Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Choice libertarian quotes
I Read This
December 11, 2018, 15:20:35 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64
  Print  
Author Topic: Choice libertarian quotes  (Read 97486 times)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #930 on: December 26, 2008, 11:22:07 EST »

Which proved a bad idea, the M16 had to modified to give it a slower rate of fire so a solider doesn't burn though the magazine too quickly.   

Do you intentionally not read? The choice of ammunition was what I was referring to, not the rate of fire.
"it states that the end goal of the M16 was to throw as much ammo out the business end of it, in the shortest time possible. This is because after WWII, the US armed forces had come to the conclusion that the most pertinent factor in deciding enemy casualties was the amount of ammo fired."

If that was the case the US would have stuck with sub machine guns that have a very high rate of fire that can carry a large number of rounds.   

And, in certain specialised units, they have. It turns out, though, that having the power of a full machine gun is preferable in some situations. Especially as, at the time the M16 was adopted, SMGs were little more than pistols altered for fully automatic fire.
SMGs always been nothing more then fast firing pistols.

So you agree that adopting an SMG as the main grunt gun would have been a bad idea?
It was a main grunt gun for Russia and Germany during WWII, with many troops cross trained with rifles and SMGs. 

And as has been pointed out to you, Russia during WWII was far from being an exemplar.
And what about Germany?  Germany developed the assault rifle because German engineers trying to develop a light weight semi-automatic carbine rifle so it wouldn't weigh down German grunt mostly using SMGs got the brilliant idea of merging the role of a carbine rifle with that of a sub machine gun so German grunts would have a single firearm that could be used to spray enemies at close range while having the range and accuracy for firings bursts of fire at relatively longer ranges.  Kalashnikov mostly took the basic idea and improved upon it.

Incorrect. The assault rifle was developed to be a weapon that could do double duty as a long-range rifle and a trench-fighting gun (a la the commander's pistol). It was developed from the idea of a fully-automatic weapon chambering rounds that were halfway between rifle and pistol ammo.

SMGs were always about firing pistol ammo in a fully automatic fashion.
Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
If one side has assault rifles that can still fire at target when they drive for cover while the other doesn't that would be a huge advantage to first side.

Until the side with the less penetrative ammo realises that they're more likely to get non-fatal wounds, and win the day, by storming their opponent's cover. A gun that fires straight through cover is less likely to disable an opponent.

In short: penetrative power in a grunt gun is a bad thing.
That assumes both sides can get clean shots most of the time, instead of both side from firing from cover. 

No, it assumes both sides are firing from cover, and that one side decides that cover isn't worth it because fatal injuries are more likely from behind cover than they are during a charge.
Stalingrad proved this assumption wrong, in urban environments troops were rarely in the open in WWII, you never had street patrols you see in Iraq now, instead both sided rarely left cover even when advancing both sides simply advanced from cover and cover till the last leg.

Urban cover is different from the cover you were presupposing. No bullet is going to penetrate a slab of concrete, for instance.
Yet it they can penetrate wood and brick, also the  7.62x39mm can penetrate thin concrete (like a highway concrete barrier) at under 50 yards.  You have to remember the 7.62x39mm has 2,059 joules of energy out of the muzzle while the 5.56x45 has only 1,796 joules out of the muzzle.

At under 50 yards. By that time, your cover's already being stormed anyway, and you're not stopping your opponents with direct hits anymore.
Again WWII proved this wrong, not only in Eastern Europe but in the Pacific.  Where many times troops were so entrenched that the troops had good cover even when the battle was take place with ranges under 50 yards, troops were so entrenched flame throwers actually became a useful weapon for storming enemy entrenchments.

You've just contradicted your self about three times. This has to be some kind of record.
Where? Flame throwers of WWII had a effective range of only 20 yards.  You are arguing that troops lose their cover at around 50 yards.

Quote from: Medivh
By the way: we're not fighting WWII anymore. We're fighting mainly guerilla wars. No entrenchments, mainly because they're useless now.
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.


Quote from: Medivh
<Attempted retraction of concession>

Would you like some cheese with that whine? You got caught, deal with it.
Huh

Look, the argument was over me using commander for lower level officers, you challenged me using the term commander for lower level commander so I used wiki to show that commander is used describe lower level officers.  You are creating a straw man argument over this. 
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #931 on: December 27, 2008, 01:01:19 EST »

Which proved a bad idea, the M16 had to modified to give it a slower rate of fire so a solider doesn't burn though the magazine too quickly.   

Do you intentionally not read? The choice of ammunition was what I was referring to, not the rate of fire.
"it states that the end goal of the M16 was to throw as much ammo out the business end of it, in the shortest time possible. This is because after WWII, the US armed forces had come to the conclusion that the most pertinent factor in deciding enemy casualties was the amount of ammo fired."

If that was the case the US would have stuck with sub machine guns that have a very high rate of fire that can carry a large number of rounds.   

And, in certain specialised units, they have. It turns out, though, that having the power of a full machine gun is preferable in some situations. Especially as, at the time the M16 was adopted, SMGs were little more than pistols altered for fully automatic fire.
SMGs always been nothing more then fast firing pistols.

