Abrams

[Sea Skimmer]

Looks like its next to an Orthodox church- tracks wrapped around the turret for ad hoc applique protection?

With the fall of the Soviet Unions there where over 25,000 tanks on Russian soil. And they have to send PT-76's in action???? Chechnya is not known for its water ways.. Course PT-76's can only swim for 30 minutes before overheating, as the Indians discovered in 1971.

[Sea Skimmer]

Pardon me for posting, but didn't India used Russian made equipment during their wars with Pakistan?[/list]

On the ground, Indians equipment was 75% Western in both 1965 and 1971, though they did have a fair bit of Soviet equipment. Today they are much more heavily biased towards Russian ground equipment.

In the air they have always had a fair amount of Russian equipment. However they normally match every Russian purchase with something Western of higher quality. For example they bought several hundred MiG-23's and 27's for numbers but also added around a hundred Jaguars at the time to give quality for attacking defended targets. Same thing with the MiG-29 and Mirage-2000. MiG's for dog fighting, the Mirage to provide BVR.

[Soulman]

With the fall of the Soviet Unions there where over 25,000 tanks on Russian soil. And they have to send PT-76's in action???? Chechnya is not known for its water ways.. Course PT-76's can only swim for 30 minutes before overheating, as the Indians discovered in 1971.

Mind, the PT-76 isn't used as a tank but as a recon vehicle. I thought they had been phased out in favour of BMPs and BRMs.

[Oberleutnant]

The 125mm smoothbore gun used on T-72 may not be Rheinmetall, but it too can penetrate the armour of any MBT in the world if the range is less than a kilometre and a high-quality anti-tank round is used.

[Sea Skimmer]

The 125mm smoothbore gun used on T-72 may not be Rheinmetall, but it too can penetrate the armour of any MBT in the world if the range is less than a kilometre and a high-quality anti-tank round is used.

Its more like 500 meters rather then 1000.

[Sea Skimmer]

With the fall of the Soviet Unions there where over 25,000 tanks on Russian soil. And they have to send PT-76's in action???? Chechnya is not known for its water ways.. Course PT-76's can only swim for 30 minutes before overheating, as the Indians discovered in 1971.

Mind, the PT-76 isn't used as a tank but as a recon vehicle. I thought they had been phased out in favour of BMPs and BRMs.

Recon is a big use. However it was also meant to act as a normal tank in river crossing, accompanying BTR series infantry carriers to secure a bridgehead. Then the ferries could come into use to bring across bigger tanks and anti tank guns and finally the ribbon bridges get built to move a divisions main body across.

Then a US Army Lance firing Unit nukes the whole crossing site while a Thud wipes out the artillery support. Repeat 50 times until one side runs out of troops or nukes.

By the 70's PT-76's where only found in some recon units, but they did live on into the late 80's with category B/C units and Warsaw pact formations.

[Soulman]

With the fall of the Soviet Unions there where over 25,000 tanks on Russian soil. And they have to send PT-76's in action???? Chechnya is not known for its water ways.. Course PT-76's can only swim for 30 minutes before overheating, as the Indians discovered in 1971.

Mind, the PT-76 isn't used as a tank but as a recon vehicle. I thought they had been phased out in favour of BMPs and BRMs.

Recon is a big use. However it was also meant to act as a normal tank in river crossing, accompanying BTR series infantry carriers to secure a bridgehead. Then the ferries could come into use to bring across bigger tanks and anti tank guns and finally the ribbon bridges get built to move a divisions main body across.

Then a US Army Lance firing Unit nukes the whole crossing site while a Thud wipes out the artillery support. Repeat 50 times until one side runs out of troops or nukes.

By the 70's PT-76's where only found in some recon units, but they did live on into the late 80's with category B/C units and Warsaw pact formations.

Even against M-48s and maybe M-26s I don't really see that 76mm gun as being much use, do you know what its performance is like?

[Sea Skimmer]

Mind, the PT-76 isn't used as a tank but as a recon vehicle. I thought they had been phased out in favour of BMPs and BRMs.

Recon is a big use. However it was also meant to act as a normal tank in river crossing, accompanying BTR series infantry carriers to secure a bridgehead. Then the ferries could come into use to bring across bigger tanks and anti tank guns and finally the ribbon bridges get built to move a divisions main body across.

Then a US Army Lance firing Unit nukes the whole crossing site while a Thud wipes out the artillery support. Repeat 50 times until one side runs out of troops or nukes.

By the 70's PT-76's where only found in some recon units, but they did live on into the late 80's with category B/C units and Warsaw pact formations.

Even against M-48s and maybe M-26s I don't really see that 76mm gun as being much use, do you know what its performance is like?

