Does this mean that our military will get the arms and armor that we modellers have been wishing and oggling about soon?
What do you think peepz?
Community Forum: Filipino Modelers PhorumWant to meet up with modelers in your country or region? This is the place.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
The Philippines being a major US Ally
LaTtEX
Member Since: May 13, 2003
entire network: 292 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 03:41 PM UTC
What do you think the consequences will be of the Philippines being declared a major non-NATO US Ally?
Does this mean that our military will get the arms and armor that we modellers have been wishing and oggling about soon?
What do you think peepz?
Does this mean that our military will get the arms and armor that we modellers have been wishing and oggling about soon?
What do you think peepz?
Jeepney
Member Since: July 22, 2002
entire network: 1,538 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 04:15 PM UTC
That's one of the good consequences. We'll be given top priority for weapons doleouts, discounts on purchases, spare parts and training. I hope we'll finally be seeing the latest hardware up close and personal.
I don't know if we'll become more of an attractive target for terrorists. It's like saying "the US is my best friend so come and get me." The US might also pressure us to revamp our basing law and allow them to access to Subic and Clark again.
Double-edged sword....
I don't know if we'll become more of an attractive target for terrorists. It's like saying "the US is my best friend so come and get me." The US might also pressure us to revamp our basing law and allow them to access to Subic and Clark again.
Double-edged sword....
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 09:16 PM UTC
At TankNet, a member said that we should NOT accept, under any condition, any CH-46 Chinook helicopter. That is a flying coffin. More soldiers have died in the WoT just by being in that helo rather than getting killed in combat.
[wears polisci cap]
Having been declared/or about to be declared as a major non-NATO US ally means that we would have preference for weapons assistance programs, say receiving some old F-16s, radios, APCs (e.g. LAVs,), more Humvees, helos (SH-70/UH-60s, MD-530s), rifles, C-130s - all at a reasonable discount. Just don't count on us getting F-111s, Abrams, Patriots, etc. Perhaps Hawk SAM batteries and LVTP-7/AAVP-7? Perhaps also access to intelligence capabilities such as satellite recon passes (over Mindanao to combat the MILF/MNLF/ASG or the NPA all over the country). Chief of our needs are more helos and secure radios.
With regard to basing rights, that needs amending the constitution as the current one expressly prohibits basing of any foreign troops on our soil. Right now, we could allow (or for some leftist/rightist groups - tolerate) US troops for training exercises because they aren't based here. The constitution prohibits bases like Clark and Subic, not transient "basing" like now (unfortunately, many of the leftist/rightist don't see the distinction). The constitution also, interestingly, does not prohibit combat by foreign troops in the country - so any American soldier who comes in contact with rogue elements does not violate the constitution. IIRC. Also, the US does not need a permanent base here AFAICS, since they already have Yokosuka, Japan, and Singapore's harbor and there's no need to place bombers here like the Cold War. In lieu of that, more military exercises of varying sizes and frequent visits by the USN - probably up to a CVBG.
Most likely, what we'll be getting soonest are stuff that have a direct bearing on COIN ops, like radios, NVGs, helos, and APCs. If the Stryker vehicle is fully developed and entered into service, we might also get that (offering better protection - or so it's rumored or being officially stated to be - against RPGs). If ever China rattles her sabre over the Spratlys, we might have, quietly, a USN sub slip in that area if we ask for some assistance - with the US's official position that it would like to see the SCS clear and safe for all vessels in the region.
That is if our government gets its job correctly. Frankly, I'm a bit amazed to hear little protest on Bush's pronouncement re:US ally. Now, if our Senators would just concentrate on passing vital laws for our economy rather than playing SecDFA or President with regard to international issues and national security, our being a major non-NATO ally might actually have a benefit.
Another possibility (as mentioned earlier) is increased joint military exercises between our militaries. Perhaps even a larger Balikatan involving other military forces in the region? (e.g. Singapore, Taiwan [?] and the US). Definitely there will be an increase in the presence of US military personnel and perhaps USN visits to Subic, Ternate, Davao, and Manila.
What would this mean for our neighbors - especially the Dragon? China would be highly interested. No doubt she was happy when Clark and Subic closed - giving her greater clout in the region. An increased presence of the USN in the SCS would raise her eyebrows a bit. The USN lacks a strong presence in the SCS - unless it has a sub or two in the region conducting surveillance ops. A CVBG could stop or slow down China's build up in the Spratlys.
