Hazard, your beloved 7.62mm couldn't go through US helmet!! [Archive]

Anti communist

11th April 2003, 05:55

CheCk out the stuff you said the other day about 7.62 x 39mm Russian vs 5.56MM Nato in the link below.

I just saw on Fox news where they interviewed a Marine who was hit squarely on the top of the helmet by a Russian 7.62mm round and it didn't penetrate. It made a good dent and that's it. He said it felt like being hit with a bat on the helmet. I would say that's accurate and the 5.56mm would have felt the same. The 5.56mm weighs less than the 7.62mm but it's traveling at 3100fps vs 2300 fps for the 7.62mm so the energy delivered is only a little more on the 7.62mm even though the 7.62mm bullet weighs twice as much. So your beloved Russian design isn't so great. The Americans have helmets and flack jackets that will stop the round.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=22&topic=2105 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2105)

Chiak47

11th April 2003, 05:59

Here is another....

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,3010...2276106,00.html (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12276106,00.html)

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1135271.jpg

A Royal Marine Commando who was shot in the head four times has lived to tell the tale of his lucky escape.

Eric Walderman's life was saved by his tough Kevlar helmet after he was caught in enemy gun sights during a savage firefight in Umm Qasr.

The four bullets ripped through the outer camouflage of the 25-year-olds' standard-issue helmet but were stopped by the ultra-tough protective Kevlar shell.

Just an inch lower and the father-of-one could have joined the list of British casualties.

His relieved partner, Lindsey Robinson, 25, at home with their son, Danny, two, said: "I can't believe it. He is so lucky to be alive. He's the luckiest man out there. I'm just so glad he's still alive."

Marine Walderman is part of 40 Commando's Alpha Company.

The former welder accomplished a life-long ambition by joining the Marines three years ago.

After 30 weeks training, he passed out on March 27, 2000, receiving the famous green beret.

He was also awarded the Commando Medal, the second highest commendation for new Marines, for being an outstanding new recruit.

He went to the Gulf on January 15.

Kevlar: The Facts

Kevlar is a polymer plastic fibre and was developed and manufactured by US firm DuPont in the mid-1960s.

Helmets made of Kevlar are 25%-40% more resistant to projectiles than their steel predecessors of equal weight.

Underwater, Kevlar is 20 times stronger than steel.

Kevlar body vests and helmets have saved the lives of more than 2,700 police and prison officers in the US alone, its manufacturers claim - and they have their own Kevlar Survivors Club.

Kevlar military helmets replaced the "steel pot" helmet in the late 1970s.

Scientists still do not know fully why Kevlar is so strong but believe it is because of its molecular composition.

Chiak47

11th April 2003, 06:08

All,

Thats why Red Russia got rid of the 7.62x39 (ak47)and went for the 5.45x39mm (ak74)...Not saying 5.45 or the 5.56 would not have the same results as above but at the FPS they achieve there might have been a chance..

Thanks,
Eric

Anti communist

11th April 2003, 06:13

Besides being great warriors, the US and UK are the best trained and best equiped soldiers in the world (the US comes in first with the UK closely behind).

And Hazard is so stupid that he says something like: "you guys need to wear a bullet proof vests because the Russian ak47is a superior weapon". Wrong!!! They wear that stuff and kevlar helmets because it saves lives and it's available to them because our gov't can afford it dude!!!!! But the commies are so miserable that they can barely afford to feed their soldiers and provide them with ammo. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

(Edited by Anti communist at 6:14 am on April 11, 2003)

Chiak47

11th April 2003, 06:36

Anti,

These kind of threads never get any commie replys.They are afraid of firearms and war.
But yet they praise a man who was known for shooting defectors in the back and mass executions.

Thanks,
Truth

Anarcho

11th April 2003, 09:12

I'm sure that Russian and Chinese forces have a similar amout of defensve protection.

I'm sure their helmets are just as effective at deflecting NATO spec. rounds.

Charred Phoenix

11th April 2003, 09:22

The real reason you never get replies is because these threads say nothing important.

ÑóẊîöŉ

11th April 2003, 09:35

Quote: from Anti communist on 6:13 am on April 11, 2003
Besides being great warriors, the US and UK are the best trained and best equiped soldiers in the world (the US comes in first with the UK closely behind).

Excuse me? actually the UK have the best trained soldiers you fool. you yanks just have the best toys, at least the British know how to use their equipment.

(Edited by NoXion at 9:36 am on April 11, 2003)

Dhul Fiqar

11th April 2003, 10:18

Quote: from Chiak47 on 2:36 pm on April 11, 2003
Anti,

These kind of threads never get any commie replys.They are afraid of firearms and war.
But yet they praise a man who was known for shooting defectors in the back and mass executions.

Thanks,
Truth

Who was that, Ariel Sharon? Oliver North? ;)

--- G.

BRIN

11th April 2003, 11:20

M-3 assault riffles might be more accurate but they are a ***** to clean compaired to the simple yet durable ak47.Ak's also way less have a faster fireing rate.They also don't have those stupid granade launcher attachments instead ak's have a rpg which you just put in the barrel and fire away alot better range than the crap yankee attachment alot lighter too and you can also take it out any time

Yankee soliders good warriors BULL SHIT!!!,ask any non american vietnam or world war 2 veteran and they will tell you how stupid how un-deciplined how anoying and how useless they realy are.the only reason they win wars is the air and navy support

Invader Zim

11th April 2003, 11:32

Quote: from Anti communist on 6:13 am on April 11, 2003
Besides being great warriors, the US and UK are the best trained and best equiped soldiers in the world (the US comes in first with the UK closely behind).

(Edited by Anti communist at 6:14 am on April 11, 2003)

Actually thats inncorrect. The most highly trainded specialil forces unit belongs to the Israeli army. The second most highly trained is the British SAS/SBS.

In terms of standard military training of standard Soldiers, the most highly trained are the British forces, who undergo more training than the US Rangers who are considered elite.

Anarcho

11th April 2003, 12:06

Brin, I hate to disagree with you on this, but you're wrong. Yes, traditionally the US Army does not stand on formality as much as other nations, but they have always been an effective fighting force when deployed in the field. Particularly in Vietnam... in every stand up engagement with NVA regulars, the US Army won. For every KIA suffered by the US, the Viet Cong and NVA had 10. Vietnam was a situation where the US won the battles, and still lost the war.

And air power and naval power are just as much an integral part of projection of force as the ground army. To discount them is blinding, and foolish.

Invader Zim

11th April 2003, 12:14

Quote: from Anarcho on 12:06 pm on April 11, 2003
Brin, I hate to disagree with you on this, but you're wrong. Yes, traditionally the US Army does not stand on formality as much as other nations, but they have always been an effective fighting force when deployed in the field. Particularly in Vietnam... in every stand up engagement with NVA regulars, the US Army won. For every KIA suffered by the US, the Viet Cong and NVA had 10. Vietnam was a situation where the US won the battles, and still lost the war.

And air power and naval power are just as much an integral part of projection of force as the ground army. To discount them is blinding, and foolish.

Does not alter the fact that the US army has gained a reputation as being Gung-Ho and undisiplined. They generaly think they are the best but they still have former SAS members teaching there Special forces.

Anarcho

11th April 2003, 12:23

True. And Seals teaching SAS and GSG9.

Each nation has it's own specialty. Amongst special forces, there is a lot of overlap, but each group can teach a little bit to each other.

Example, when the US was revamping it's Urban Combat training after Somalia, they used Israeli specialists as advisors, because nobody knows more about Urban Combat these days than the IDF.

The only thing that the average US soldier has over the vast majority of other soldiers on the field lies in technical training. Since the US is a modern, electical and microchip run military, the average footsoldier gets quite a bit of training in supporting and running computer systems and similar technical training.