So you agree that adopting an SMG as the main grunt gun would have been a bad idea?
It was a main grunt gun for Russia and Germany during WWII, with many troops cross trained with rifles and SMGs. 

And as has been pointed out to you, Russia during WWII was far from being an exemplar.
And what about Germany?  Germany developed the assault rifle because German engineers trying to develop a light weight semi-automatic carbine rifle so it wouldn't weigh down German grunt mostly using SMGs got the brilliant idea of merging the role of a carbine rifle with that of a sub machine gun so German grunts would have a single firearm that could be used to spray enemies at close range while having the range and accuracy for firings bursts of fire at relatively longer ranges.  Kalashnikov mostly took the basic idea and improved upon it.

Incorrect. The assault rifle was developed to be a weapon that could do double duty as a long-range rifle and a trench-fighting gun (a la the commander's pistol). It was developed from the idea of a fully-automatic weapon chambering rounds that were halfway between rifle and pistol ammo.

SMGs were always about firing pistol ammo in a fully automatic fashion.
Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".

Not to mention the bits you've got plain wrong. The development of the assault rifle was centred around the kind of rounds chambered, not the kinds of gun to hybridise. The Sturmgewehr 44 wasn't an SMG. SMGs typically have an effective range of 100m±50m. SMGs were developed after the Sturmgewehr 44, because no-one thought that fully automatic firing of pistol ammo would be a good thing, until much later. Problems with how controllable the weapon would be was the major concern.

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
If one side has assault rifles that can still fire at target when they drive for cover while the other doesn't that would be a huge advantage to first side.

Until the side with the less penetrative ammo realises that they're more likely to get non-fatal wounds, and win the day, by storming their opponent's cover. A gun that fires straight through cover is less likely to disable an opponent.

In short: penetrative power in a grunt gun is a bad thing.
That assumes both sides can get clean shots most of the time, instead of both side from firing from cover. 

No, it assumes both sides are firing from cover, and that one side decides that cover isn't worth it because fatal injuries are more likely from behind cover than they are during a charge.
Stalingrad proved this assumption wrong, in urban environments troops were rarely in the open in WWII, you never had street patrols you see in Iraq now, instead both sided rarely left cover even when advancing both sides simply advanced from cover and cover till the last leg.

Urban cover is different from the cover you were presupposing. No bullet is going to penetrate a slab of concrete, for instance.
Yet it they can penetrate wood and brick, also the  7.62x39mm can penetrate thin concrete (like a highway concrete barrier) at under 50 yards.  You have to remember the 7.62x39mm has 2,059 joules of energy out of the muzzle while the 5.56x45 has only 1,796 joules out of the muzzle.

At under 50 yards. By that time, your cover's already being stormed anyway, and you're not stopping your opponents with direct hits anymore.
Again WWII proved this wrong, not only in Eastern Europe but in the Pacific.  Where many times troops were so entrenched that the troops had good cover even when the battle was take place with ranges under 50 yards, troops were so entrenched flame throwers actually became a useful weapon for storming enemy entrenchments.

You've just contradicted your self about three times. This has to be some kind of record.
Where? Flame throwers of WWII had a effective range of only 20 yards.  You are arguing that troops lose their cover at around 50 yards.

"Again WWII proved this wrong" with "storming enemy entrenchements" forms one of them. Another is "so entrenched" and "under 50 yards". And I think I grabbed "in the Pacific", which isn't really a contradiction so much as just plain wrong. There was no trench warfare in the Pacific. It was mainly air superiority and sneak attacks.

Quote from: Medivh
By the way: we're not fighting WWII anymore. We're fighting mainly guerilla wars. No entrenchments, mainly because they're useless now.
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.

Costly to attack by air. Or to assault by a large unit of troops. Not so much of a problem for guerrillas to lob a few grenades into and melt back into the night, though. Especially if the rules of engagement are "retaliate, but don't fire first".

Your problem is that you're fighting Korea when you need to think Vietnam. While the USAF was involved (somewhat heavily) in Vietnam, the war was primarily fought on the ground. The only reason that MiG alley existed was because the USMC/army were relying so heavily on helicopters for logistics.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #932 on: December 27, 2008, 03:46:47 EST »

Not to mention the bits you've got plain wrong. The development of the assault rifle was centred around the kind of rounds chambered, not the kinds of gun to hybridise. The Sturmgewehr 44 wasn't an SMG. SMGs typically have an effective range of 100m±50m. SMGs were developed after the Sturmgewehr 44, because no-one thought that fully automatic firing of pistol ammo would be a good thing, until much later. Problems with how controllable the weapon would be was the major concern.

I hate to repeat myself ... but look at the page for the Tommy gun again. It's been around since 1921.

Even Germany had submachine guns well before they developed the assault rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP40

Quote
"Again WWII proved this wrong" with "storming enemy entrenchements" forms one of them. Another is "so entrenched" and "under 50 yards". And I think I grabbed "in the Pacific", which isn't really a contradiction so much as just plain wrong. There was no trench warfare in the Pacific. It was mainly air superiority and sneak attacks.

