france and germany had much larger militaries. into the millions. in WW1 (schleiffan plan) germany invaded berlin and due to the treaty of London britain sent in 100 toops to defend it (our most elite at that time) and germany were beaten badly due to the sheer training of our troops. in WW" while most of Europ had been conquered we had not. we fought their troops of on our own. we defeated them in battle of britain.

I hate to rain on your parade but didn't you get dominated by a bunch of farmers with pitchforks when you were in your prime, and again in africa by a bunch of zulu tribesmen with leather shields and spears?

and by the way A,erica has a much better weapon than we do. its called the P-90

the P-90 is a belgian weapon which no branch of the U.S. military uses, I think the secret service uses them but that's about it, we do have a very good weapon in the m4 tho

[Coela Bellatore]

..........what? Next time u say 'want proof?',
If u take it ratio, mate, we have most of our active combat troops out there at any given time. And we send out line infantry, we send out SF, we send out RMC, we send out territorials too. It's not just our 'very best' that get sent out.
And ever heard of quailty over quantity? Worked against Napoleaons mob. Worked against the Russians. Seemed to work against the Kaiser's Germany, too. The Argies. See a pattern?

There are a lot less territorials in Afghanistan than say Reserve or Guard, trust me, all I have seen here is SBS (at least I think that is what they were), Royal Marines, and some Scottish dudes. You can look it up here: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...tishForces.htm None of those look like territorials to me.

And for the quality thing: At Trafalgar you outnumbered Napoleon's fleet, Waterloo you along with the Prussians outnumbered Napoleon again, in the Crimean War you also outnumbered the Russians in your coalition with France and Turkey. In WWII the Allies also massively outnumber the axis to the point of over 10:1. Even during the invasion of France it was 1:1 France vs Germany and with the additional British forces also meant that the Axis was outnumbered and still pushed you back to Dunkirk.

There are many times that the British Armed Forces have demonstrated quality over quantity but all the battles and wars you listed are not those occasions.

[RubberJesus]

there's more to a military than having good ground forces btw

[Major V1125]

there's a lot of factors that go into friendly fire, training being the least of them, I would say a large number of friendly fire incidents represents a lack of a good communications system not lack of training

the P-90 is a belgian weapon which no branch of the U.S. military uses, I think the secret service uses them but that's about it, we do have a very good weapon in the m4 tho

yeah friendly fire is usually, at least 99%, the result of bad communication, the 1% is more likely because of a stray bullet.

yeah the P90 is used by the US Secret Service, replaced the UZI, and they do use the M4 but you would still see MP5A3s or MP5Ks still around them, along with R700 sniper rifles on the roof tops (seen one in DC, no lie XD) and Mossberg 500 12 gauge shottys as well.
yet i would say that we should replace the MP5 with the P90 since its more compact, more ammo, lighter, and fires 5.7x28mm armor piercing rounds compared to the 9mm pistol rounds. plus the range of the P90 is 0-200m while the MP5's range is 0-100m. so its obvious which is better, yet im still a fan of the MP5 regardless. rugged and reliable thats the way to go.

[Major V1125]

There are a lot less territorials in Afghanistan than say Reserve or Guard, trust me, all I have seen here is SBS (at least I think that is what they were), Royal Marines, and some Scottish dudes. You can look it up here: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...tishForces.htm None of those look like territorials to me.

And for the quality thing: At Trafalgar you outnumbered Napoleon's fleet, Waterloo you along with the Prussians outnumbered Napoleon again, in the Crimean War you also outnumbered the Russians in your coalition with France and Turkey. In WWII the Allies also massively outnumber the axis to the point of over 10:1. Even during the invasion of France it was 1:1 France vs Germany and with the additional British forces also meant that the Axis was outnumbered and still pushed you back to Dunkirk.