BRIN

11th April 2003, 12:42

Anarcho true but i'm from austalia and i've talked to quite a few veterans and they have some quite convincing tales of american stupidity like they would put white packets of ciggerettes on theyre helmets they would carry the m-60 facing backwards fully loaded in theyre mates face they would napalm,bomb and agent orange the frontline if the americans found it hard ,so the aussies would cop napalm because of the yanks whineing i could go on forever but thats supidity

As for undicipled they don't shut up so theyre heared from far away they eat ice cream so the viet-cong poisoned it they make huge camp fires and play guitar so the enemy can hear them and slit thier thraots.they also have a habit of fragging the 'sarge'

Useless as in they skull jungle juice and get sick they are also constantly *****ing and boasting

and for your statement the nva had alot of old people women and children .They also where suvearly
un-equiped due to the bombing of the nva supply roots and convoys.Also shooting people is also alot easier if they are staving, have little to no ammo and are napalmed agent oranged and bombed by the air force and navy

Chiak47

11th April 2003, 13:20

BRIN SAYS...
M-3 assault riffles might be more accurate but they are a ***** to clean compaired to the simple yet durable ak47.Ak's also way less have a faster fireing rate.They also don't have those stupid granade launcher attachments instead ak's have a rpg which you just put in the barrel and fire away alot better range than the crap yankee attachment alot lighter too and you can also take it out any time

Brin,

M-3?You mean M-4..I'm sure..Have you ever cleaned one or are you going off what you heard on TV?I have access to one if you want to come over and clean it.
Ak's have a cylic rate of fire from 600-800 rpm...Not fast enough?Thats too fast..Conserve ammo...

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/images/0971.jpg

No grenade attachment huh???Your credibility is for shit...

Go back to the operation flashpoint forums and learn what a fake ak can do and leave the real shit alone...
In other words...
If you never had slap finger from a AK then I suggest you STFU...

Can private citizens even OWN firearms down under?

Thanks,
Locked on loaded

Anti communist

11th April 2003, 16:29

The kill ratio in Vietnam was 20 to 1 not 10 to 1. In 1995 the VIetnamese gov't publicly released the figures. They admitted 1.1 million dead to our 58k dead.

As far as the grenade launcher on the m16, I think it has a range of 200 or 300 meters if I'm not mistaken. Chiak, do you know?

Chiak47

11th April 2003, 16:56

Anti,
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/walk/gen55/dgca/images/M4/M4W-M203.JPG

I don't know off hand the range for the m203-it's out there a bit.

I like how he said a RPG was a grenade you put on the barrel.A RPG is a russian bazooka.Shoulder launched.

The Grenade on the barrel is old shit.I think those were ousted when the SKS was still around.And they were used for anti-personel/soft targets.A RPG is anti tank/hard targets.

He has no credibility and I really hope he does not have a chance to spread his lies and "my friends dad's dad told me his friends heard American's....BLAH BLAH BLAH"

I'm no expert by no means.I just come from a LARGE gun family.

Invader Zim

11th April 2003, 17:26

M16 is a good weapon... No-one denys this. However many soldiers complain that because of the gernade launcher you dont get the beyonnet fitting.

Sabocat

11th April 2003, 18:31

Chiak, I've fired an AK a couple of times. It's a fun gun. I heard someone say a long time ago that the AK was tested in realworld battlefield conditions before being released to the military. Is there any truth that they buried the thing in the sand, left it there for an indeterminate time, unburied it, blew it off and fired it? It certainly seems like a more durable gun than the M16. Also, didn't the M16 have troubles with jams? When it did was it because the reciever was made by Harrington Richardson or Springfield and had bad machining and thats why Colt took it over?

God, I don't think you could pull that off with an M4 could you? I've shot a couple of those as well, and to me it felt like a toy in comparison. I like the M14 much better although it is a bit heavier. Gotta love the .308 round though.

Anti communist

11th April 2003, 19:08

The grenade being shot from the barrel used to be done with the M1 Garand, maybe the m14 also, I don't know. I think they put a special attachment on the end of the barrel, put a grenade on that, load a blank rd and fire it.

The M16 had jamming problems in Vietnam when they first came out. I think they issued no cleaning kits or the wrong cleaning kits, and I think I heard that the powder in the original ammo wasn't as clean burning as later ammo. While it was still smokeless powder, it wasn't the cleanest, leaving some residue. They worked the bugs out later.

I knew someone who was is the army and he said that in basic training, the drill seargent poured a handfull of sand into the receiver and chamber, released the bolt, and of course it didn't feed the rd all the way into the chamber (an ak47 wouldn't either). But he then removed the mag, ejected the cartridge quickly, emptied the sand from the receiver and chamber, squirted some oil in there, reattached the mag, released, the bolt and proceeded to empty the clip in full auto without a jam. This was yrs ago when they had full auto. Now they have tri burst. That shows how reliable it is. The point is that while all that would take some time to do in the heat of battle, it shows that it will take quite a bit of abuse, dirt and fouling before jamming, because you know that when he tipped the rifle to empty the sand out, there's still plenty that stays behind clinging to the oily metal. So all the sand wasn't removed but it still worked.

The ak47 has the reputation of being the most reliable assault weapon. That's probably correct. But it's because the tolerances on the parts are less tight than an m16. While this allows for more fouling and abuse before jamming, the down side is a less accurate rifle.

Chiak47

11th April 2003, 19:32

As far as the AK being tested in realworld battlefield conditions-what gun is not?
Kalashnikov was a brilliant man.He's a Simple man-still to this day but The first AK's were jammers just like the first M-16's.Remember the 47 was developed in 47.I believe the first R&D one was late 46.I'm sure someone knows the time.It did not even look like a 47 that we all know now.
It was fugly.
The AK was hidden away from the world till the commies moved into Hungary.Then it was introduced as the baddest mug on the Block.Again I can just say in the 50's sometime.So they had YEARS to fine tune it...

Eugene Stoner developed the M-16 and it was rushed through R&D in my opinion cause of the 47.We needed it on the field.

And as far as the sand test.I'm not sure.I guess it's like saying "I can wear these socks for 3 months without changing them"
But why?A rifleman knows how to take care of a rifle.

Disgustapated-I don't know the companies who made the first M-16's.If those are the names then I learned something.

They went back to the drawing board on the 47..
Thats why Russia switched to the 74 which is pictured with the Grenade Launcher.
Love the Bakelite..

BTW..Anti...Those grenades were old...M-1-M14...
LOL...That must have been fun to load all that onto the buisness end of a firearm in the heat of battle,then load a blank...WOOO...

Thanks,
Eric

Anti communist

11th April 2003, 19:53

Chiak, the sand test is just to prove that it's reliable, and give the recruits confidence in their rifle. Of course they have to take care of the rifle. But that test is just to prove if you're running accross the desert in Iraq, fall and your rifle is all covered with sand and the sand is clinging to the oil on the bolt carrier, you can bet it's still gonna work, don't waste time removing the mag, ejecting a rd while in a firefight, etc unless you have a lot of dirt or sand in there. Anyway, they should also have the dust cover closed in that sandy env to reduce the chances of that happening.

Iepilei

11th April 2003, 21:16

The sap living is complete luck, any round could have possibly penetrated the helmet. My guess is the 7.62 round used wasn't teflon-coated. Many modern bullets (non soviet-era) are, which is why they have a better tendancy to pierce kevlar jackets and the like.

Even if it was, many things are contributing factors. One instance of some shmuck getting saved is not the end-all-be-all of weapons design. Luck is luck.