Shitty, I don’t have any numbers on hand. However it could deal with infantry emplacements and APC's. The infantry it would be supporting in such a scenario would deal with tanks using recoilless rifles and possibly first generation ATGW's.

[Rubberanvil]

Even against M-48s and maybe M-26s I don't really see that 76mm gun as being much use, do you know what its performance is like?

It should be adequate(sp?) against APCs, IFVs, other light armored vehicles and infantry if using HE rounds.

[Pablo Sanchez]

unbroken and it is the fastest combat aircraft ever built at Mach 2.8+ with external stores, and over Mach 3 in clean recon configuration.

I believe I read something to the effect that running the Mig-25 at full speed wore out the engine rather quickly.

[Pablo Sanchez]

"The AK-47 is in many ways interesting because when you study the history of it you see just how unusual it was nearly every step along the way. It's seen by most people as the epitome of Soviet military engineering. The reality is that it's almost unique, one of the few things they ever did which actually was any good."

So I guess I just imagined the following Soviet armoured vehicles:

T-34 (most innovative tank to come after the Mark I.)
KV series (first successful heavy tank)
IS series (best bang for the buck of any heavy tank)
BMP series (biggest innovation in infantry combat since the automatic rifle)
BMD series (the only parachute-dropped IFV around)

[IRG CommandoJoe]

How about Russian supercavitating torps?

[phongn]

[quote="Vympel"Bullshit. While the US Army claims that the new LVT-100 engine is 50% more fuel efficient than the old AGT-1500, independent tests have put the savings at only 36%. While the Army insists that the LV-100 is ‘within a few percentage points’ of an advanced diesel, independent tests show it will burn about 20% more fuel at full speed than a comparable diesel. Worse, LV-100 fuel consumption at idle speeds (which tanks do often) is twice that of any comparable diesel. [/quote]

Indeed. The Army chose a gas turbine for the greater mobility it offers over a diesal (and it's also quieter), but the cost is lower fuel efficiency. Tradeoffs, as usual.

Non sequitur. No proof that they break easily.

IIRC, while they were fairly reliable, they weren't well-designed to be easily repaired in the field (the USSR opting to simply replace the tank).

[quote[More assertions. Furthermore, the M60 is a POS compared to a Soviet T-72. The M60 is big, tall, slow, and undergunned (105mm couldn't penetrate the frontal armor of a T-64 or T-72A/B- though with the new generation 105mm rounds that's a different story.)[/quote]

Luckily, the M60 has never gone up against a Soviet/WARPAC T-72, only the cheap monkey-model ones they gave to the Arabs.

I particularly liked this:

"the M-16 was and is a far better weapon" (than the AK)

ROFLMAO!!!! Nuff said really.

While in the earlier incarnation the M-16 was a subpar weapon (compounded by the fact that the US Army used crap propellent and told some troops that it was self-cleaning), the M-16A3 is arguable a superior weapon

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Care to explain why? I heard the M-16 jams more easily, but it has better accuracy and range than the AK-47.

[Sea Skimmer]

How about Russian supercavitating torps?

3 mile range, 280 knot speed, no guidance, no ability to turn, one nuclear warhead..

The ideal weapon, if your sub fleet is nothing but 50's Chinese built Romeo clones not even worthy of a K in there designation.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

True, but I was referring to the innovativeness. The Russians are opening up a whole new way of combat. Of course the early weapons are never going to be a viable means of combat, but when they start improving the things, they can be a big threat to any ship, especially when the other ships aren't equipped with supercavitating torps of their own.

[Sea Skimmer]

True, but I was referring to the innovativeness. The Russians are opening up a whole new way of combat. Of course the early weapons are never going to be a viable means of combat, but when they start improving the things, they can be a big threat to any ship, especially when the other ships aren't equipped with supercavitating torps of their own.

Some systems will never be viable, this is one of them. There's simply no way for the thing to guide its self, far to much noise and air have to surround it for the whole supercavitation thing to work.

The Russians had been working on the problem for longer then the basic weapon has existed, and found no solution and finally abandon work. That’s pretty telling. Instead they're attempting to match the Mk48 mod4. For all there claimed power and size even Russia's latest 650mm torpedoes fall short of Western torpedoes of only 533mm in performance.