In any case, it would (hopefully) give teeth to the Mutual Defense Treaty of the 50s. Besides, IT'S ABOUT TIME WE GET OUR DUE! :-) Now, we wait for 2004. Assuming GMA won't run, will the next president follow on our good relations with the USA? Or will he/she, playing the nationalist horn, try to ward off the US with regard to military assistance and security in the region?
[removes polisci cap]
[wears polisci cap]
Having been declared/or about to be declared as a major non-NATO US ally means that we would have preference for weapons assistance programs, say receiving some old F-16s, radios, APCs (e.g. LAVs,), more Humvees, helos (SH-70/UH-60s, MD-530s), rifles, C-130s - all at a reasonable discount. Just don't count on us getting F-111s, Abrams, Patriots, etc. Perhaps Hawk SAM batteries and LVTP-7/AAVP-7? Perhaps also access to intelligence capabilities such as satellite recon passes (over Mindanao to combat the MILF/MNLF/ASG or the NPA all over the country). Chief of our needs are more helos and secure radios.
With regard to basing rights, that needs amending the constitution as the current one expressly prohibits basing of any foreign troops on our soil. Right now, we could allow (or for some leftist/rightist groups - tolerate) US troops for training exercises because they aren't based here. The constitution prohibits bases like Clark and Subic, not transient "basing" like now (unfortunately, many of the leftist/rightist don't see the distinction). The constitution also, interestingly, does not prohibit combat by foreign troops in the country - so any American soldier who comes in contact with rogue elements does not violate the constitution. IIRC. Also, the US does not need a permanent base here AFAICS, since they already have Yokosuka, Japan, and Singapore's harbor and there's no need to place bombers here like the Cold War. In lieu of that, more military exercises of varying sizes and frequent visits by the USN - probably up to a CVBG.
Most likely, what we'll be getting soonest are stuff that have a direct bearing on COIN ops, like radios, NVGs, helos, and APCs. If the Stryker vehicle is fully developed and entered into service, we might also get that (offering better protection - or so it's rumored or being officially stated to be - against RPGs). If ever China rattles her sabre over the Spratlys, we might have, quietly, a USN sub slip in that area if we ask for some assistance - with the US's official position that it would like to see the SCS clear and safe for all vessels in the region.
That is if our government gets its job correctly. Frankly, I'm a bit amazed to hear little protest on Bush's pronouncement re:US ally. Now, if our Senators would just concentrate on passing vital laws for our economy rather than playing SecDFA or President with regard to international issues and national security, our being a major non-NATO ally might actually have a benefit.
Another possibility (as mentioned earlier) is increased joint military exercises between our militaries. Perhaps even a larger Balikatan involving other military forces in the region? (e.g. Singapore, Taiwan [?] and the US). Definitely there will be an increase in the presence of US military personnel and perhaps USN visits to Subic, Ternate, Davao, and Manila.
What would this mean for our neighbors - especially the Dragon? China would be highly interested. No doubt she was happy when Clark and Subic closed - giving her greater clout in the region. An increased presence of the USN in the SCS would raise her eyebrows a bit. The USN lacks a strong presence in the SCS - unless it has a sub or two in the region conducting surveillance ops. A CVBG could stop or slow down China's build up in the Spratlys.
In any case, it would (hopefully) give teeth to the Mutual Defense Treaty of the 50s. Besides, IT'S ABOUT TIME WE GET OUR DUE! :-) Now, we wait for 2004. Assuming GMA won't run, will the next president follow on our good relations with the USA? Or will he/she, playing the nationalist horn, try to ward off the US with regard to military assistance and security in the region?