Solzhenitsyn

11th April 2003, 23:42

"The sap living is complete luck, any round could have possibly penetrated the helmet. My guess is the 7.62 round used wasn't teflon-coated. Many modern bullets (non soviet-era) are, which is why they have a better tendancy to pierce kevlar jackets and the like."

The myth of the telflon coated bullet dies hard. Teflon is not used on any bullets in current production military or commercial. Teflon was used once on a special pistol round designed to keep their integrity when they hit hard surfaces like a car windshield. These bullets were very hard and tended to wear down the rifling on barrels very fast so the company, KTW, began coating them with teflon to reduce barrel wear. Teflon does not and cannot increase a particular bullet's penetration characteristics. Only increasing the result by modifing the variables of the physics equation: E = M * v will work. That means making the bullet heavier or speeding it up will work. Unfortunately, political opponents seized upon the idea of "cop killer" ammunition coated with teflon to penetrate ballistic vests depite the fact that the bullet's sole manufacturer, KTW, sold only to police. The idea is absurd.

As far as AK vs. M-16, my experience with the M-16A2 has been totally negative. After about 70 rounds with a M-16 without cleaning, performance and reliability begin to degrade seriously. Double feeds and extraction failures are very common. Much of it has to do with the horribly designed magazines. This was supposed to be corrected when the A2 replaced the A1, but the government decided against replacing existing stocks of magazines. The direct diversion of gas on the bolt face isn't smart given the rifle's tight manufacturing tolerances. When the M-16 works it's phenomenally accurate.

The AK is an excellent rifle for mechanized forces. It can take insane amounts of punishment and still function. Not nearly as accurate a platform than the M-16 but much more reliable and requires a lot less maintainance than the M-16.

The German G-3 (G-36) series is light years ahead of both. The delayed blowback operating principle is much more reliable than AR's yet still manufactured to acheive M-16 levels of accuracy. The Germans always seem to have better weapon designers.

Iepilei

12th April 2003, 00:00

very intresting, I had always heard about the teflon coated rounds - good to see some light shed on them though.

I do agree, however, in the german weapon superiority. I would put my faith in almost anything Heckler & Koch designed.

Anti communist

12th April 2003, 00:27

If the round that hit that helmet had been steel cored, it would have penetrated. I don't know if any 7.62 x 39 Russ is or was made with a steel core. I know that some 5.56 is made with a steel core and is used by the military. I think it's called s109.

Solzhenitsyn, as far as your horrible experience with an m16, it has to be the exception rather than the rule. I think if it was THAT BAD, the US would have switched to another design by now or even gone back to the m14 which is extremely reliable also.

As I said before, the Ak47's reputation as the most reliable assault rifle is probably well deserved but the accuracy is not as good as the m16.

In dcm/cmp servcice rifle matches, the prefered rifle now is a Bushmaster ar15 (m16 civilian ver, no auto fire). Yrs ago it was an m14/m1a. The ar15's accuracy in a match service rifle configuration is probably unsurpassed by any other military rifle. Those rifles easily achieve syb moa accuracy.

As far as H&K, they make some really great hdw.

hazard

12th April 2003, 01:40

worm and chunk:

sorry i left you crappies hnging for so long, but I WAS BUSY

the original post that stated that some marine got hit "squarley". who said it was a "square" hit? wtf is a square hit?

so, worm, where exactly is the square of the helmet? I would think that the helmet square would be directly on top. that would be dead centre. and believe u me, if there was a square hit with a 7.62 that didn't penetrate, it probably went through a building or a tank or something. too little information, too much time.

GOD BLESS THE AK47!!! THE BELOVED WEAPON OF THE BLESSED COMMUNIST SOLDIERS OF FREEDOM WORLDWIDE!!!

(Edited by hazard at 2:29 pm on April 12, 2003)

Chiak47

12th April 2003, 01:48

It was a slant hit.It went on a angle.4 shots though.He is a lucky SOB.I'd save that helmet and tell my grand children about it.It saved him alot of hurt forsure.
http://www.izu.co.jp/~fal/cg/g3a4.jpg
G-3's are nice..Catme's and FAL's..I like .308 FAL's myself.I seen pic's of CHE with a FAL.They can be had for around $299 here in the states.
But feeding them is expensive.

I believe all soviet ammo is non corrosive steel core.Remember HP is illegal under the Geneva Conventions.So FMJ is what it had too be.

Teflon in over rated.Hollywood myth.

Anti communist

12th April 2003, 01:50

Since you're so dumb, I used square instead of perpendicular. It was on top of the helmet. He must have been hunched over and it hit him on the top of the helmet which must have been facing the enemy. I saw the helmet on Fox News Channel this morning.

hazard

12th April 2003, 02:06

even in the realm of fake news, FOX is faker than fake. its made up. as for proof of weapon inferiority, give it up. u don't know where that bullet came from. was it a mile away? was it defelcted? did it pass through something else? and even if ballistics tests were done to determine that it had been shot below 500 metres and wasn't deflected and didn't pass through anything, I still wouldn't believe it. not because I'm dumb, but because I know better. there's no way a "square" shot would not pass through a helmet. I don't care what the experts at FOX say, because they are, well, they're liars.

Blibblob

12th April 2003, 02:14

What is with the great intrest in weapons anyways? They were invented to murder. Something I'm against right there.

hazard

12th April 2003, 02:18

I have no great interest in weapons. they do serve a purpose in guerrilla fighting, revolution and usurping the facism of the capitalists.

the point of this thread, I think, is proof of scientific and industrial superiority between capitalists and communists. I have been arguing that the soviet assault weapon is better than anything that any capitalist could come up with. this, by inference, helps to prove that communism is a better production mode than capitalism.

suffianr

12th April 2003, 02:20

Well, three entire pages devoted to the subject of a bullet-ridden helmet. And the lucky fellow who wore it. It's really good to know that everyone here realizes the importance of whether or not 7.62 rounds can penetrate helmets. A truly significant discussion here. Loved the pics, too. :cheesy:

Blibblob

12th April 2003, 02:25

I agree with suffianr...

hazard

12th April 2003, 02:27

just like all other aspects of american propaganda, every crapitalist would love to believe that IF they were shot in the head, er, helemt by a 7.62 mm round, they would survive. not true. basic manipulation of facts that is necessary for the free enterprize press to enforce their exploitation of the working class.

is it really news if a marine had his head blown off by a 7.62mm round? it must have happened tens of thousands of times since korea. no news reports. its only news if by sheer, blind, dumb luck the sap lives to tell about it. the shot was probably fired from ten kilometres away, he was more lucky to have been hit at all.

Blibblob

12th April 2003, 02:41

"crapitalist" Dude, that is a little purile. Don't stoop to their level. "he was more lucky to have been hit at all." He probably did get a headache.

And Hazard makes a point, how far away was he shot? I mean, I could take a sniper rifle from a VERY large distance, and the helmet could stop it.

And I still don't understand how a good weapon shows the better production of a country. All it shows is that they make tools for death.

hazard

12th April 2003, 02:44

well, considering this is a site about a great communist revolutionary guerrilla fighter, one must assume that violence can serve a use. most importantly, that use is to wrestle away the death grip the ruling class has upon their precious private property.

whats wrong with "crapitalist"? think "sapitalist" is better? what about 'fat capitalist". or my favorite - pigs.

(Edited by hazard at 2:49 pm on April 12, 2003)

Blibblob

12th April 2003, 02:52

Stick with swine man. "communist revolutionary guerrilla fighter" who hated war.

hazard

12th April 2003, 03:02

good point. although I think che could be better qualified as hating war conducted for no reason. and there is no worse war than a capitlist war fought for money or against communism. I mean, otherwise, he wouldn't have left cuba to go fight ANOTHER war for chile or whoever.