... and storming heavily fortified small islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

« Last Edit: December 27, 2008, 03:50:18 EST by Ihlosi » Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #933 on: December 27, 2008, 08:50:04 EST »

Not to mention the bits you've got plain wrong. The development of the assault rifle was centred around the kind of rounds chambered, not the kinds of gun to hybridise. The Sturmgewehr 44 wasn't an SMG. SMGs typically have an effective range of 100m±50m. SMGs were developed after the Sturmgewehr 44, because no-one thought that fully automatic firing of pistol ammo would be a good thing, until much later. Problems with how controllable the weapon would be was the major concern.

I hate to repeat myself ... but look at the page for the Tommy gun again. It's been around since 1921.

Even Germany had submachine guns well before they developed the assault rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP40

Sorry, you're right. Although the Tommy gun was actually intended to be a heavy machine gun. I believe that it was, at the time it was originally produced, classed as a light machine gun, with the SMG designation only coming after the StG44.

I've been wrong about this sort of thing before, though.

Quote
"Again WWII proved this wrong" with "storming enemy entrenchements" forms one of them. Another is "so entrenched" and "under 50 yards". And I think I grabbed "in the Pacific", which isn't really a contradiction so much as just plain wrong. There was no trench warfare in the Pacific. It was mainly air superiority and sneak attacks.

... and storming heavily fortified small islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Iwo_Jima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

H-uh. Which just shows my particular biases. I was thinking Kokoda Trail, the bombing of Darwin, submarines in Sydney Harbour and the special 'Z' force.

Whoops.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #934 on: December 27, 2008, 11:04:24 EST »

Which proved a bad idea, the M16 had to modified to give it a slower rate of fire so a solider doesn't burn though the magazine too quickly.   

Do you intentionally not read? The choice of ammunition was what I was referring to, not the rate of fire.
"it states that the end goal of the M16 was to throw as much ammo out the business end of it, in the shortest time possible. This is because after WWII, the US armed forces had come to the conclusion that the most pertinent factor in deciding enemy casualties was the amount of ammo fired."

If that was the case the US would have stuck with sub machine guns that have a very high rate of fire that can carry a large number of rounds.   

And, in certain specialised units, they have. It turns out, though, that having the power of a full machine gun is preferable in some situations. Especially as, at the time the M16 was adopted, SMGs were little more than pistols altered for fully automatic fire.
SMGs always been nothing more then fast firing pistols.

So you agree that adopting an SMG as the main grunt gun would have been a bad idea?
It was a main grunt gun for Russia and Germany during WWII, with many troops cross trained with rifles and SMGs. 

And as has been pointed out to you, Russia during WWII was far from being an exemplar.
And what about Germany?  Germany developed the assault rifle because German engineers trying to develop a light weight semi-automatic carbine rifle so it wouldn't weigh down German grunt mostly using SMGs got the brilliant idea of merging the role of a carbine rifle with that of a sub machine gun so German grunts would have a single firearm that could be used to spray enemies at close range while having the range and accuracy for firings bursts of fire at relatively longer ranges.  Kalashnikov mostly took the basic idea and improved upon it.

Incorrect. The assault rifle was developed to be a weapon that could do double duty as a long-range rifle and a trench-fighting gun (a la the commander's pistol). It was developed from the idea of a fully-automatic weapon chambering rounds that were halfway between rifle and pistol ammo.

SMGs were always about firing pistol ammo in a fully automatic fashion.
Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".
Many people call intermediate rounds, intermediate rifle rounds try goggling it.  Also intermediate rounds are still considered rifle rounds, they are considered intermediate power rifle rounds.

Quote from: Medivh
Not to mention the bits you've got plain wrong. The development of the assault rifle was centred around the kind of rounds chambered, not the kinds of gun to hybridise. The Sturmgewehr 44 wasn't an SMG. SMGs typically have an effective range of 100m±50m. SMGs were developed after the Sturmgewehr 44, because no-one thought that fully automatic firing of pistol ammo would be a good thing, until much later. Problems with how controllable the weapon would be was the major concern.
Wrong the SMGs was developed in WWI by the Germans (the MP18), the Sturmgewehr 44 was developed in WWII by the Germans and combined the functionality of a SMG with a intermediate powered semi-automatic carbine rifle.


Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
If one side has assault rifles that can still fire at target when they drive for cover while the other doesn't that would be a huge advantage to first side.

Until the side with the less penetrative ammo realises that they're more likely to get non-fatal wounds, and win the day, by storming their opponent's cover. A gun that fires straight through cover is less likely to disable an opponent.

In short: penetrative power in a grunt gun is a bad thing.
That assumes both sides can get clean shots most of the time, instead of both side from firing from cover. 

No, it assumes both sides are firing from cover, and that one side decides that cover isn't worth it because fatal injuries are more likely from behind cover than they are during a charge.
Stalingrad proved this assumption wrong, in urban environments troops were rarely in the open in WWII, you never had street patrols you see in Iraq now, instead both sided rarely left cover even when advancing both sides simply advanced from cover and cover till the last leg.

Urban cover is different from the cover you were presupposing. No bullet is going to penetrate a slab of concrete, for instance.
Yet it they can penetrate wood and brick, also the  7.62x39mm can penetrate thin concrete (like a highway concrete barrier) at under 50 yards.  You have to remember the 7.62x39mm has 2,059 joules of energy out of the muzzle while the 5.56x45 has only 1,796 joules out of the muzzle.