[removes polisci cap]
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 - 12:54 AM UTC
That's good and bad. Napag-aralan namin sa AP dati na kapag nakipag-ally ka sa malakas na bansa at nagkagiyera, ikaw ang uunahin. Good, because we have good weaponry or atleast second hand and obsolete US weaponry in our country. (But I really like the Harrier and Einfield SA-80 of the Royal Army/Air Force 
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 - 11:45 AM UTC
Quoted Text
That's good and bad. Napag-aralan namin sa AP dati na kapag nakipag-ally ka sa malakas na bansa at nagkagiyera, ikaw ang uunahin. Good, because we have good weaponry or atleast second hand and obsolete US weaponry in our country. (But I really like the Harrier and Einfield SA-80 of the Royal Army/Air Force
You mean the assault rifle whose magazine falls when you press the trigger? eek! Seriously, early SA-80s (L-something something is the other designation) were a big royal pain in the arse for the Royal Marines, the Royal Air Force, and the British (
) Army. But they've since fixed the damned bugger and is now a fine weapon IIRC.Trivia 1: Did you know that because of the introduction of the SA-80, the red coats has had to adjust their parade drill because the rifle was short - thanks to its bullpup design?
Trivia 2: Why not Royal Army, but rather British Army? Because if you say Royal Army, it owes its allegiance to the Queen (or King - depends on who's the reigning monarch at the time), but the British Army owes its allegiance to the people. Also, IIRC, the British Army traces its foundation (not sure now) to Cromwell - he who melteth most of the crown jewels in the Tower of London when he came into power. (Any Brits, Scots, Irish or anyone better informed in merry ol' England's history, please be free to correct anything I just said
)
Fritz
Member Since: March 17, 2003
entire network: 495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 - 05:21 PM UTC
What we really need are tanks & C-130's, C-5 if they're generous, C-17 globemasters if they're angels.(we only have less than 10 C-130's & only less than 5 are operational. I would also like it if we would buy weapons from Russia. Cheap firearms, Cheap aircraft, Cheap tanks?????, Cheap missile/grenade launchers, Cheap everything & very powerful indeed. But that might cause political disaster between RP & US. About the SA-80, that gun is vrey gooooooood but very eexxppeennssiivvee. Remember it's British so it's a wallet drainer.
lonewolf
Member Since: December 06, 2002
entire network: 478 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 - 06:37 PM UTC
Yay!
Pero delikado tayo sa AL QAEDA nyan...
Pero OK lang!
At least ...pwede na tayong magmalaki..^_^
At malay natin, yun nga...Yung modeler's dream...^_^
HEHEHEH
Pero delikado tayo sa AL QAEDA nyan...
Pero OK lang!
At least ...pwede na tayong magmalaki..^_^
At malay natin, yun nga...Yung modeler's dream...^_^
HEHEHEH
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 - 06:46 PM UTC
Now everyone, repeat after me: "We don't need tanks...We don't need tanks...We don't need tanks...We don't need tanks...We don't need tanks...We don't need tanks..." #:-)
Really, we don't need tanks (unless we plan on invading and securing Northern Borneo). What we need are APCs - either wheeled or tracked, SP artillery (say, truck mounted 155mm guns)... C-5s are overkill IMO (sorry) but C-17s would be really sweet :-)
As for buying Russian equipment - yeah would - might - cause a small frown between RP-US relations.
Re:SA-80, as much as I love Jolly Good England, I'd still take my M16A2 assault rifle to battle, yessir.
Whether or not we side with the US, lagot pa rin tayo from groups like AQ who value nothing but their imposition of their way of life and law on us.
Really, we don't need tanks (unless we plan on invading and securing Northern Borneo). What we need are APCs - either wheeled or tracked, SP artillery (say, truck mounted 155mm guns)... C-5s are overkill IMO (sorry) but C-17s would be really sweet :-)
As for buying Russian equipment - yeah would - might - cause a small frown between RP-US relations.
Re:SA-80, as much as I love Jolly Good England, I'd still take my M16A2 assault rifle to battle, yessir.
Whether or not we side with the US, lagot pa rin tayo from groups like AQ who value nothing but their imposition of their way of life and law on us.
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 - 09:38 PM UTC
Quoted Text
What we really need are tanks & C-130's, C-5 if they're generous, C-17 globemasters if they're angels.(we only have less than 10 C-130's & only less than 5 are operational. I would also like it if we would buy weapons from Russia. Cheap firearms, Cheap aircraft, Cheap tanks?????, Cheap missile/grenade launchers, Cheap everything & very powerful indeed. But that might cause political disaster between RP & US. About the SA-80, that gun is vrey gooooooood but very eexxppeennssiivvee. Remember it's British so it's a wallet drainer.