Blibblob

12th April 2003, 03:05

"and there is no worse war than a capitlist war fought for money or against communism." And it could be argued that there is nothing worse than a war against capitalism. But, yeah, war for mula is retarded.

hazard

12th April 2003, 03:34

for me, a war against capitalism is a just war. only because capitalism is a system that functions upon the concept of exploitation. to fight capitalism is to fight against slavery.

Anti communist

12th April 2003, 03:57

Hazard, I was just busting your chops dude. Fox reported this and they showed the helmet. It hit almost squarely on the top and it was dented but I don't think they mentioned how far the enemy was, and of course there's always a chance it did get deflected, etc. I think that's still a good advertisement to wear kevlar helmets and body armor. If he wasn't wearing that helmet or if he had a regular metal one, it would have gone through even if it was deflected 2 or 3 times and the guy would be dead right now. Instead, he has a great fucking war story for his grand kids.

Chiak, I was very surprised to learn that a kevlar helmet would stop a high power rifle rd if hit squarely like that. By the way you and I were talking about 2 diff guys. Your guy got hit 4 times, mine got hit once and it was pretty square.

Anyway, so we can settle this once and for all and for all, and since you seem to be so great at getting these pictures and links to guns, do you think you can find something showing what these helmets that are being used in Iraq can withstand as far as high power rifle shot, or only hand gun shot, also if squarely hit or only on an angle? I'll look too.

Chiak47

12th April 2003, 04:01

Anti,

I realized that after I posted my first post..
I seen the helmet you were talking about.It was a direct hit.I did not mean to step on your toes...

Thanks,
Eric

Anti communist

12th April 2003, 04:16

No problem my brother. I didn't take it that way.

hazard

12th April 2003, 04:34

I hate to break in between the gratuitous ass patting goin on here, but what you call "fucking great war story" i call fucking piggish propaganda. ignore all of the facts and manipulate what little truth the public is allowed acces to.

worm:
u admit now that very important details are being left out of the report. I now understand that the original article, used by fox, had nothing to do with arguing that the ak47 was unable to penetrate a capitalist helmet. obviously. why did u then try and warp it into an argument agianst what is clearly an amazing weapon used worldwide by all communist, communist allied and anti-capitalist forces? as far as informaion manipulation goes, stick to what you're good at. what are u good at again? oh yeah, gratuitous ass patting. u and chunk enjoy that.

Chiak47

12th April 2003, 04:46

http://www.nlectc.org/justnetnews/11162000...00.html#story14 (http://www.nlectc.org/justnetnews/11162000.html#story14)

"Survival Instinct Spurred Bulletproof Vest Inventor"
Reuters (11/02/00); MacIntosh, Julie

Richard Davis invented concealable bulletproof vests made of Dupont Kevlar and similar lightweight materials after an attempted robbery left him with gunshot wounds to the head and leg. When his pizzeria burned down, he took $70 in startup capital and began sewing bulletproof vests out of ballistic nylon and pitching them to police precincts, effectively starting his business Second Chance Body Armor. But police personnel were not convinced of the then-newfangled idea, so in 1972 he arranged for the first live product demonstration of his vest. Without an ambulance on hand, he had someone film him as he turned a handgun on himself, put it to his chest and pulled the trigger. It worked. Now Second Chance vests have a list of more than 800 "documented saves," more than any other body armor company in the world. The company's products have been used in the Gulf War and in guerilla activity in Africa and the Philippines. Second Chance currently grosses around $24 million annually.

Great Cappi intuition

Thanks,
Eric

hazard

12th April 2003, 04:49

great cappi stupidity

u mean to tell me it took some dude in a pizzeria to get shot to come upwith the idea of body armour? how many cops get shot and killed in an average city a day? i heard it was something like five. none of these guys can come up with an idea to make lightweight armour. come on. you're bragging about blind stupidity.

Anarcho

12th April 2003, 09:21

Nice.

Hazard, there are fundamentalist forces all over the world that are using AK's. Drug gangs in the US and South America. Using the AK's to kill police and farmers, to further their own drug monopolies.

The Sov-Union, and now China and other former Eastern Bloc countries mass produce the AK to sell, cheaply, to anyone who wants one.

Is the AK a good field weapon? -yes
Is the AK better than an M16? -undetermined
IS the AK a weapon of communist revolution? -no, not anymore.

Open your eyes a bit, and look beyond the agitprop of the remains of the ComIntern. Even the good guys get blinded by their own propaganda sometimes.

Invader Zim

12th April 2003, 14:02

Tis post seems to have disintegrated, into petty facts about shitty Assault rifles

Anti communist

12th April 2003, 16:06

Hazard you are the BIGGEST IDIOT!!! How do conclude that a great war story like the helmet one being told to your grand kids is propaganda? What if the Iraqis were telling a similar story to their grand kids, would it still be propaganda?

Hazaed said:
worm:
u admit now that very important details are being left out of the report. I now understand that the original article, used by fox, had nothing to do with arguing that the ak47 was unable to penetrate a capitalist helmet. obviously. why did u then try and warp it into an argument agianst what is clearly an amazing weapon used worldwide by all communist, communist allied and anti-capitalist forces? as far as informaion manipulation goes, stick to what you're good at. what are u good at again? oh yeah, gratuitous ass patting. u and chunk enjoy that.

Like you commies never congradulated each other here? I've seen a lot of commie on commie ass kissing on this site. Hey, do you remember the military parades in the Soviet Union and even still in N Korea? Did you notice how many medals those officers always have and how big they are? That's the old commie system of always rewarding someone to make them feel better about themselves and to make them get in line with the program, not because they did anything good. I think they even have a medal for ass kissing!!!! Anyway, as I was saying before, I was just busting your chops in an attempt to piss you off, so your blood preassure would go up, and you'd croack. That would be 1 less commie in the world.

Anyway, the one I was talking about was a live report from Baghdad not an article. The reporter was reporting the latest developments, etc, and then he called the guy who got hit in the helmet over and showed the helmet and interviewed him briefly. The reporter said it hit squarely on top and it definitely looked like it. I forget if they specificly mentioned an ak47 or the caliber but they did say it was from enemy fire (so you know it was an ak47) and he said it felt like he got hit in the head by a baseball bat and that sounds like exactly what you would feel if you got hit by a bullet that didn't penetrate.

Also, you're splitting hairs. Here's what you said: I now understand that the original article, used by fox, had nothing to do with arguing that the ak47 was unable to penetrate a capitalist helmet.

Of course the story wasn't about that. It was a live report about war developments and they interviewed the guy briefly as I said above as a side note. I used that info to start this new thread because I knew all the garbage you were talking about the ak47 in another thread. So take a chill pill and try to figure out when you're being ribbed dopey.

(Edited by Anti communist at 4:11 pm on April 12, 2003)

Iepilei

12th April 2003, 18:25

My favorite of the G3 series would have to be the G36K or 6C (compact)

http://www.hkpro.com/image/g36ccomparison.jpg

I've only seen pictures and small bits on the Chinese Type97, anyone had any experience with one?

hazard

13th April 2003, 01:40

So take a chill pill and try to figure out when you're being ribbed dopey.

sure thing worm. just tell me when so I don't miss it

Anti communist

13th April 2003, 02:30

OTAY Spanky!!!

hazard

13th April 2003, 02:40

worm, please. the MODS have requested that such antagonizing and ridiculous behaviour be curbed. yet you persist. I implore you. do not fuck with the powers that be, for they shall fuck you over.

get it?