At under 50 yards. By that time, your cover's already being stormed anyway, and you're not stopping your opponents with direct hits anymore.
Again WWII proved this wrong, not only in Eastern Europe but in the Pacific.  Where many times troops were so entrenched that the troops had good cover even when the battle was take place with ranges under 50 yards, troops were so entrenched flame throwers actually became a useful weapon for storming enemy entrenchments.

You've just contradicted your self about three times. This has to be some kind of record.
Where? Flame throwers of WWII had a effective range of only 20 yards.  You are arguing that troops lose their cover at around 50 yards.

"Again WWII proved this wrong" with "storming enemy entrenchements" forms one of them. Another is "so entrenched" and "under 50 yards". And I think I grabbed "in the Pacific", which isn't really a contradiction so much as just plain wrong. There was no trench warfare in the Pacific. It was mainly air superiority and sneak attacks.
See Ihlosi post

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
By the way: we're not fighting WWII anymore. We're fighting mainly guerilla wars. No entrenchments, mainly because they're useless now.
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.

Costly to attack by air. Or to assault by a large unit of troops. Not so much of a problem for guerrillas to lob a few grenades into and melt back into the night, though. Especially if the rules of engagement are "retaliate, but don't fire first".
Guerrillas actually never directly attacked fortified US based in Vietnam only the NVA did. 
« Last Edit: December 27, 2008, 11:06:44 EST by Psy » Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #935 on: December 28, 2008, 01:48:42 EST »

Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".
Many people call intermediate rounds, intermediate rifle rounds try goggling it.  Also intermediate rounds are still considered rifle rounds, they are considered intermediate power rifle rounds.

People say "ATM machine" and "PIN number" too. Doesn't make it right. Automatic teller machine machine?

(BTW: goggling? Beer goggling? Tongue)

Quote from: Medivh
Not to mention the bits you've got plain wrong. The development of the assault rifle was centred around the kind of rounds chambered, not the kinds of gun to hybridise. The Sturmgewehr 44 wasn't an SMG. SMGs typically have an effective range of 100m±50m. SMGs were developed after the Sturmgewehr 44, because no-one thought that fully automatic firing of pistol ammo would be a good thing, until much later. Problems with how controllable the weapon would be was the major concern.
Wrong the SMGs was developed in WWI by the Germans (the MP18), the Sturmgewehr 44 was developed in WWII by the Germans and combined the functionality of a SMG with a intermediate powered semi-automatic carbine rifle.

I've already given (most of) that one up. See previous post.

Quote from: Medivh
Where? Flame throwers of WWII had a effective range of only 20 yards.  You are arguing that troops lose their cover at around 50 yards.

"Again WWII proved this wrong" with "storming enemy entrenchements" forms one of them. Another is "so entrenched" and "under 50 yards". And I think I grabbed "in the Pacific", which isn't really a contradiction so much as just plain wrong. There was no trench warfare in the Pacific. It was mainly air superiority and sneak attacks.
See Ihlosi post

And replied. You only get "in the Pacific" back, because I'd forgotten about Iwo Jima. That still leaves the two contradictions.

Quote from: Medivh
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.

Costly to attack by air. Or to assault by a large unit of troops. Not so much of a problem for guerrillas to lob a few grenades into and melt back into the night, though. Especially if the rules of engagement are "retaliate, but don't fire first".
Guerrillas actually never directly attacked fortified US based in Vietnam only the NVA did. 

They wouldn't have. The rules of engagement were "shoot on sight". INTERFET in East Timor had more of a problem on with regard to this, because it was a peacekeeping mission. The rules of engagement were "retaliate". Similar problems would happen if a peacekeeping force went into Darfur. Or Palestine. Or most parts of Africa.

Hell the only reason why the same problem doesn't occur in Iraq is, again, the RoE.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #936 on: December 28, 2008, 11:12:10 EST »

Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".
Many people call intermediate rounds, intermediate rifle rounds try goggling it.  Also intermediate rounds are still considered rifle rounds, they are considered intermediate power rifle rounds.

People say "ATM machine" and "PIN number" too. Doesn't make it right. Automatic teller machine machine?

(BTW: goggling? Beer goggling? Tongue)
Yet it wouldn't be a oxymoron, it would make it redundant, Automatic Teller Machine machine.

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Not to mention the bits you've got plain wrong. The development of the assault rifle was centred around the kind of rounds chambered, not the kinds of gun to hybridise. The Sturmgewehr 44 wasn't an SMG. SMGs typically have an effective range of 100m±50m. SMGs were developed after the Sturmgewehr 44, because no-one thought that fully automatic firing of pistol ammo would be a good thing, until much later. Problems with how controllable the weapon would be was the major concern.
Wrong the SMGs was developed in WWI by the Germans (the MP18), the Sturmgewehr 44 was developed in WWII by the Germans and combined the functionality of a SMG with a intermediate powered semi-automatic carbine rifle.

I've already given (most of) that one up. See previous post.

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Where? Flame throwers of WWII had a effective range of only 20 yards.  You are arguing that troops lose their cover at around 50 yards.