What we need are lots of AC and navy warships/subs. Phil is an archipelago. We have more water than dry land. AC's can go anywhere. As for the infantry, we need IR goggles (not the NVG). Cyphers/ detectors, snipers (Cut off lots of infantry). As for tanks, amphibious ones (if there's a thing like that) APCs. For handheld weapons, SA-80 is nice but like you said expensive. They're pretty good 1) as auto weapons 2) as added range with the scope 3) ease of use because the clip goes out of the way. For snipers, the best would be the SVD Dragunov/PSG-1 because they're semi-automatic and downright accurate. For close quarters combat, I recommend FAMAS for it's hellish firing rate. For AC's, bombers would be like the Nighthawk, CRS (close range support) like the Harrier and the Thunderbolt, Figher planes like the Raptor.
Still, with weaponry like those, we are a valuable target for other countries
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2003 - 09:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
What we need are lots of AC and navy warships
Agree. Navy and Air Force are the very first line of defense. Unless we send in a company of SpecFor inside the logistics camp of OPFOR and destroy their essentials... hehehe #:-)
Quoted Text
/subs.
Oh yeah! This I'd like to see in our inventory! Since the US doesn't build any SSKs anymore, we should get them either from Germany, Russia (Kilo class), Canada (if they still don't like the Upholder class), France (ugh!), Japan (they make very good SSKs - saw one actually when they docked here! :-) ), and others I could name. I could go on and on...
Quoted Text
As for the infantry, we need IR goggles (not the NVG).
Eh? Isn't NVG the latest in passive night vision devices? IR are old tech. NVG is better IMO. I could be wrong though...
Quoted Text
As for tanks, amphibious ones (if there's a thing like that)
Russia's old PT-91 (or was it 71? I keep getting it mixed up with the Twardy), the British Scorpion CVR/T series (AFAIK), better yet get some AAVP-7s - ones used by the USMC.
Quoted Text
For handheld weapons, SA-80 is nice... They're pretty good... 3) ease of use because the clip goes out of the way.
I heard that others curse the bullpup design. Probably force of habit...
Quoted Text
For snipers, the best would be the SVD Dragunov/PSG-1 because they're semi-automatic and downright accurate.
I'd take the PSG-1. This is because we'll be a non-NATO ally.
And give me a Barret light fifty also! :-)Quoted Text
For close quarters combat, I recommend FAMAS for it's hellish firing rate.
Simplify logistics - M16A2 all the way... or the M4 carbine
Quoted Text
For AC's, bombers would be like the Nighthawk, CRS (close range support) like the Harrier and the Thunderbolt, Figher planes like the Raptor.
Maybe we could get some F-111s out of the Arizona desert. Really, am not kidding. Nice long range, big payload... impressive aircraft. And don't forget UAVs/UCAVs like Predator and Global Hawk... as if the US will share Global Hawk with us.
Quoted Text
Still, with weaponry like those, we are a valuable target for other countries
Having pretty weapons doesn't make us a valuable target. Resources, political affiliations, internal policies - that makes us a target. We may have pretty weapons but if we live in the middle of the Pacific...
BTW, I realized I nitpicked your (and others! By golly I've become Mr. Picky!) post. Sorry, didn't mean to.
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 12:46 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Eh? Isn't NVG the latest in passive night vision devices? IR are old tech. NVG is better IMO. I could be wrong though...
I just saw in Discovery channel that they're using IR more rather than NVG. Info: the IR they are using shows the heat of an object in white rather than the red thingy
Fritz
Member Since: March 17, 2003
entire network: 495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 12:49 AM UTC
Oh yeah, thaks for reminding me, we do need warships also & when I said tanks I meant light tanks(APC's). When I was typing my reply I was really thinking of the video I saw of our rusty'n cranky Vietnam era APC's. The americans were actually impressed that we somehow managed to make those tanks run.
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 01:13 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Simplify logistics - M16A2 all the way... or the M4 carbine
Isn't the M16A2 a 3 shot burst version of the M16A1? M16A1 has the full auto mode function which is quite better. I can also recommend SMG's like MP5's, Fabriche Nationale Project 90 (FN P90) for close quarter combat
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 10:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text
Simplify logistics - M16A2 all the way... or the M4 carbine
Isn't the M16A2 a 3 shot burst version of the M16A1? M16A1 has the full auto mode function which is quite better. I can also recommend SMG's like MP5's, Fabriche Nationale Project 90 (FN P90) for close quarter combat
Full auto is a waste of ammo. That's more suited for MGs. The M16 is an assault rifle, not an SMG. There's a reason why the full auto mode was removed in the later versions of the M16.