Anti communist

13th April 2003, 03:00

Hey hazard, I just replied to Drake's post about that. Please go read it. I insulted you before so you insulted me.....fine. But then all I said was "OTAY Spanky!!!!" and you go ballistic for no reason and totally flame me. What did I do for you to react like that. Don't you like The Little Rascals? Besides, I told you earlier today that I was just ribbing you about the whole 7.62 vs 5.56 thing.

Also, you are telling me to cut it out but look at the first word in your post.....WORM. You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself dude. You are stressing too much.

(Edited by Anti communist at 3:02 am on April 13, 2003)

hazard

13th April 2003, 03:30

hey, I'm just referring to you as your rank has identified your status. where do you get "ballistic" from? there's no stress on my end of things. your conclusions, as based upon this thread, never rely upon the evidence. whether its weapons superiority or my response. is that clear, worm, or do you want to go for another round?

Anti communist

13th April 2003, 03:46

Where did I get ballistic from? That's the topic of this whole thread. Haven't you been paying attention????!!!!! LOLOLOLOL I got you again.

But really, I know I've insulted you but you seem to always be ON in full throttle with the insults dude. Are you new here? I was like that my first week or 2. I think this is week 3 and I've mellowed out a bit lately already.

hazard

13th April 2003, 03:55

listen, if calling you worm bothers you THAT much, I won't call you for the rest of the night.

um, ant...
Ballistic is also a way to refer to somebody who loses his or her temper. that is how you intended the use of the word. it was a good word to use BECAUSE of the topic here. it sorta fits the topic. but it does not fit my attitude. that is why I asked where you got it from. I have not gone ballistic, I have not lst my temper, I am not laughing like Data from star trek generations when his emotion chip overloaded (LLOLLLOLLLOLL). so again, where do you get ballisitic from. you can't equivocate the term anymore, because I nailed you on it. its meaning is clear. and so am I. now can you be clear, for a second, ant?

Anti communist

13th April 2003, 04:16

I understood what you said up to the last 2 or 3 sentences. As far as ballistic, I was just ribbing you again. I know it has to do with the flight characteristics of a bullet, and also it's used to point out when someone is losing their temper.

StalinLover

14th April 2003, 12:50

Quote: from Chiak47 on 6:36 am on April 11, 2003
Anti,

These kind of threads never get any commie replys.They are afraid of firearms and war.
But yet they praise a man who was known for shooting defectors in the back and mass executions.

Tell that to the FARC. ANd yes, traitors are shot or jailed, just like you capitalist pigs want to do with Comrade Mumia, and you did to over 80 members of the adventurist left-nationalist Black Panther Party. And you will do to that seargent who fragged a couple of his officiers... See, it is you pissy ass crybaby capitalists who are afraid. You are afraid of the revenge the People's of the world have exacted and will continue to exact from you. Even 1000 of us in worth every one of you, because we have nothing lose but our chains, yet you are comfortably smug in your kevlar helmets...

Remember when the Pentagon became a Tetragon, Pup?

hazard

16th April 2003, 03:40

don't forget what happened to Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Kennedy's and Mohhamed Ali. All of whom were merely ACCUSED of being commies.

RedComrade

16th April 2003, 04:21

Your beloved marine hero is a fucking liar, it was a hoax:
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04...lets/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.helmet.bullets/index.html)

hazard

16th April 2003, 04:37

yeah, worm. even your fake news are forced to fess up every now and again. what a complete load of crap.

and to make it even more hilarious is the fact that the caliber of bullets wasn't ever 7.62 mm. CAN YOU FEEL THAT, WORM? CAN YOU? the lousy 5.56mm is the bullet that COULDN'T penetrate after all. we all now know who has the BEST, JERRY, THE BEST weapon in the field.

the beloved ak47 with its beloved 7.62 mm round

Solzhenitsyn

16th April 2003, 05:18

Hazard,

I think the British use a 6.5mm caliber weapon if I'm not mistaken. Why did the Soviets abandon the 7.62mm x 39 in favor of the 5.45mm x 39 if it was a world beater? Were they stupid or something?

"the beloved ak47 with its beloved 7.62 mm round"

Wrong again. It's the German G-3 with it's beloved 7.62mm x 48 round.

Solzhenitsyn

16th April 2003, 05:24

"don't forget what happened to Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, the Kennedy's and Mohhamed Ali. All of whom were merely ACCUSED of being commies."

MLKjr was a fellow traveller and his murderer was apprehended. Malcolm X was shot in what was essentially the outcome of an internal dispute within his organization. JFK we don't know about and RFK was plainly shot by a schizophrenic immigrant. Mohammed Ali's problem is an aggregate effect from all the shots he's taken to the head in the ring.

hazard

16th April 2003, 05:34

the ak47 was never abandoned. new weapon types were used to supplement the already vastly superior soviet arsenal.

you list the cover stories for all of the assassinated victims of corporate greed well. you have a poor understanding of facts, of truth and of historical relevence. most relevent is the time frame and time period in which these people were assassinated. and of course, it is purely coincidental to you that all had been accused of being communists and displayed communist tendencies and used communist reasoning in all of their arguments. as for ali, another coincidence would be that despite the fact that Ali was the best punch evader in boxing, his illness is connected to all the punchs that didn't hit him. on anther note, the structure of the sentence in which you mention the greatest of all time is linguistically hilarious. it is also logically hysterical. an all around good laugh.

StalinLover

16th April 2003, 05:36

You all are wrong.

Its the beloved Mossin-Nagant, 7.62x54R

It is literally the machine that killed fascists.

I repeat:

hazard

16th April 2003, 05:45

the beloved mossin-nagant uses the same beloved 7.62 mm shells as the beloved ak47. and, I fear I must point out, it is the beloved 7.62 that is in question and not the beloved weapon that fires the beloved ammo.

Solzhenitsyn

16th April 2003, 06:09

hazard,
WRONG AGAIN. The Mosin-Nagant, or the Three Line Rifle in Tsarist parlance, used the 7.62mm x 54R. The 7.62mm x 39 wasn't developed until '43 after the Soviets bastardized the German 7.92mm x 34 Kurz.
Your grasp of history is as bad as your grammar.

You're "evidence" of a anti-communist assassination plot is as circumstantial as it is laughable. . One can construct all sorts of crazy conspiracies based on your fallacious reasoning.

hazard

16th April 2003, 06:15

salsa:

wtf does grasp have to do with anything? u seem to miss the scope of this thread, which deals specifically with the mm of the round. now, when x54 and x39 were mentioned I assumed, and correctly, that the "x" referred to the size of the magazine. you fucking noob loser. thats probably why you threw in the 7.92 mm stun job - becuase you cant keep track of the conversion. that is (one more time) 7.62 vs 5.56. it has nothing to do with 7.92.

what evidence are you refferring to? I, so far, have provided none. my statement was indicative of the brainwashed cattle herd of capitalism to dismiss the least circumstantial things as being coincidental. but I do sympathasize. it must be difficult reading with your eyes closed. it is a skill I still have yet to learn.

Solzhenitsyn

16th April 2003, 06:52

Buzzard,

Your attempt to defeat my argument through the sheer momentum of your own depraved and wreckless ignorance has failed. You know nothing about the basic terminology of weaponry let alone ballistics. The size of the magazine has nothing to do with it. It's the size of the case which roughly correlates to the size of the propellant charge. When I say 7.62mm x 39 that means the projectile is 7.62mm in diameter and it's case is 39mm tall. You're confusing nominal caliber with round. The U.S. M-14 as well as the German G-3 use a bullet 7.62mm in nominal caliber. Are they then equal to the AK-47? You're dumber than I thought.