"Again WWII proved this wrong" with "storming enemy entrenchements" forms one of them. Another is "so entrenched" and "under 50 yards". And I think I grabbed "in the Pacific", which isn't really a contradiction so much as just plain wrong. There was no trench warfare in the Pacific. It was mainly air superiority and sneak attacks.
See Ihlosi post

And replied. You only get "in the Pacific" back, because I'd forgotten about Iwo Jima. That still leaves the two contradictions.
And they would be?  50 yards is pretty far when you are talking heavy fortifications.

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.

Costly to attack by air. Or to assault by a large unit of troops. Not so much of a problem for guerrillas to lob a few grenades into and melt back into the night, though. Especially if the rules of engagement are "retaliate, but don't fire first".
Guerrillas actually never directly attacked fortified US based in Vietnam only the NVA did. 

They wouldn't have. The rules of engagement were "shoot on sight". INTERFET in East Timor had more of a problem on with regard to this, because it was a peacekeeping mission. The rules of engagement were "retaliate". Similar problems would happen if a peacekeeping force went into Darfur. Or Palestine. Or most parts of Africa.

Hell the only reason why the same problem doesn't occur in Iraq is, again, the RoE.
The doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to avoid enemy fortifications at all costs, the doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to instead attack the enemies weak points then run away and keep chipping away the enemy forces a little bit of a time.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #937 on: December 28, 2008, 14:04:41 EST »

Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".
Many people call intermediate rounds, intermediate rifle rounds try goggling it.  Also intermediate rounds are still considered rifle rounds, they are considered intermediate power rifle rounds.

People say "ATM machine" and "PIN number" too. Doesn't make it right. Automatic teller machine machine?

(BTW: goggling? Beer goggling? Tongue)
Yet it wouldn't be a oxymoron, it would make it redundant, Automatic Teller Machine machine.

RW: if you're still reading, I suspect that Psy is not functionally illiterate, but is speaking English as a foreign language. I also suspect that he lacks the ability to think in terms of abstractions.

Psy: While "ATM machine" is an example of a redundancy, it was meant to illustrate that common usage of language can still be wrong. "Intermediate rifle cartridge" is more like Starbucks "tall coffee" being the smallest size. Or the phrase "found missing".

<Concession, refusal to read the material quoted>

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.

Costly to attack by air. Or to assault by a large unit of troops. Not so much of a problem for guerrillas to lob a few grenades into and melt back into the night, though. Especially if the rules of engagement are "retaliate, but don't fire first".
Guerrillas actually never directly attacked fortified US based in Vietnam only the NVA did. 

They wouldn't have. The rules of engagement were "shoot on sight". INTERFET in East Timor had more of a problem on with regard to this, because it was a peacekeeping mission. The rules of engagement were "retaliate". Similar problems would happen if a peacekeeping force went into Darfur. Or Palestine. Or most parts of Africa.

Hell the only reason why the same problem doesn't occur in Iraq is, again, the RoE.
The doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to avoid enemy fortifications at all costs, the doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to instead attack the enemies weak points then run away and keep chipping away the enemy forces a little bit of a time.

Which is pretty much everywhere when the RoEs are "retaliate only". If a fort can't shoot first, then you can do all kinds of interesting things before melting away into the darkness and flipping the detonator switch.

Or, as happened frequently to INTERFET, wander up, lob in a grenade and make yourself scarce before your enemy can react. In many instances, INTERFET troops expressed frustration that this was allowed to go on, because the brass wouldn't change the RoEs.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #938 on: December 28, 2008, 15:36:23 EST »

Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".
Many people call intermediate rounds, intermediate rifle rounds try goggling it.  Also intermediate rounds are still considered rifle rounds, they are considered intermediate power rifle rounds.

People say "ATM machine" and "PIN number" too. Doesn't make it right. Automatic teller machine machine?

(BTW: goggling? Beer goggling? Tongue)
Yet it wouldn't be a oxymoron, it would make it redundant, Automatic Teller Machine machine.

Psy: While "ATM machine" is an example of a redundancy, it was meant to illustrate that common usage of language can still be wrong. "Intermediate rifle cartridge" is more like Starbucks "tall coffee" being the smallest size. Or the phrase "found missing".
Intermediate carbine rifles like the SKS and M1 carbine are still classified as rifles by every military on Earth, also air rifles are officially called air rifles by many manufactures and dealers even though they have far less range then intermediate rifles.  That is because the term rifle only means a firearm a barrel that has a helical groove or pattern of grooves cut into the barrel walls.

Quote from: Medivh
<Concession, refusal to read the material quoted>
What part?  WWII showed that when infantry have heavy fortifications long range entanglements become highly ineffective.

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.

Costly to attack by air. Or to assault by a large unit of troops. Not so much of a problem for guerrillas to lob a few grenades into and melt back into the night, though. Especially if the rules of engagement are "retaliate, but don't fire first".
Guerrillas actually never directly attacked fortified US based in Vietnam only the NVA did. 

They wouldn't have. The rules of engagement were "shoot on sight". INTERFET in East Timor had more of a problem on with regard to this, because it was a peacekeeping mission. The rules of engagement were "retaliate". Similar problems would happen if a peacekeeping force went into Darfur. Or Palestine. Or most parts of Africa.