Re:IR, that doesn't mean NVG is lousy. I think the current passive optics support both. Not sure.
Fritz, remember when Balikatan resumed? The American troops were amazed we could still fly Vietnam era Hueys! They were saying "That's the helicopter my dad piloted back then!" :-) They were nostalgic.
Fritz
Member Since: March 17, 2003
entire network: 495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 05:40 PM UTC
I think full auto should not be removed. Although that setting is not frequently used, how about desperate situations where you are overrun by the enemy, I think that full auto mode would be very useful to fend off attacks while you escape, isn't it? or what if your gun doesn't have full auto mode like the M16A2/A3??? but your enemy's gun has, that'll be quite unfair for you. Honestly I would prefer AK-47, SA-80, FAMAS, over the M16/M4 rifles simply because M16's are too sensitive. Bend your firing pin & your gone, storm it with sand & your left w/ your sidearm, make a mistake in loading & it won't fire at all. M16's are only famous because the U.S.A. used them. What if the rifle originated in nigeria or in the Phils. do you think it would still be famous? It's all because the U.S. advertised their gun to the whole world it is not because it is a remarkable gun at all
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 07:00 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I think full auto should not be removed. Although that setting is not frequently used, how about desperate situations where you are overrun by the enemy, I think that full auto mode would be very useful to fend off attacks while you escape, isn't it?
Uh, not really. It's a waste of ammo. Spray and pray? What you're talking about is what Rambo and Arney would do. I'd rather stay in a concealed position and pick 'em off with well-placed 3-round bursts.
Quoted Text
or what if your gun doesn't have full auto mode like the M16A2/A3??? but your enemy's gun has, that'll be quite unfair for you.
Well, just stay concealed and let 'em waste their ammo on you. When they're down to a few rounds or no rounds at all, who has the advantage now?
Quoted Text
Honestly I would prefer AK-47, SA-80, FAMAS, over the M16/M4 rifles simply because M16's are too sensitive. Bend your firing pin & your gone, storm it with sand & your left w/ your sidearm, make a mistake in loading & it won't fire at all. M16's are only famous because the U.S.A. used them. What if the rifle originated in nigeria or in the Phils. do you think it would still be famous? It's all because the U.S. advertised their gun to the whole world it is not because it is a remarkable gun at all
"Bend your firing pin & your gone, storm it with sand & your left w/ your sidearm, make a mistake in loading & it won't fire at all" you say? Well, do the same to any of your preferred weapons - same results, right? Aw c'mon don't tell me they'll still fire like a charm?!? (sorry to be sarcastic)"M16's are only famous because the U.S.A. used them. It's all because the U.S. advertised their gun to the whole world it is not because it is a remarkable gun at all"
Sorry but that's just BS. M16s are more and more used by HRT (Hostage Rescue Teams), SWAT, specforces, and armed forces because they're damn reliable and accurate.LaTtEX
Member Since: May 13, 2003
entire network: 292 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 07:12 PM UTC
Earlier (vietnam) versions of the M16 had those problems, but I believed they've been rectified. They would all be dilapidated now if they weren't. In any case, the Philippines does have a lisence to produce them, so it's easier to get good ones, just as long as the QC is not 'paltik-grade' 
Fritz
Member Since: March 17, 2003
entire network: 495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 - 07:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
"Bend your firing pin & your gone, storm it with sand & your left w/ your sidearm, make a mistake in loading & it won't fire at all" you say? Well, do the same to any of your preferred weapons - same results, right? Aw c'mon don't tell me they'll still fire like a charm?!? (sorry to be sarcastic)
on the first question not really, on the second very yes. SA-80's are friggin damn accurate, FAMAS can even fire under old-fashioned MUD, AK-47's are baically sand proof w/ their locked firing chambers(I saw it first-hand in a Galil w/c was supposed to be the Israeli version if the AK-47).