There are many times that the British Armed Forces have demonstrated quality over quantity but all the battles and wars you listed are not those occasions.

yeah true that, yet during WWII i would say that the Nazis had the edge since they had better equipment compared to the French and Brits, like in small arms, the French and Brits were evenly matched against the Nazis but their edge was that they had better armor support and artillery, Panzers just demolished the Allies' vintage WWI era tanks and early medium tanks, plus lack of anti tank weapons was a huge problem, you would only see the Allies with the standard bolt action rifle or Sten SMG, and the Nazis had the same practically, yet another factor was air power, the Nazis had better planes and tech than the Allies until the US came (yet the Battle for Britain was solely won by the Brits, good job)

[Womble]

yeah true that, yet during WWII i would say that the Nazis had the edge since they had better equipment compared to the French and Brits, like in small arms, the French and Brits were evenly matched against the Nazis but their edge was that they had better armor support and artillery, Panzers just demolished the Allies' vintage WWI era tanks and early medium tanks, plus lack of anti tank weapons was a huge problem, you would only see the Allies with the standard bolt action rifle or Sten SMG, and the Nazis had the same practically, yet another factor was air power, the Nazis had better planes and tech than the Allies until the US came (yet the Battle for Britain was solely won by the Brits, good job)

Rubbish.

The German army at the beginning of World war II was nothing special by the European standards. Their tanks were good, but not that good. Their later designs were... well, a little too late, and they were not spectacular either. The Panther is hugely overrated; it had great armor and one of the best anti-tank cannons produced during the war (second only to the Russian SU-100 tank destroyer), but it tended to develop major mobility issues over time (the wheels were too thin for the tank's weight and would become deformed during long cross-country driving), its engine was way too flammable and ridiculously expensive to manufacture. The Tigers were all but invincible to Shermans and T34 when they first appeared, but they did a very good job in defeating themselves. They were too heavy for most bridges, they couldn't cross rivers, they sunk into mud when it was raining, they had endless mechanical reliability troubles (mainly because of the huge weight) and they were a major pain to transport. A typical Tiger had two sets of tracks- the wide ones on which it moved under its own power but with which it wouldn't fit onto a train platform, and the narrow ones on which it fitted onto the train but on which it would sink into the ground. Which is why each Tiger had to have three trucks attached to it: one for each track and one with a crane to lift them. Tiger II was heavier still, while using the same engine- which means it was slower, even less reliable and way too fuel-hungry. The pinnacle of German engineering was the tank destroyer called Ferdinand (a.k.a. Elephant)- a 70 ton monstrosity which was near-invulnerable, could destroy any Allied tank from very long distances... and couldn't get to the actual fighting because they broke down every few hundred meters and were too heavy for most roads, let alone bridges.
Contrary to popular belief, the Germans' main fighting vehicles throughout the war were not the Tigers and the Panthers, but the rather inferior Pz III and the StuG tank destroyers.

The French had pretty good tanks in 1939; the Somua S35 were easily a match for the PzIII- the best the Germans had at the time. Their main problems were mechanical reliability and production cost. The British Matilda tanks were slow, but powerful and extremely well armored. The Germans themselves actually used a lot of captured Matildas. The Valentine tanks were pretty good (pity about the weak cannons), and the Churchills were adequate.

The Russians were the real kings of tank production though. Their tanks were light years ahead of anything anybody else in the world had; the KV series were all but invincible to German tanks and anti-tank artillery and carried incredibly powerful guns for their time; German generals in 1941 actually refused to believe the reports about captured KV II tanks with their 100mm armor (originally intended for Navy cruisers) and 152mm howitzers. On one occasion in 1941, a single KV I tank managed to halt the advance of an entire German tank army for 24 hours, because they had nothing with which to penetrate this monster's armor, and had to wait for the 88mm anti-aircraft guns to be delivered and deployed. Russian tank destroyers were easily the best. The SU-100 could kill absolutely everything anyone in the world had, even a Ferdinand (with a side hit, not front), which is why it was nicknamed "F....n end to everything". SU-152 was fitted with a huge cannon originally intended as a primary weapon for Navy cruisers; their shells packed so much power that it didn't really matter if they penetrated the German tanks' armor, the sheer force of impact would kill the crew inside every time.

[Stewart5]

I hate to rain on your parade but didn't you get dominated by a bunch of farmers with pitchforks when you were in your prime, and again in africa by a bunch of zulu tribesmen with leather shields and spears?

Oh, the hypicorsay is rife.