Hell the only reason why the same problem doesn't occur in Iraq is, again, the RoE.
The doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to avoid enemy fortifications at all costs, the doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to instead attack the enemies weak points then run away and keep chipping away the enemy forces a little bit of a time.

Which is pretty much everywhere when the RoEs are "retaliate only". If a fort can't shoot first, then you can do all kinds of interesting things before melting away into the darkness and flipping the detonator switch.

Or, as happened frequently to INTERFET, wander up, lob in a grenade and make yourself scarce before your enemy can react. In many instances, INTERFET troops expressed frustration that this was allowed to go on, because the brass wouldn't change the RoEs.
Guerrilla warfare was born in conflicts were the other side didn't care about civilian casualties, for example in WWII Germans troops would make example of local populations in response for guerrilla activities against their troops, yet it also resulted in guerrillas not caring about hurting civilians that didn't support them and in some cases guerrillas also making examples of local populations that supported the occupying German forces (which we are seeing now in Iraq with insurgents making examples of Iraqis caught supporting the occupying US forces).
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #939 on: December 28, 2008, 16:48:42 EST »

Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".
Many people call intermediate rounds, intermediate rifle rounds try goggling it.  Also intermediate rounds are still considered rifle rounds, they are considered intermediate power rifle rounds.

People say "ATM machine" and "PIN number" too. Doesn't make it right. Automatic teller machine machine?

(BTW: goggling? Beer goggling? Tongue)
Yet it wouldn't be a oxymoron, it would make it redundant, Automatic Teller Machine machine.

Psy: While "ATM machine" is an example of a redundancy, it was meant to illustrate that common usage of language can still be wrong. "Intermediate rifle cartridge" is more like Starbucks "tall coffee" being the smallest size. Or the phrase "found missing".
Intermediate carbine rifles like the SKS and M1 carbine are still classified as rifles by every military on Earth,

The SKS uses 7.62x39mm rifle ammo, AKA 7.62 mm Soviet. The M1 uses .30-06. Otherwise known as .308 Winchester rifle ammo.

They might have an effective range of 400 and 500m respectively, but this is still too far for being labeled "intermediate". Intermediate ends at 300m.

also air rifles are officially called air rifles by many manufactures and dealers even though they have far less range then intermediate rifles.

Yes, but their ammo is know as "air rifle pellets". It's quite clear that bullets aren't involved.

That is because the term rifle only means a firearm a barrel that has a helical groove or pattern of grooves cut into the barrel walls.

Rifling refers to the helical groove. However, all modern firearms including pistols are rifled. "Rifles" are weapons that fire rifle ammunition. Rifle ammunition is defined as bullets that have an effective range longer than 300m. This is distinct from shells that have an effective range longer than 300m.

Quote from: Medivh
<Concession, refusal to read the material quoted>
What part?  WWII showed that when infantry have heavy fortifications long range entanglements become highly ineffective.

"And they would be?"

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.

Costly to attack by air. Or to assault by a large unit of troops. Not so much of a problem for guerrillas to lob a few grenades into and melt back into the night, though. Especially if the rules of engagement are "retaliate, but don't fire first".
Guerrillas actually never directly attacked fortified US based in Vietnam only the NVA did. 

They wouldn't have. The rules of engagement were "shoot on sight". INTERFET in East Timor had more of a problem on with regard to this, because it was a peacekeeping mission. The rules of engagement were "retaliate". Similar problems would happen if a peacekeeping force went into Darfur. Or Palestine. Or most parts of Africa.

Hell the only reason why the same problem doesn't occur in Iraq is, again, the RoE.
The doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to avoid enemy fortifications at all costs, the doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to instead attack the enemies weak points then run away and keep chipping away the enemy forces a little bit of a time.

Which is pretty much everywhere when the RoEs are "retaliate only". If a fort can't shoot first, then you can do all kinds of interesting things before melting away into the darkness and flipping the detonator switch.

Or, as happened frequently to INTERFET, wander up, lob in a grenade and make yourself scarce before your enemy can react. In many instances, INTERFET troops expressed frustration that this was allowed to go on, because the brass wouldn't change the RoEs.
Guerrilla warfare was born in conflicts were the other side didn't care about civilian casualties, for example in WWII Germans troops would make example of local populations in response for guerrilla activities against their troops, yet it also resulted in guerrillas not caring about hurting civilians that didn't support them and in some cases guerrillas also making examples of local populations that supported the occupying German forces (which we are seeing now in Iraq with insurgents making examples of Iraqis caught supporting the occupying US forces).

You want to link this tangent up?
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #940 on: December 28, 2008, 18:21:01 EST »

Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".
Many people call intermediate rounds, intermediate rifle rounds try goggling it.  Also intermediate rounds are still considered rifle rounds, they are considered intermediate power rifle rounds.

People say "ATM machine" and "PIN number" too. Doesn't make it right. Automatic teller machine machine?

(BTW: goggling? Beer goggling? Tongue)
Yet it wouldn't be a oxymoron, it would make it redundant, Automatic Teller Machine machine.