Quoted Text
"M16's are only famous because the U.S.A. used them. It's all because the U.S. advertised their gun to the whole world it is not because it is a remarkable gun at all" Sorry but that's just BS. M16s are more and more used by HRT (Hostage Rescue Teams), SWAT, specforces, and armed forces because they're damn reliable and accurate.
No offense my friend but this is what I've heard & seen.HRT's use them because those HRT's are American HRT's & their allies(e.g. ISRAEL, PHILS.) SWAT they use MP5's more(even PNP SWAT), specforces of course they have them. They have a very assorted arsenal. Armed forces use them because that is what the U.S. sent them for military aid.
shonen_red
Member Since: February 20, 2003
entire network: 5,762 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,610 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 01:30 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI think full auto should not be removed. Although that setting is not frequently used, how about desperate situations where you are overrun by the enemy, I think that full auto mode would be very useful to fend off attacks while you escape, isn't it?
Uh, not really. It's a waste of ammo. Spray and pray? What you're talking about is what Rambo and Arney would do. I'd rather stay in a concealed position and pick 'em off with well-placed 3-round bursts.Quoted Textor what if your gun doesn't have full auto mode like the M16A2/A3??? but your enemy's gun has, that'll be quite unfair for you.
Well, just stay concealed and let 'em waste their ammo on you. When they're down to a few rounds or no rounds at all, who has the advantage now?Quoted TextHonestly I would prefer AK-47, SA-80, FAMAS, over the M16/M4 rifles simply because M16's are too sensitive. Bend your firing pin & your gone, storm it with sand & your left w/ your sidearm, make a mistake in loading & it won't fire at all. M16's are only famous because the U.S.A. used them. What if the rifle originated in nigeria or in the Phils. do you think it would still be famous? It's all because the U.S. advertised their gun to the whole world it is not because it is a remarkable gun at all
"M16's are only famous because the U.S.A. used them. It's all because the U.S. advertised their gun to the whole world it is not because it is a remarkable gun at all"
The reason why the M16A1 is developed because of the problem it has. It is Air Cooled. It means it can't fire full burst. If it does, it malfunctions. That's why both the M16A1 and the M1 Garand has to be opened frequently and be cleaned. That's why it has been revised to M16A2. The structure is has is ideal for mid-range attacks. Staying conceal is not good enough in a battlefield. They are not dumb enough to be sniped. They stay in groups. You can't kill 5 or more men instantly.
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 02:19 AM UTC
Quoted Text
on the first question not really, on the second very yes. SA-80's are friggin damn accurate, FAMAS can even fire under old-fashioned MUD, AK-47's are baically sand proof w/ their locked firing chambers(I saw it first-hand in a Galil w/c was supposed to be the Israeli version if the AK-47).
No offense my friend but this is what I've heard & seen.HRT's use them because those HRT's are American HRT's & their allies(e.g. ISRAEL, PHILS.) SWAT they use MP5's more(even PNP SWAT), specforces of course they have them. They have a very assorted arsenal. Armed forces use them because that is what the U.S. sent them for military aid.
Ok lang. It was your statement on "M16s being famous" and "firing pins, etc." that bugged me because such arguments are illogical (i.e. they don't hold water - like I said, any weapon that is dirty, got its firing pin misaligned, will not work 100%, plus the "famous" statement is a lousy argument - sorry). Also, as you mentioned, they have a variety of arsenals for different missions. If they have it, they carry the M4 carbine than the MP5 because the M4 is almost (if not equally) small and has more stopping/penetrating power than the MP5. Let's just say we agree to disagree.
Besides, I was posting "within the envelope" of this thread, which is "do we now get new weapons now that we're a major non-NATO ally of the USA" to which the answer is yes, and the weapons will, naturally, come from the USA. Quoted Text
The reason why the M16A1 is developed because of the problem it has. It is Air Cooled. It means it can't fire full burst. If it does, it malfunctions. That's why both the M16A1 and the M1 Garand has to be opened frequently and be cleaned. That's why it has been revised to M16A2. The structure is has is ideal for mid-range attacks. Staying conceal is not good enough in a battlefield. They are not dumb enough to be sniped. They stay in groups. You can't kill 5 or more men instantly.
