|
Chavez negotiating Russian arms purchase (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| star-traveller |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Yes, thanks for making my point for me. The M-16 is the far better weapon unless you are part of a poorly supplied 3rd world army who can't properly maintain their weapons.
|
Go to kindergarden pal. Don't talk about things you don't know.
AK47 way too better than M16, by both power and handling. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Yes, thanks for making my point for me. The M-16 is the far better weapon unless you are part of a poorly supplied 3rd world army who can't properly maintain their weapons.
Go google Linebacker 2. If the US had properly used its advantage of having strategic air power at the start of the war instead of the end it would have been a whole different story. |
Only if, what about if, if they did this, that ... you're hopeless with your attempt to defend American weaponry in Vietnam. No matter how advanced their military equipment was, they were still going to lose that war.
M-16 is FAR BETTER? LMAO! Hmmmm, last time I checked, AK-47 is one of the best selling weapons of all-time. Best selling gun no question. ITS EVEN FEATURED ON THE FLAGS OF SOME COUNTRIES!!!! It has much longer durability and resistance to damage than M-16 that requires careful handling and regular cleaning. AK-47 will not jam due to dirt, water, grease, you throw it and it will still fire! IT IS STILL USED OFTEN IN ITS ORIGINAL 1947 DESIGN! LOL ... talk about genius design. According to Wikipedia:
"It was one of the first, true assault rifles and remains the most widely-used, known as the "Best Automatic Assault Rifle". More AK-type rifles have been produced than of any other assault rifle type [Over 100 million]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak-47
LOL ... in durability it is one of the best weapons in the world. Heck, American troops have even liked it and are even sometimes trained on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LCpl_Cheema_on_the_AK-47.JPG
 |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by star-traveller
Go to kindergarden pal. Don't talk about things you don't know.
AK47 way too better than M16, by both power and handling. |
I personally owned and have shot thousands of rounds through both, so I think I'm in a far better position than most to comment on them.
Like I said, the AK-47 is great if you are part of a 3rd world army that is not well supplied and not skilled with cleaning their weapons. Its resistance to dirt is the only advantage it has.
The new versions of the M-16 outclass the AK-47 in almost every way. Its lighter, with a longer range, more accurate, and a higher rate of fire. Just because a weapon has been made in huge numbers and is used by every third rate army in the world does not make it the superior weapon.
And in Vietnam, the man reason for losing the war was improper tactics, the same reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan. |
|
|
| M.Johan |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
And in Vietnam, the man reason for losing the war was improper tactics, the same reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan. |
And who supports them in Afghanistan?
:rolleyes: :D |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Like I said, the AK-47 is great if you are part of a 3rd world army that is not well supplied and not skilled with cleaning their weapons. Its resistance to dirt is the only advantage it has.
The new versions of the M-16 outclass the AK-47 in almost every way. Its lighter, with a longer range, more accurate, and a higher rate of fire. Just because a weapon has been made in huge numbers and is used by every third rate army in the world does not make it the superior weapon.
|
This is consistent with what I have read about both weapons. The choice should esentially be made based on the supply chain availablity. If a combatant can afford the luxury of a regimented supply chain with time and space for propper maintenance, like the US, then the M16 is the way to go. If you expect to be on the run, pick up an ak. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
If you can't maintain an M16 (providing that you've been taught how to maintain it) with some CLP (or other gun oil), few pieces of rags and rods to pull through the barrel, you're an idiot.
It's not a very complicated weapon. (though more complex than an AK) |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
I personally owned and have shot thousands of rounds through both, so I think I'm in a far better position than most to comment on them.
Like I said, the AK-47 is great if you are part of a 3rd world army that is not well supplied and not skilled with cleaning their weapons. Its resistance to dirt is the only advantage it has.
The new versions of the M-16 outclass the AK-47 in almost every way. Its lighter, with a longer range, more accurate, and a higher rate of fire. Just because a weapon has been made in huge numbers and is used by every third rate army in the world does not make it the superior weapon.