Psy: While "ATM machine" is an example of a redundancy, it was meant to illustrate that common usage of language can still be wrong. "Intermediate rifle cartridge" is more like Starbucks "tall coffee" being the smallest size. Or the phrase "found missing".
Intermediate carbine rifles like the SKS and M1 carbine are still classified as rifles by every military on Earth,

The SKS uses 7.62x39mm rifle ammo, AKA 7.62 mm Soviet. The M1 uses .30-06. Otherwise known as .308 Winchester rifle ammo.

They might have an effective range of 400 and 500m respectively, but this is still too far for being labeled "intermediate". Intermediate ends at 300m.
Compared to rifles with over a KM range they are intermediate rounds as they have far more power and range then pistol rounds yet don't have the power and range of conventional rifle rounds of the era.

Quote from: Medivh
also air rifles are officially called air rifles by many manufactures and dealers even though they have far less range then intermediate rifles.

Yes, but their ammo is know as "air rifle pellets". It's quite clear that bullets aren't involved.
True, and you also the term assault rifle being a official military term even though all assault rifles use less powerful rifle rounds.

Quote from: Medivh
That is because the term rifle only means a firearm a barrel that has a helical groove or pattern of grooves cut into the barrel walls.

Rifling refers to the helical groove. However, all modern firearms including pistols are rifled. "Rifles" are weapons that fire rifle ammunition. Rifle ammunition is defined as bullets that have an effective range longer than 300m. This is distinct from shells that have an effective range longer than 300m.
Even by that definition assault rifles would still be rifles.  Thus the term intermediate rifle still make sense as it is referring to a rifle that has a intermediate powered round.

Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
<Concession, refusal to read the material quoted>
What part?  WWII showed that when infantry have heavy fortifications long range entanglements become highly ineffective.

"And they would be?"
You forgot how the Germans went around the Maginot Line?  Or how after pounding heavy German fortifications with air strikes and artillery barrages and only end up putting dents in the cement walls the Russian just went around most of them and bottled German troops up in their heavily fortified cement pillboxes and forts and starved them out till they surrendered.  Where the Russians couldn't go around it became a bloody close in battle as heavy tanks blasted the doors open for infantry  to storm into the fortifications.


Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Quote from: Medivh
Guerrilla wars had the same short range engagements.  Entrenchments still are very useful, entrenchments can have heavy anti-air making them costly to attack either by land or air.

Costly to attack by air. Or to assault by a large unit of troops. Not so much of a problem for guerrillas to lob a few grenades into and melt back into the night, though. Especially if the rules of engagement are "retaliate, but don't fire first".
Guerrillas actually never directly attacked fortified US based in Vietnam only the NVA did. 

They wouldn't have. The rules of engagement were "shoot on sight". INTERFET in East Timor had more of a problem on with regard to this, because it was a peacekeeping mission. The rules of engagement were "retaliate". Similar problems would happen if a peacekeeping force went into Darfur. Or Palestine. Or most parts of Africa.

Hell the only reason why the same problem doesn't occur in Iraq is, again, the RoE.
The doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to avoid enemy fortifications at all costs, the doctrine of guerrilla warfare is to instead attack the enemies weak points then run away and keep chipping away the enemy forces a little bit of a time.

Which is pretty much everywhere when the RoEs are "retaliate only". If a fort can't shoot first, then you can do all kinds of interesting things before melting away into the darkness and flipping the detonator switch.

Or, as happened frequently to INTERFET, wander up, lob in a grenade and make yourself scarce before your enemy can react. In many instances, INTERFET troops expressed frustration that this was allowed to go on, because the brass wouldn't change the RoEs.
Guerrilla warfare was born in conflicts were the other side didn't care about civilian casualties, for example in WWII Germans troops would make example of local populations in response for guerrilla activities against their troops, yet it also resulted in guerrillas not caring about hurting civilians that didn't support them and in some cases guerrillas also making examples of local populations that supported the occupying German forces (which we are seeing now in Iraq with insurgents making examples of Iraqis caught supporting the occupying US forces).

You want to link this tangent up?
Basically it is not really as rules of engagement issue since even if the other side uses excessive force against guerrillas it doesn't really change things that much.
Logged
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #941 on: December 29, 2008, 02:35:54 EST »

The SKS uses 7.62x39mm rifle ammo, AKA 7.62 mm Soviet. The M1 uses .30-06. Otherwise known as .308 Winchester rifle ammo.

.30-06 is 7.62x63, .308 Win. is 7.62x51. Aside from using the same diameter bullets, the two calibers don't have much in common.

And the M1 uses .30 Carbine, which is yet another different caliber.

Quote
Rifling refers to the helical groove. However, all modern firearms including pistols are rifled.

Shotguns usually aren't. Unless you're looking at one that's either designed to fire shotgun slugs exclusively, or want more spread than a normal shotgun will provide.

Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #942 on: December 29, 2008, 05:46:08 EST »

Wrong it was the combination of a carbine rifle and a submachine gun, the Germans were not stupid enough to design a weapon meant for long range fighting and using intermediate rifle rounds, the Germans designed the assault rifle to at max be engaging enemies at around 300 yards (which was the effective range of the Sturmgewehr 44). 