That's why you work in a unit - several riflemen, one or two machine gunners, etc. Plus you get issued grenades. And the enemy isn't stupid to stay in groups. That's one big juicy target for a grenade from the M203! :-) Staying concealed (as well as taking cover - there's a difference) IS good in a battlefield. They can't hit what they can't see (concealment) and your protected against incoming fire (cover). Then there's smoke grenades to cover your retreat...
Fritz
Member Since: March 17, 2003
entire network: 495 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 12:44 PM UTC
Yes my friend the weapons will come from the U.S.A. but for christ's sake they always give us 2nd hand weapons( ). Staying in groups is better than spray'n pray or hide because if they see a weird looking green dome(your helmet) not usually seen in that area, they're gonna snipe you & if you spray'n pray their machineguns will get you. The M4/M16 is still actually a good rifle. They only need to enhance it to perform like the impressive 56 year old AK47(Avtomat Kalashnikov 1947) & the Americans will have something to match the other assault rifles. But I think you don't know, all modern assault rifles as I know CAN hold & fire underwater(take the G36 w/c you clean w/ water-based solutions or WATER itself). :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
). Staying in groups is better than spray'n pray or hide because if they see a weird looking green dome(your helmet) not usually seen in that area, they're gonna snipe you & if you spray'n pray their machineguns will get you. The M4/M16 is still actually a good rifle. They only need to enhance it to perform like the impressive 56 year old AK47(Avtomat Kalashnikov 1947) & the Americans will have something to match the other assault rifles. But I think you don't know, all modern assault rifles as I know CAN hold & fire underwater(take the G36 w/c you clean w/ water-based solutions or WATER itself). :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) LaTtEX
Member Since: May 13, 2003
entire network: 292 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 01:09 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Yes my friend the weapons will come from the U.S.A. but for christ's sake they always give us 2nd hand weapons(
Well of course they'd give us 2nd hand weapons. That's why you call it aid #:-)
As for your arguments, staying in large groups is a no-no, being alone is a no-no as well. Breaking up in small groups whilst sufficiently camouflaged will greatly reduce the risk of a group kill, and allow pairs or so to take turns in moving and providing covering fire, if necessary. Snipers are also always in pairs, and in their case, they HAVE to hide for long periods of time.
In as much as we hate campers in Counterstrike, that's what snipers are supposed to do: camp.
lonewolf
Member Since: December 06, 2002
entire network: 478 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 05:33 PM UTC
Yes, snipers usually work in pairs...One looks out, while the other stands by and fires...
Naalala ko tuloy nung nag 7-Man team training kme....^_^
Ang saya..
Dadapa, Gagapang...Tapos tinuruan kme ng signals ng ranger...
Wawa nmn tayo...Laging 2nd hand..Yung mga surplus lang ang atin....
Sana nga tlga ay may small arms r&d tayo sa Pinas...
Naalala ko tuloy nung nag 7-Man team training kme....^_^
Ang saya..
Dadapa, Gagapang...Tapos tinuruan kme ng signals ng ranger...
Wawa nmn tayo...Laging 2nd hand..Yung mga surplus lang ang atin....
Sana nga tlga ay may small arms r&d tayo sa Pinas...
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:28 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Staying in groups
Let's get our terms "fixed." Do you mean as a cohesive unit operating in a well-trained tactical manner - or a chaotic bunch of angry persons with guns a-blazin'?
Quoted Text
But I think you don't know, all modern assault rifles as I know CAN hold & fire underwater...
Gee, I wonder what would be the effective range?
GIBeregovoy
Member Since: May 31, 2002
entire network: 1,612 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,129 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 10:34 PM UTC
I just had to ask for added info (sorry):
"I've got the friend, ex-SpetsNaz forces, who operated in Afghanistan circa 1985. He got himself a captured M16A1 and really liked it. His claim was "it was damn accurate in semi-auto, with open sights i've used it like the SVD as a sniper rifle up to 500 meters". The poor reputation of AK-47 for accuracy comes from much stronger recoil of 7.62mm ammo, compared to 5.56mm.
"The 5.45mm ammo has much lower recoil, and a generally marginal accuracy of GI AK-74 comes from marginal quality of russian GI ammo, whci is made to quite loose tolerances.