The 7.62 x 54mm is far more powerful than the 7.62 x 39mm because it holds a much larger propellant charge. Thus it can and does use a heaver grain bullet which adds to it's effectiveness. Does the equation E = M x V ring a bell?

hazard

16th April 2003, 07:03

salsa:

shouldn't you be covering a tortilla and not your own, shoddy, sorry ass? of course I was confused. I even admitted it. however, since "x" is being used, I am justified in my confusion. I was unaware that "x" is the universal replacement symbol for the case size of a shell. my mistake. so, energy equals mass case size velocity? yes, I do suppose that rings a bell of some sort.

in essence you are reverting the argument to a previous incarnation of itself. thats fine. I never denied the relevence of the discharge strength. I did, however, point out that the discharge strength was meaningless compared to the sheer size of the 7.62 mm round. its like saying that a pea is a mroe powerful weapon than a cannonball because a pea can be shot with greater velocity.

Solzhenitsyn

16th April 2003, 07:15

Buzzard

No, you still get it. The velocity at which a bullet is traveling has everything to do with it's effectiveness. Your analogy is false. Compare a 7.62 bullet trown by hand at you to one being shot out of a rifle. A small bullet traveling at high velocity can still cause more damage than a large bullet traveling at a slower velocity.

X in the English language is a replacement for "by". So when you see 2"X4" it means a lumber board 2 inches thick by 4 inches wide.

hazard

16th April 2003, 07:21

salsa:

what? I thought that "x" stood for TIMES. like mass TIMES velocity. or, "x" stands for unknown. thats right, now I remember. I replaced the "x" in the original instance for meaning magazine capacity as opposed to velocitational ability.

my analogy cannot possibly be false. it can only really be more or less accurate. in reference to size it is completely accurate. smaller versus larger. since we are in agreement about size, there is no reason to continue disagreeing.

Boris Moskovitz

16th April 2003, 07:24

Ahem... Why are you people arguing about weapons? That is one of the dumbest subjects I've ever heard... All I'd need would be a nuke and some Pentagonian Saddisticness and I'd blow this conversation to shreds. Isn't there more in this world to study on than weapons?

hazard

16th April 2003, 07:37

I think the weapon relates to the ability of capitalism to produce versus the ability of communism to produce. since I'm dealing with the war mongering, vocal herd of racist capitalists, I have allowed myself entry into their arena. its really the only way I can get any sense out of these pigs. just mention death, greed, bombs or guns and we get 80 plus posts on the subject.

StalinLover

16th April 2003, 09:29

Quote: from Solzhenitsyn on 6:09 am on April 16, 2003
hazard,
WRONG AGAIN. The Mosin-Nagant, or the Three Line Rifle in Tsarist parlance, used the 7.62mm x 54R. The 7.62mm x 39 wasn't developed until '43 after the Soviets bastardized the German 7.92mm x 34 Kurz.
Your grasp of history is as bad as your grammar.

You're "evidence" of a anti-communist assassination plot is as circumstantial as it is laughable. . One can construct all sorts of crazy conspiracies based on your fallacious reasoning.

Damn, a leftie liberal getting his ass kicked by a righ-wing nut on two counts in which a commie should be dominant at... sad indeed, but typical...

Right on both counts. I might add that the Samozariadnyia Karabina Simonova, best known as the SKS was the first rifle to use the 7.62mm x 39. With it the severely underpowered anti-imperialist forces of Korea were able to exact an armistice from the aggresors after being reduced a mile thick strip at the chinese border.

As to the AK, all the stupid technicalities on "what is this thread about", the AK-47 and all its variants are most definetily one of the finest guns ever produced. Try field striping a AR-15/M-16 in a swamp or a desert, and try the same with an AK. 10 time out of 10 the ak will not fail you..

As to the catridge size, this is easy. the 7.62 is roughly equivalent to a .30 cartridge, while the 5.56 is roughly equivalent to a .223 (actually a bit less). In any case it was the move from semi-auto, kill-based infantry tactics, towards full auto wound-based infantry tactics that both sides implemented. That is, the rationale behind the AK-74 is the same as that behind the switch from the M-14 to the M16. To further elaborate, infantry tactical doctrine until korea, the first and last semi-auto war, were still of infantry generally getting supported by armor and heavy machine guns. As the assault rifle became generalized and hand held AT weapons generalized, it became the infantry supporting the tanks.

This lead to several changes, the need for MORE ammo, the need to slow enemy forces and by creating large amounts of wounded soldiers (less easy to abandon than dead ones), among them. Another reason for wound based rather than kill based tactics was the development of lightwieght personal armor, which mean much less body hits were going to be lethal.

Another thing, most so-called AK-47s are actually AKM-47s. I give an order of lenin to the first of you puts who tells Uncle whats the difference...

Kalashnikov, unfortunately, has said that he would have preffered to design a lawnmower... which of course would have been our loss but would have led to a revolution in low maintenance, high utility, and cheap lawn grooming products... I could visualize myself field stripping a KLM... :P

Anarcho

16th April 2003, 09:40

The AKM, in addition to a host of other changes, has a foldable stock. It is also lighter, due to a change in machining and type of wood used in the stock.

Also note, the US military has been phasing out the "full Auto" funcionality of their line firearms. The idea being that full auto did not improve kill ratios, but only led to soldiers wasting ammuntion.

Chiak47

16th April 2003, 14:46

I own a couple SKS rifles.Dependable to say the least.
Easy to strip but lacking in auto

Kalashnikov was a apprentice of Sergei Gavrilovcih Simonov.I also own a couple AK's.A MAK-90 and a SAR.

Remember the 7.62 is getting phased out for the 5.45 AK-74.

Also-the M-4's have full auto,3 round burst and semi switch.

The 7.62 is considered a more "humanitarian" bullet compared to the 5.56.The 7.62 flies in a straight line while the 5.56 spins and twists breaking into bits when striking bone thus causing more infection pockets.

Wolfie

16th April 2003, 17:15

We had an 47 back in zim. It was a wierd chinese varient with a handle on the grip, but was quite stable and accurate. Is it correct that the 47 and the 74 both have the same round capacity? My uncle now has a pretty modern AK-101 which looks identical to the 74 apart from the butt and grips are plastic, oh and i think it takes a 5.56 cartridge instead of the 74's 5.45, still with capacity for 30rds.

BTW do you know the range at which the shots were fired? I will always think that the kalishnikov is a vastly superior weapon to the British Enfield SA-80 and is much more efficient and versatile than the M4 and M-16.

(Edited by Wolfie at 5:21 pm on April 16, 2003)

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

16th April 2003, 21:49

Quote: from NoXion on 9:35 am on April 11, 2003

Quote: from Anti communist on 6:13 am on April 11, 2003
Besides being great warriors, the US and UK are the best trained and best equiped soldiers in the world (the US comes in first with the UK closely behind).

Excuse me? actually the UK have the best trained soldiers you fool. you yanks just have the best toys, at least the British know how to use their equipment.

(Edited by NoXion at 9:36 am on April 11, 2003)

He is right, the UK spends the most on each individual soldier.

Actually you're army isn't so great.

You don't even have the biggest army or airforce. China hs them.

You musn't underestimate the 7.62 it has worked for 50 years, in these times of fast weapon development.

In a few years, even ur newest kevlar will be "outgunned", everyone is working on it, the Germans are developping a follow up for the famous MP 5, the MP 7.

And the thing is that because the 5.56 begins to toll when it hits something, it's very ineffective against body protection.

US marines died in Vietnam when encoutering USSR spetsnaz units with titanium suits.

Chiak47

16th April 2003, 23:40

CCCP,

Whats the source you used for the spetnaz with titanium suits...