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. The boers signed a peace treaty the first time round, even though they were winning, and ended that one, and during the 2nd boer war i think you'll find we won. During our prime we gubbed the egyptians, the russians, the french, the chinese, the sudan....need I go on?

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.

There are a lot less territorials in Afghanistan than say Reserve or Guard, trust me, all I have seen here is SBS (at least I think that is what they were), Royal Marines, and some Scottish dudes. You can look it up here: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Fa...tishForces.htm None of those look like territorials to me.

And for the quality thing: At Trafalgar you outnumbered Napoleon's fleet, Waterloo you along with the Prussians outnumbered Napoleon again, in the Crimean War you also outnumbered the Russians in your coalition with France and Turkey. In WWII the Allies also massively outnumber the axis to the point of over 10:1. Even during the invasion of France it was 1:1 France vs Germany and with the additional British forces also meant that the Axis was outnumbered and still pushed you back to Dunkirk.

There are many times that the British Armed Forces have demonstrated quality over quantity but all the battles and wars you listed are not those occasions.

wow, the bulls**t is so bad I can smell it all the way over here.
Dude, a large part of the RMC ARE reservists. I know, my mates that I train with volunteered. Our drivers, medics, cook, doctors etc are largerly all territorials. See, the territorials don't always form their own units, but are affiliated with their regular unit and so serve with them. The territorials are not our only reservists. Know what your talking about.

At trafalgar it was 27 ships of the line against their 33, and many of their were much larger. they also had more escorts, and they had us up against the rake for an hour before we could engage.
That's funny, because we didn't fight alongside the Prussians until after 5pm that evening after fighting all alone. And WE didn't outnumber them. The dutch belgians, who had just fought FOR him, were on our side, and many of their units quit the field en mass. ooops, wrong again, eh?
The French and the Turkish did not provide large numbers of troops at the same time, and the main victories were presided over by large British forces.
And when did ANYONE outnumber Russia????? Except MAYBE the chinese.

All the example you just sighted were when Britian was part of a coalition that made the force large, not a LARGE BRITISH force. Would you like me to repeat my post again?

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.

Burma, Mylasia, indonesia during the 60's? Check up on that for me, eh?

[Womble]

And when did ANYONE outnumber Russia????? Except MAYBE the chinese.

The Russian army was outnumbered in the Crimean war. There was roughly 1 million soldiers in the combined British-French-Turkish forces versus 700 000 Russian soldiers. The Russian Navy was certainly greatly outnumbered (the Brits, French and Turks had amassed the largest fleet since the Napoleonic wars), although the Russian invention of naval mining helped balance things out.

The British infantry training wasn't much of an advantage in Crimea, though. The Russian technological inferiority played a far greater role.

[Stewart5]

The Russian army was outnumbered in the Crimean war. There was roughly 1 million soldiers in the combined British-French-Turkish forces versus 700 000 Russian soldiers. The Russian Navy was certainly greatly outnumbered (the Brits, French and Turks had amassed the largest fleet since the Napoleonic wars), although the Russian invention of naval mining helped balance things out.

The British infantry training wasn't much of an advantage in Crimea, though. The Russian technological inferiority played a far greater role.

The British still bore the brunt of the fighting. and we had to put up with the most stupid field commanders, too.

[Coela Bellatore]

The British still bore the brunt of the fighting. and we had to put up with the most stupid field commanders, too.

I think you just kind of dissed yourself there.


Anyway back on INFANTRY WEAPONS, I find that firearms seem to have a massive advantage over the Jaffa energy weapons. I never got why they didn't just bring along some bigger firepower and then they could have pwned any substantial Jaffa force instead of having to run around and hide.

Burma, Mylasia, indonesia during the 60's? Check up on that for me,

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

[Commander Aegir]

I think you just kind of dissed yourself there.


Anyway back on INFANTRY WEAPONS, I find that firearms seem to have a massive advantage over the Jaffa energy weapons. I never got why they didn't just bring along some bigger firepower and then they could have pwned any substantial Jaffa force instead of having to run around and hide.

What i find odd is that they went from the 9mm round in the MP5 to the 5.7mm round in the P90. I mean they eventually solved that by employing the G36, granted the P90 gave better magazine capacity but they needed to go bigger straight away.