"The latest AK-101, basically the AK-74M re-chambered for 5.56mm NATO, is on par in terms of accuracy with the M4. M16A2 has longer barrel and longer line of sight, so it will be more accurate on extended ranges... on the other hands, in the MOUT the shorter AK-101 with its side-folding butt that allows rifle to be fired when folded, makes it much superior in maneuverability to both M16A2 and M4.
"the faster-reloading GP-30 40mm GL for AK-74 is another adwantage, with the only drawback of narrow selection of available ammo (only VOG-25 FRAG and VOG-25P rebouncing FRAG grenades generally available at that time)."
Above quote is from another forum, another thread, outside armorama. (emphasis above are mine)
The following I agree in our little thread so far:
1) The AK is a rugged weapon due to its simpler construction and design
2) We get 2nd hand weapons
3) Operating as a unit in the proper tactical manner is better than just sprayin'-n-prayin' or being Johnny Rambo
4) Full auto has its uses (like quickly clearing up a trench or a room, however a grenade will produce more, uh, "satisfying results" for less wastage of ammunition)
5) The SA80 is a nice weapon - I didn't say (either explicitly or impliedly) it was crap - but my reference to it having its 'magazine dropping when you push the trigger' is a joke that has some truth to it since early (and I mean first versions, fresh from the factory, fresh issued) versions had all sorts of trouble, again to emphasis, IN ITS EARLY YEARS (just like the M16, right? Right...)
This is my stand:
1) The M16 ain't crap
2) It holds its own against the others
3) It's "sensitive" - to put it too harshly - but heck, if the firing pin gets misaligned, mud clogs its systems, etc. etc., then it's the operator's fault that his weapon - as a result of such damage - ain't working. It's his job to clean it, maintain it, use it properly.
4) Full auto is nice - makes a lot of noise, impressive to see, etc. - but of limited value due to a) number of ammo wasted and b) inaccuracy because of the recoil factor
"I've got the friend, ex-SpetsNaz forces, who operated in Afghanistan circa 1985. He got himself a captured M16A1 and really liked it. His claim was "it was damn accurate in semi-auto, with open sights i've used it like the SVD as a sniper rifle up to 500 meters". The poor reputation of AK-47 for accuracy comes from much stronger recoil of 7.62mm ammo, compared to 5.56mm.
"The 5.45mm ammo has much lower recoil, and a generally marginal accuracy of GI AK-74 comes from marginal quality of russian GI ammo, whci is made to quite loose tolerances.
"The latest AK-101, basically the AK-74M re-chambered for 5.56mm NATO, is on par in terms of accuracy with the M4. M16A2 has longer barrel and longer line of sight, so it will be more accurate on extended ranges... on the other hands, in the MOUT the shorter AK-101 with its side-folding butt that allows rifle to be fired when folded, makes it much superior in maneuverability to both M16A2 and M4.
"the faster-reloading GP-30 40mm GL for AK-74 is another adwantage, with the only drawback of narrow selection of available ammo (only VOG-25 FRAG and VOG-25P rebouncing FRAG grenades generally available at that time)."
Above quote is from another forum, another thread, outside armorama. (emphasis above are mine)
The following I agree in our little thread so far:
1) The AK is a rugged weapon due to its simpler construction and design
2) We get 2nd hand weapons
3) Operating as a unit in the proper tactical manner is better than just sprayin'-n-prayin' or being Johnny Rambo
4) Full auto has its uses (like quickly clearing up a trench or a room, however a grenade will produce more, uh, "satisfying results" for less wastage of ammunition)
5) The SA80 is a nice weapon - I didn't say (either explicitly or impliedly) it was crap - but my reference to it having its 'magazine dropping when you push the trigger' is a joke that has some truth to it since early (and I mean first versions, fresh from the factory, fresh issued) versions had all sorts of trouble, again to emphasis, IN ITS EARLY YEARS (just like the M16, right? Right...)
This is my stand:
1) The M16 ain't crap
2) It holds its own against the others
3) It's "sensitive" - to put it too harshly - but heck, if the firing pin gets misaligned, mud clogs its systems, etc. etc., then it's the operator's fault that his weapon - as a result of such damage - ain't working. It's his job to clean it, maintain it, use it properly.
4) Full auto is nice - makes a lot of noise, impressive to see, etc. - but of limited value due to a) number of ammo wasted and b) inaccuracy because of the recoil factor
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 KitMaker Network and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.