Thanks,
Eric

Anarcho

17th April 2003, 07:12

The US airforce is the largest in the world. the Chinese airforce is large, but many of it's planes are old, and lack proper ECM abilities.

And again, numbers don't mean so much these days.

In Iraq, the Coalition forces were around 300,000 at peak. The defeated an enemy with 2 million soldiers.

To deny that ability and superiority of the US military machine is to be blinded by propaganda.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

17th April 2003, 09:04

Quote: from Chiak47 on 11:40 pm on April 16, 2003
CCCP,

Whats the source you used for the spetnaz with titanium suits...

Thanks,
Eric

Actually I follow the military andso, it interrests me.

There was a BBC documentary lately, called the Russian SAS.

Everyone knows the Spetsnaz are better then them, but anyway. In the tape you saw them firing with titanium suits on. Not completly titanium ofcourse, but it excists mainly of titanium. The guy even told that it was titanium, I must say it did look more protective then US protective suits, it protected even the arms and head. But it was much more immobile.

So I am pretty sure that in Vietnam it was only a test. It's not really handy to move with a titanium suit in a jungle.

But i'll see if I can find something about it, try to find something too.

Edit: Inside the Russian SAS

(Edited by CCCP at 9:17 am on April 17, 2003)

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

17th April 2003, 09:10

Quote: from Wolfie on 5:15 pm on April 16, 2003
We had an 47 back in zim. It was a wierd chinese varient with a handle on the grip, but was quite stable and accurate. Is it correct that the 47 and the 74 both have the same round capacity? My uncle now has a pretty modern AK-101 which looks identical to the 74 apart from the butt and grips are plastic, oh and i think it takes a 5.56 cartridge instead of the 74's 5.45, still with capacity for 30rds.

BTW do you know the range at which the shots were fired? I will always think that the kalishnikov is a vastly superior weapon to the British Enfield SA-80 and is much more efficient and versatile than the M4 and M-16.

(Edited by Wolfie at 5:21 pm on April 16, 2003)

I know that chinese variant, it doesn't even look like an Ak.

I like the AK 100 series (101 to 104)

It's lighter, more stable, accurater, reliable and it works longer.

Dude everyone knows that the AK is superior to the brittish enfield and the US M-16, M-4, that is because the US has made it's own variant of the AK and the spcial forces of both country's use it.

The only reason why it's tryed to not to bring it in the media attention too much, is because it would show that the US and UK have a inferieur weapons industry and the their soldiers are sitting ducks in front of the former USSR troops.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

17th April 2003, 09:16

Quote: from Anarcho on 7:12 am on April 17, 2003
The US airforce is the largest in the world. the Chinese airforce is large, but many of it's planes are old, and lack proper ECM abilities.

And again, numbers don't mean so much these days.

In Iraq, the Coalition forces were around 300,000 at peak. The defeated an enemy with 2 million soldiers.

To deny that ability and superiority of the US military machine is to be blinded by propaganda.

Ofcourse I know that the Chinese airforce consists nothing more than home made copies of Soviet planes, old ones too. They still have the Mig-15!

But their are working on modernasation, they have no mig-29's which are superior to the F14,15,18 etc. Maybe not the newer ones, but you'ill never know.

And the full 2 million soldiers didn't fight.

Thinking that all resistance have been cleared away and that's just a few thousand soldiers. That means that rest of the 2 million just stayed home.

In it's days the Red Army was superior.

SwedishCommie

17th April 2003, 11:13

I think that war nowadays is so fucking boring. Some guy presses a button or makes a call and a entire country i bombed back to stone age!
I think we should destroy all weapons, tanks, bombs,planes and battleships!
Then if people really want to fight they could use either fists or sword and spears!
You got to admit that medeival warfare was more honest and more just then todays warfare!
Fuck M16, M4 and AK!
Long live Excalibur! ;)

Anarcho

17th April 2003, 11:16

I'm sorry CCCP but you're wrong.

Soviet Military doctrine did not allow their commanders to react and adapt to swiftly changing field conditions. Political Cronyism was much worse in the Red Army than many people want to believe... if you have a connected commander, you can get the oil and gas and ammo you would need, but another unit, even if they needed it, wouldn't get it.

The Red Army was a modern army, dealing with a barely industrial age mentality. The military never really recovered from the Officer purges. The fact that you had to be a Party Apparatschik and also had to filter anything with a Commisar tended to seriously degrade the field effectiveness of the Soviet era military.

Also, while there is a lot of talk about it, to date there has been no actual proof of which was a better field weapon, the AK or the M16. Their strengths and weaknesses lie in different areas.

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

17th April 2003, 12:10

Quote: from Anarcho on 11:16 am on April 17, 2003
I'm sorry CCCP but you're wrong.

Soviet Military doctrine did not allow their commanders to react and adapt to swiftly changing field conditions. Political Cronyism was much worse in the Red Army than many people want to believe... if you have a connected commander, you can get the oil and gas and ammo you would need, but another unit, even if they needed it, wouldn't get it.

The Red Army was a modern army, dealing with a barely industrial age mentality. The military never really recovered from the Officer purges. The fact that you had to be a Party Apparatschik and also had to filter anything with a Commisar tended to seriously degrade the field effectiveness of the Soviet era military.

Also, while there is a lot of talk about it, to date there has been no actual proof of which was a better field weapon, the AK or the M16. Their strengths and weaknesses lie in different areas.

The officer purges where in the 1930's and the AK is better, because the first M 16 sometimes just exploded in the battlefield, while such mistakes should have long gone been fixed in the testfase.

And the Ak is worldwide used, even by US and UK special forces. And the USSR troops didn't use M-16's or M-4's.

I didn't know anything of the lack of resources for the USSR troops, could u provide some sources on this?

But I don't know anything about the lack of sources or something, but Spetsnaz units were almost completly independant in their actions. The unit cammandor decided what to do.

They received an order and that was all, some additionel info but that was all.

Anarcho

17th April 2003, 13:26

"It should be noted that the price to be paid for such openness-all its advantages notwithstanding-was certain disorientation with respect to the "great lines" of Russia's military developments. This lack of cohesion in terms of strategic thinking, together with zigzags of domestic developments and dramatic financial problems undermining Russia's ability to maintain adequate military spending, has created a formidable inconsistency of the country's theoretical perspectives and practical policy in the military sphere. Moreover, this is only aggravated with the number of actors on the domestic scene increasing, their interests becoming more diversified and the practice of consensus building still dramatically deficient."

"Russian officials, analysts, and the public are well aware of the country's limited resources, which makes it impossible even to consider a model of a "military parity" with the West (whatever this might mean)."

"One could hypothesize about the reasons of changing accents in Russian military-related thinking, writing, and (to a lesser degree) policy making. Assume in the broadest sense it is connected with the growing disappointment by the low pace of Russia's integration into "the community of civilized countries"-even if caused by Russia's slow adaptation abilities rather than by its partners' lack of enthusiasm."

"If Russia's military output, by the end of 1996, was just one-eighth of the 1991 level; the largest falls were registered in the electronics and communications equipment industries (whereas, for instance, shipbuilding was less affected because of foreign orders for civilian vessels).17 In 1997, shortly after the appointment of reform-oriented Igor Sergeev as Defense Minister, funding cuts for at least 220 of 1,670 R&D institutes and design bureaus were announced, and they were encouraged to sell their services and technology directly to foreign firms. "

All exerpted from "CHANGING PERCEPTIONS of the MILITARY ROLES in POST-SOVIET RUSSIA" by Vladimir Baranovsky

A smattering of the problems facing the modern Russian Military, much of it carried over from the Soviet Era, or related to the failures of the Soviet era to change with times. Up until 1991, Soviet Doctrine was to prepare for a large scale invasion of Russia from the West. This despite the fact that politicians from both sides had realized that it would be economic and PR suicide for such a thing to occur.