[Vympel]

The M16 does have better accuracy and range but it has so many horror stories following it around its just not funny. Better to take a G36 or an AK-101 (an AK-74 in 5.56x45mm NATO)

Off the top of my head

1- Vietnam.
2- Moghadishu 1993 (i.e. M16A2)- here we have elite US troops having to pick up EJECTED, UNFIRED rounds from the floor when they were running low on ammo! Inexcusable! Remember they're elite so you can't blame it on inadequate training
3-

"- Awful performance in dusty areas; in general the weapon must be cleaned several times a day, lest it jam and misfire.
- Loading the magazine with the full 30 rounds is not recommended, the magazine spring will be weakened and cause misfeeds. Armorers recommend loading only 25-27 rounds.
- The weapon is very fragile; there are documented cases where the rifle was leaned on and it broke in two. Using it in hand-to-hand combat (to strike the enemy) is certainly not recommended.
- The weapon contains very small pieces; making dismantling tedious (especially in cold weather where the soldier’s hands are cold), and the small pieces are easy to misplace. Again it should be remembered that the weapon must be cleaned several times a day.
- The barrel can be bent if care is not taken.
- Mixing parts from visually identical models may result in catastrophic malfunction (i.e. the weapon may explode).

After long denial, the official (admitted by the military) shortcomings of the M16 are listed as: bayonet, stock, headspace, magazine, ammunition, sights, charging mechanism, receiver, trigger mechanism. This comprehensive list seems to indicate the M16 is not a combat weapon at any design level. It is telling that the M16, after a myriad of modifications, is still compared unfavorably to the 50-year old AK-47."

Regarding the PT-76 and light tanks in general- they have their uses- particularly as part of an airborne force with airdroppable vehicles.

New generation Russian light tank 2S25 Sprut-SD- for the Air Assault Forces and Naval Infantry: the gun is 125mm.

[Sea Skimmer]

The M16 does have better accuracy and range but it has so many horror stories following it around its just not funny. Better to take a G36 or an AK-101 (an AK-74 in 5.56x45mm NATO)

Off the top of my head

1- Vietnam.
2- Moghadishu 1993 (i.e. M16A2)- here we have elite US troops having to pick up EJECTED, UNFIRED rounds from the floor when they were running low on ammo! Inexcusable! Remember they're elite so you can't blame it on inadequate training
3-

"- Awful performance in dusty areas; in general the weapon must be cleaned several times a day, lest it jam and misfire.
- Loading the magazine with the full 30 rounds is not recommended, the magazine spring will be weakened and cause misfeeds. Armorers recommend loading only 25-27 rounds.
- The weapon is very fragile; there are documented cases where the rifle was leaned on and it broke in two. Using it in hand-to-hand combat (to strike the enemy) is certainly not recommended.
- The weapon contains very small pieces; making dismantling tedious (especially in cold weather where the soldier’s hands are cold), and the small pieces are easy to misplace. Again it should be remembered that the weapon must be cleaned several times a day.
- The barrel can be bent if care is not taken.
- Mixing parts from visually identical models may result in catastrophic malfunction (i.e. the weapon may explode).

After long denial, the official (admitted by the military) shortcomings of the M16 are listed as: bayonet, stock, headspace, magazine, ammunition, sights, charging mechanism, receiver, trigger mechanism. This comprehensive list seems to indicate the M16 is not a combat weapon at any design level. It is telling that the M16, after a myriad of modifications, is still compared unfavorably to the 50-year old AK-47."

Looks like you found a list of every M16 problem ever suggest and then claim they all they all apply to the A3.

Vietnam: Problems related heavily to ammunition and lack of cleaning, not the M16 though chrome plated chamber was later introduced.

Moghadishu: Few M16's where present, most troops where using M4's. A lot of evidence points to the reports of unfired rounds and lack of hitting power being singular cases rather then widespread. The fact that the US Army Special Forces have kept buying more M4's further support this. They have the budget and pull to get something else if they wanted.

Dusty areas. Every 5.56 weapon in existence and most of other personal firearms need heavy cleaning in fine dusty areas. Troops normally clean weapons several times a day regardless anyway.

The Magazine springs only run into trouble after heavy use, and anyway that’s a magazine manufacturing problem, not a M16 problem.

Fragileility, the A2 was heavily strengthened compared to the A1 and original, you can easily bash someone head with it without problems.

It does have some small pieces, but I've stripped an Ar-15 countless times, and its really not that bad. Little combat has taken place in areas cold enough to matter. Unless you need heavy gloves your fine.

I've never heard of or seen a bent M16 barrel, though anything is possible

The Chances of troops having two different M16 models is basically nil, the scale rifles are normally issued on precludes it. Mixing and matching early Type 56 and AK-47 parts will also blow up the gun; this is not an M16 specific problem.


The Ak-47 is useless to any army, which cares about accuracy or ammunition consumption. The fact that it almost never jams doesn’t matter when all those rounds it can fire never hit. You might not miss a barn at 25 feet but you will miss a car.

[Vympel]

2/3s? What modifications have been made to deal with those problems, in particular those that were officially admitted? Do you have a list?