[Coela Bellatore]

What i find odd is that they went from the 9mm round in the MP5 to the 5.7mm round in the P90. I mean they eventually solved that by employing the G36, granted the P90 gave better magazine capacity but they needed to go bigger straight away.

The P-90 round is actually better than the 9mm as it is more of a small rifle round than a pistol one.



9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, 5.7mm, 5.56 NATO, 300 Winchester Magnum and two sizes of 12gauge.

The 5.7 has a lot more penetration ability but a lot less stopping power than a 9mm. A GROM member told me that he once hit a guy with like 10 rounds from a P90 and the tango kept firing on them for about a minute. Later they found the guys body and he had bled out like 2 minutes after being shot.

[Commander Aegir]

The P-90 round is actually better than the 9mm as it is more of a small rifle round than a pistol one.



9mm, 40S&W, 45ACP, 5.7mm, 5.56 NATO, 300 Winchester Magnum and two sizes of 12gauge.

The 5.7 has a lot more penetration ability but a lot less stopping power than a 9mm. A GROM member told me that he once hit a guy with like 10 rounds from a P90 and the tango kept firing on them for about a minute. Later they found the guys body and he had bled out like 2 minutes after being shot.

Jeez thats the reason a lot of Delta Force snipers kept using the M14 as opposed to the M16 as their targets just kept running after being hit by the M16 round. They wouldn't keep running after being hit by the M14 round thats for sure.

[Coela Bellatore]

Jeez thats the reason a lot of Delta Force snipers kept using the M14 as opposed to the M16 as their targets just kept running after being hit by the M16 round. They wouldn't keep running after being hit by the M14 round thats for sure.

Well its more than that, the 7.62x51mm is just a bigger round than the 5.56x45mm. It has more muzzle energy which translates to more stopping power, effective range, recoil, etc. But the 5.7mm has about the same recoil as the 9mm but goes through things a lot easier. The 9mm head is rounded so it smacks and tears through flesh. The 5.7 just slices right through flesh making the shock a lot less and meaning that the person who has been shot feels the wound less. The 5.7 is very good against body armor however, which the 9mm is not.

In brief:

5.7mm -more damage.

9mm - more felt damage.

And I'm getting in a M14 to make into an DMR for funzies

[Major V1125]

Well its more than that, the 7.62x51mm is just a bigger round than the 5.56x45mm. It has more muzzle energy which translates to more stopping power, effective range, recoil, etc. But the 5.7mm has about the same recoil as the 9mm but goes through things a lot easier. The 9mm head is rounded so it smacks and tears through flesh. The 5.7 just slices right through flesh making the shock a lot less and meaning that the person who has been shot feels the wound less. The 5.7 is very good against body armor however, which the 9mm is not.

In brief:

5.7mm -more damage.

9mm - more felt damage.

And I'm getting in a M14 to make into an DMR for funzies

yeah the 7.62x51mm does more damage than the 5.56x45mm thats why the 5.56x45mm might be replaced by either 6.8x43mm or 6.5x39mm. smaller than the 7.62 but has better stopping power than the 5.56mm. actually the 5.7mm has more range than the 9mm and more energy than the 9mm, plus less recoil than the 9mm. if you have ever fired a .22 pistol or rifle, you'll notice barely any recoil similar to the 5.7mm but if you fired a 9mm then you would see a slight nudge, small recoil. and FN claims that the 5.7mm has half the recoil of a 9mm. but if i were to choose what i would pack; an M9 or FN Five-seveN, FN all the way, 20 rounds of 5.7mm compared to the 15 rounds, a a slightly longer range (by 5m can make a difference) plus its compact and reliable. plus would you choose a MP5 or P90? the MP5 holds 30 9mm rounds and has a max range of 150m compared to the P90, which has 50 5.7mm and has a max range of 200m! plus the 5.7mm penetrates armor which the 9mm cant do ever, no matter how many rounds you can put in the vest. aim for the center mass, lung, heart, throat, whichever with a 5.7mm is just as devastating as a 9mm to those areas, yet they can be covered by kevlar etc etc so use the 5.7mm to pierce the kevlar etc etc

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