More coming, looking for documentation of Soviet era militaria...

Anarcho

17th April 2003, 13:52

"Marxist-Leninist military doctrine has had considerable effect on arms control. On all levels--strategic nuclear, theater nuclear, and conventional--the doctrine's orientation toward victory has demanded capabilities for fighting and winning wars. The Soviet Union never allowed arms control to interfere with achievement of its military objectives nor to constrain the strategic goals of the armed forces. Even in the late 1980s, in spite of General Secretary Mikhail S. Gorbachev's "new thinking" (see Glossary) and his strong emphasis on arms reductions, the military remained mistrustful of political solutions and reluctant to accept sweeping changes in doctrine and strategy"

". Conscripts were paid between 3 and 5 rubles per month, the equivalent of about US$10. Low pay for conscripts conserved the Ministry of Defense's resources, but soldiers often became burdens for their families, who sent them money."

"The semiannual turnover of conscripts, one-quarter of total military manpower, has meant that new inductees were constantly being assimilated into the armed services. This turnover and the two-year service term made it difficult to train and retain specialists to work on sophisticated weapons systems."

"At the time of induction, each voenkomat selected a few recruits to become NCOs. After training for from several weeks to six months, these new NCOs were assigned to units, but their authority over other conscripts was limited by their youth and inexperience. Moreover, because only 5 percent of Soviet military personnel were NCOs, junior commissioned officers had to perform many tasks assigned to sergeants in other countries' armies."

"Officers had greater opportunities to commit infractions of military law than ordinary servicemen, and their most common criminal offense was bribery. Officers inspecting units accepted bribes in return for overlooking training deficiencies, accidents, or disciplinary breaches. The misuse of state property, and vehicles in particular, was also widespread. "

All from 1upinfo.com, since I'm at work and don't have my books handy.

While large, and apparently (to my surprise) well traiined, morale was an issue, corruption of upper level officers and alcoholism of the conscripts were all very serious problems that had no easy solution.

I don't have any actual verifiable proff of the inablitiy of the Red Army to shift tactics on the fly, but any in depth reading of history will show this to be the case, and certainly true during WWII and the later Afghanistan conflict.

The Spetsnaz were special forces. They were comparable to the SEALS or Rangers in the US military. The difference being, like with much in the Soviet Union, they used Spetsnaz for all Special Forces, rather than split it up as the US military has done.

Wolfie

17th April 2003, 16:30

Anarcho, It allowed an extremly large, moderatly-welll trained army with good equipment, equipment that although cheap was therfore more expendable than the american counterparts. The army therefore consisted of more personnel while special forces (spetnaz) were etemely well trained, harshly. They were literaly turned into killing machines. Also you mentioned the pay the soldiers got, when they were in the field their acomadation food etc was paid for.

abstractmentality

18th April 2003, 00:54

LONDON (AP) - Royal Marine Commando Eric Walderman was dubbed the luckiest soldier in Iraq after apparently surviving four sniper shots to the head - thanks to his bulletproof helmet.

But it emerged the so-called brush with death by the ``miracle marine,'' dramatized in newspapers worldwide, was a hoax.

Britain's Ministry of Defense, which carried the photo of Walderman wearing a bullet-ridden Kevlar helmet on its Web site, said it, too, had been duped. ``It was a good one and fooled us as well,'' the ministry said in a statement Wednesday.

On March 27, British newspapers reported four bullets had ripped through the outer camouflage of the 28-year-old commando's helmet during a firefight in Umm Qasr, an account seized upon by the foreign press.

The truth emerged Tuesday when The Sun tabloid disclosed that Walderman's helmet was in fact lying on top of his pack when it was peppered with gunfire by colleagues trying to hit an unexploded anti-tank weapon.

``Mr. Lucky was not so plucky,'' said The Sun's headline. Walderman, it said, had simply posed in the damaged helmet. He hadn't given an interview, ``but he and his pals did nothing to stop journalists jumping to conclusions,'' the paper reported.

The marines ``came clean'' about the hoax after The Sun contacted the unit for a follow-up story, it said.

04/16/03 15:20 EDT

Non-Sectarian Bastard!

18th April 2003, 14:34

I knew it!

The Iraqi army was hardly trained enough to hit a leg, let stand 4 times in the head.

hazard

21st April 2003, 02:25

im saddened to see this obvious inflamatory topic turn into a legitimate thread. I was perfectly content to allow the worm to bury himself like the capitalist he is. now all you gun maniacs scared him off. hopefully you will be of some use in the revolution.

VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

Anonymous

21st April 2003, 05:06

Quote: from abstractmentality on 12:54 am on April 18, 2003
LONDON (AP) - Royal Marine Commando Eric Walderman was dubbed the luckiest soldier in Iraq after apparently surviving four sniper shots to the head - thanks to his bulletproof helmet.

But it emerged the so-called brush with death by the ``miracle marine,'' dramatized in newspapers worldwide, was a hoax.

Britain's Ministry of Defense, which carried the photo of Walderman wearing a bullet-ridden Kevlar helmet on its Web site, said it, too, had been duped. ``It was a good one and fooled us as well,'' the ministry said in a statement Wednesday.

On March 27, British newspapers reported four bullets had ripped through the outer camouflage of the 28-year-old commando's helmet during a firefight in Umm Qasr, an account seized upon by the foreign press.

The truth emerged Tuesday when The Sun tabloid disclosed that Walderman's helmet was in fact lying on top of his pack when it was peppered with gunfire by colleagues trying to hit an unexploded anti-tank weapon.

``Mr. Lucky was not so plucky,'' said The Sun's headline. Walderman, it said, had simply posed in the damaged helmet. He hadn't given an interview, ``but he and his pals did nothing to stop journalists jumping to conclusions,'' the paper reported.

The marines ``came clean'' about the hoax after The Sun contacted the unit for a follow-up story, it said.

04/16/03 15:20 EDT

It is a hoax. The Sun is not known for being sure of the facts, it is a tabloid.

http://botachtactical.com/comhellevi.html
http://botachtactical.com/cerprot1.html

I am not sure about the UK Marines, but ours are very well protected. Even at point blank range by 7.62. There is no kevlar that can protect against a well aimed 7.62. BTW the websites will take VISA.

Kapitan Andrey

21st April 2003, 05:43

R-r-r!!! Damn "tomme"-Eric Walderman got alive!!! :angry:

But near to 120 yankee and tomme ARE DEAD!!! :biggrin:

M-16 is SUCKS!!! AKM RULEZZZ!!!

Liberty Lover

21st April 2003, 05:50

I hate you.

hazard

22nd April 2003, 00:58

ka:

around here we refer to the ak series of weapons as the "beloved"

ie. the beloved ak47 smokes the pathetic m16
or
ie I'm so glad that my beloved ak47 allowed for guerrilla armies worldwide to become a threat to the interests of the capitalists

Anonymous

22nd April 2003, 04:34

Quote: from Kapitan Andrey on 5:43 am on April 21, 2003

R-r-r!!! Damn "tomme"-Eric Walderman got alive!!! :angry:

But near to 120 yankee and tomme ARE DEAD!!! :biggrin:

M-16 is SUCKS!!! AKM RULEZZZ!!!

AK-47, gotta respect it as a battlefield tool. It just keeps going and going and going. The low velocity and the loose tolerance that make the AK a battlefield rifle, make it a poor match rifle.

National and international competitors where winning is the only justification for equipment, are not flocking to the AK-47 and the 7.62. The .223 is just now being "discovered" to be a suitable 1000 yd match rifle. The M-16 is far from pathetic.