And in Vietnam, the man reason for losing the war was improper tactics, the same reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan. |
No, the reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan is because US funded and organized Al Qaeda, Taliban and armed them to the teeth, and Soviets were drained fighting them. Whose equipment shot down hundreds of Soviet tank-ships (their helicopters) or penetrated their tanks? It was a revenge move sort of thing for Soviets and Chinese arming and helping the Viet Cong. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
No, the reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan is because US funded and organized Al Qaeda, Taliban and armed them to the teeth, and Soviets were drained fighting them. Whose equipment shot down hundreds of Soviet tank-ships (their helicopters) or penetrated their tanks? It was a revenge move sort of thing for Soviets and Chinese arming and helping the Viet Cong. |
AQ and Taliban didn't exist back in the 70s-80s |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
AQ and Taliban didn't exist back in the 70s-80s |
My bad ... Taliban didnt, but Al Qaeda did. But anyways, thats not my point. Americans armed the mujahideens ... |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
No, the reason the Soviets lost in Afghanistan is because US funded and organized Al Qaeda, Taliban and armed them to the teeth, and Soviets were drained fighting them. Whose equipment shot down hundreds of Soviet tank-ships (their helicopters) or penetrated their tanks? It was a revenge move sort of thing for Soviets and Chinese arming and helping the Viet Cong. |
Well, actually it was the Mujahideen who were supplied with weapons. Paybacks are a bitch aren't they?
Really, the US sent less than 500 Stingers and no heavy anti-tank weapons, so I don't know where you get the idea that we armed them to the teeth. Maybe that makes the embarassing defeat of the mighty Soviet army a less bitter pill to swallow? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Well, actually it was the Mujahideen who were supplied with weapons. Paybacks are a bitch aren't they?
Really, the US sent less than 500 Stingers and no heavy anti-tank weapons, so I don't know where you get the idea that we armed them to the teeth. Maybe that makes the embarassing defeat of the mighty Soviet army a less bitter pill to swallow? |
LOL, wasnt it tough to swallow the American loss in Vietnam to a badly armed with primitive AK's Viet Cong? And actually Stingers and anti-tank weapons arent such small weapons. 500 Stingers can shoot down 500 helicopters easily back then, and they pretty much did, and still can in most conflicts. Back then a stinger would shoot down ANY helicopter because there was little defense if any available against them. Anti-tank weapons still kick ass today. However, a Soviet-made MIG-15 (quite basic) in Vietnam War doesnt guarantee that it will shoot down any US military aircraft. So its quite embarassing that Viet Cong using primitive technology defeated the advanced and armed to the teeth US army. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
LOL, wasnt it tough to swallow the American loss in Vietnam to a badly armed with primitive AK's Viet Cong? And actually Stingers and anti-tank weapons arent such small weapons. 500 Stingers can shoot down 500 helicopters easily back then, and they pretty much did, and still can in most conflicts. Back then a stinger would shoot down ANY helicopter because there was little defense if any available against them. Anti-tank weapons still kick ass today. However, a Soviet-made MIG-15 (quite basic) in Vietnam War doesnt guarantee that it will shoot down any US military aircraft. So its quite embarassing that Viet Cong using primitive technology defeated the advanced and armed to the teeth US army. |
I don't think the MIG-15 was responsible for the defeat of the US in Vietnam. In reality, the NV airforce was not all that keen in engaging the USAF in air-to-air combat because they usually ended up getting their asses handed to them. What was effective was the thousands of anti-aircraft missiles that the USSR supplied to the NVA. Technology had little to do with the inability to win the Vietnam war. At the end of the day if you have idiots mismanaging the execution of a war all the fancy weapons in the world won't help you.
And I think that you are forgetting that the US was not only fighting the VietCong but also the North Vietnamese Army. You know, a real army (supplied by the Soviets) with its own air force, unlike the Mujahideen who were a ragtag group of rebels hiding in the mountains. My point was that if 500 Stinger missiles was what enabled that group of rebels to defeat the Soviet army then maybe the Soviet army wasn't all it was cracked up to be. The Soviets were in Afghanistan for almost 10 years right? Too bad they couldn't get done in all that time what the USAF and a few US special forces groups did in a few months. |
|
|
|
|