I don't see how what I said is unreasonable. What possible advantage could this thing have over a properly made rifle like the G36 or AK-101? After all the mods, it is an exceedingly average weapon, and nothing more. Why bother when you've got superior weapons on the market? Its development was legendary for its negligence, and after a few hundred mods it's still stuffing up as of 1993. In what areas does the M16 excel? None. Not all the troops were using M4s, btw.

The M16 simply isn't a weapon for the rigours of combat. Accuracy at 500m against a paper target means jack shit on a two-way shooting range (i.e. someone's shooting at you, too) in a shitty war in the middle of nowhere.

[Sea Skimmer]

2/3s? What modifications have been made to deal with those problems, in particular those that were officially admitted? Do you have a list?

I don't see how what I said is unreasonable. What possible advantage could this thing have over a properly made rifle like the G36 or AK-101? After all the mods, it is an exceedingly average weapon, and nothing more. Why bother when you've got superior weapons on the market? Its development was legendary for its negligence, and after a few hundred mods it's still stuffing up as of 1993. In what areas does the M16 excel? None. Not all the troops were using M4s, btw.

I've edited my post to be more specific

[Vympel]

I also edited my post.

I contend that reliability and robustness is much more important in combat, when your life is on the line, than accuracy and ammunition consumption. In fact, its well known that infantry are complaining about the M16A2/A3 lack of a full-auto fire mode- three-round burst doesn't cut it all the time.

I don't see what's so special about the M16. A rifle should never be that badly made when you have so many others on the market.

Its interesting that the M16 after so many mods is still compared to a stock standard 50-year old AK. Put it up against a 5.56x45mm AK-101 and I wonder what would happen to the M16s vaunted accuracy 'advantage' (a largely illusory one- in what war have infantry ever taken careful aim and plinked men who are shooting back at them from 300m?!).

[Sea Skimmer]

I also edited my post.

I contend that reliability and robustness is much more important in combat, when your life is on the line, than accuracy and ammunition consumption. In fact, its well known that infantry are complaining about the M16A2/A3 lack of a full-auto fire mode- three-round burst doesn't cut it all the time.

I don't see what's so special about the M16. A rifle should never be that badly made when you have so many others on the market.

Its interesting that the M16 after so many mods is still compared to a stock standard 50-year old AK. Put it up against a 5.56x45mm AK-101 and I wonder what would happen to the M16s vaunted accuracy 'advantage' (a largely illusory one- in what war have infantry ever taken careful aim and plinked men who are shooting back at them from 300m?!).

A3 doesh ave full auto, that’s realy the only difference from the A2

Nothing is special about the M16. However no other weapon has a sufficient advantage to warrant their replacement of the M16/M4 series. It's been expensive enough converting some units over to M4's which are similar in most respects. Converting to say G36 would cost tens of billions.

Afghanistan, The second gulf war, countless Thai Army anti drug opps have seen the use of accurate rifle fire.

The AK-101 losses all of the robust advantages the series used to have over the M16, and evidently requires more maintenance then the M16. Both seem to have been progressive; with every new AK model and spin off getting less and less rugged and requiring more care.

[Sea Skimmer]

Anyway, screw them all. The future for the US Army is going to be OICW. This give troops an insane firepower advantage over any enemy, especially at what's normally screw served weapons ranges, though close in and in urban fighting they still have a big advantage.

It's also proved quite rugged, with the prototype equipment being dropped and thrown onto pavement and still functioning. Pretty good for a FLIR and laser rangefinder link to a lead computing sight and fire control computer.

[Vympel]

AK-101 requires more maintenance than the M16? Source?

The AK-101 is just an AK-74M rebored for 5.56 instead of 5.45. If it required more maintenance than the M16, the AK-74 wouldn't have entered Soviet Army service, period. The AK-74M is a modernized AK-74. It has a new muzzle brake over the original AK-74 (also used in the AK-100 series).
The use of wood in the design was eliminated. The fore grip, stock and hand guard are made of glass filled polyamide, which is much lighter and more durable than wood, is not influenced heavily by pests and does not lose its quality after long keeping. The rifle also has a totally black finish. The magazine, as on the original AK-74, is made of plastic, but the plastic is no longer reddish/brown, but black.
The AK-74M has a full size folding buttstock; which is both lighter and contains the rifles cleaning tools.

Those are the sum of the differences between the AK-74M/AK-101/AK-103 and the AK-74 (which in turn is essentially an AKM rebored for 5.45)

Most of the AKMs relative inaccuracy comes from the 7.62x39mm.

As for the OICW? No way will it be general issue. Each of them costs $35,000. There may be a place for the 20mm grenade launcher in a squad, but as a general infantry weapon not a chance in hell. Where did you hear about the prototype being dropped and thrown?

Btw, the A3 doesn't have full auto. The A4 does, but this hasn't been adopted. The difference between the A2 and A3 lies in the rail system for M4 SOPMOD style mods.