You've just contradicted yourself again. The problem terms are: "submachine gun", "intermediate rifle rounds", "assault rifle". Hell "intermediate rifle rounds" in this context is an oxymoron in and of its self. It's "rifle rounds", "intermediate rounds" or "pistol rounds".
Many people call intermediate rounds, intermediate rifle rounds try goggling it.  Also intermediate rounds are still considered rifle rounds, they are considered intermediate power rifle rounds.

People say "ATM machine" and "PIN number" too. Doesn't make it right. Automatic teller machine machine?

(BTW: goggling? Beer goggling? Tongue)
Yet it wouldn't be a oxymoron, it would make it redundant, Automatic Teller Machine machine.

Psy: While "ATM machine" is an example of a redundancy, it was meant to illustrate that common usage of language can still be wrong. "Intermediate rifle cartridge" is more like Starbucks "tall coffee" being the smallest size. Or the phrase "found missing".
Intermediate carbine rifles like the SKS and M1 carbine are still classified as rifles by every military on Earth,

The SKS uses 7.62x39mm rifle ammo, AKA 7.62 mm Soviet. The M1 uses .30-06. Otherwise known as .308 Winchester rifle ammo.

They might have an effective range of 400 and 500m respectively, but this is still too far for being labeled "intermediate". Intermediate ends at 300m.
Compared to rifles with over a KM range they are intermediate rounds as they have far more power and range then pistol rounds yet don't have the power and range of conventional rifle rounds of the era.

You don't get to classify bullets according to your own rules.

Concession accepted.

Quote from: Medivh
also air rifles are officially called air rifles by many manufactures and dealers even though they have far less range then intermediate rifles.

Yes, but their ammo is know as "air rifle pellets". It's quite clear that bullets aren't involved.
True, and you also the term assault rifle being a official military term even though all assault rifles use less powerful rifle rounds.

"Assault rifle" is the official name, purely on the basis of a mistranslation from German. It should be "storm trooper's gun".

Again, just because common usage is a particular way doesn't make that way right.

Quote from: Medivh
That is because the term rifle only means a firearm a barrel that has a helical groove or pattern of grooves cut into the barrel walls.

Rifling refers to the helical groove. However, all modern firearms including pistols are rifled. "Rifles" are weapons that fire rifle ammunition. Rifle ammunition is defined as bullets that have an effective range longer than 300m. This is distinct from shells that have an effective range longer than 300m.
Even by that definition assault rifles would still be rifles.  Thus the term intermediate rifle still make sense as it is referring to a rifle that has a intermediate powered round.

Assault rifles chamber intermediate rounds. Rifles chamber rifle rounds. You fail.

<Concession, tangent>

The SKS uses 7.62x39mm rifle ammo, AKA 7.62 mm Soviet. The M1 uses .30-06. Otherwise known as .308 Winchester rifle ammo.

.30-06 is 7.62x63, .308 Win. is 7.62x51. Aside from using the same diameter bullets, the two calibers don't have much in common.

Hrrm. I misread my source. .30-06 was replaced by .308 Win as the US army's standard round.

And the M1 uses .30 Carbine, which is yet another different caliber.

Wiki, which I know isn't entirely reliable, says that the M1 fired .30-06.

Quote
Rifling refers to the helical groove. However, all modern firearms including pistols are rifled.

Shotguns usually aren't. Unless you're looking at one that's either designed to fire shotgun slugs exclusively, or want more spread than a normal shotgun will provide.

True. Let me rephrase, then. All modern firearms that fire bullets, rather than shot, including pistols are rifled.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #943 on: December 29, 2008, 06:32:59 EST »

"Assault rifle" is the official name, purely on the basis of a mistranslation from German. It should be "storm trooper's gun".

It's not really a mistranslation, it's just using the French/Latin term instead of the Germanic one. Whoever coined the term assault rifle probably wanted to avoid too close associations with the Germans. Tongue

Quote
Assault rifles chamber intermediate rounds. Rifles chamber rifle rounds. You fail.

Well, the assault rifles manufactured by many European nations were chambered for 7.62x51 NATO (almost, but not quite identical to .308 Win) for quite a while, like the G3 or the FN FAL. But you probably do not want any caliber more powerful than that in an automatic weapon that's supposed to be fired without a bipod ... even .30-06 has quite a bit more kick than .308 Win.

Quote
Wiki, which I know isn't entirely reliable, says that the M1 fired .30-06.

I looked it up ... and it depends on which M1 is meant - the M1 Garand rifle (which fires .30-06) or the M1 carbine (which fires .30 carbine).
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #944 on: December 29, 2008, 08:31:24 EST »

"Assault rifle" is the official name, purely on the basis of a mistranslation from German. It should be "storm trooper's gun".

It's not really a mistranslation, it's just using the French/Latin term instead of the Germanic one. Whoever coined the term assault rifle probably wanted to avoid too close associations with the Germans. Tongue

It's more the "rifle" part that I was taking issue with.

Quote
Assault rifles chamber intermediate rounds. Rifles chamber rifle rounds. You fail.

Well, the assault rifles manufactured by many European nations were chambered for 7.62x51 NATO (almost, but not quite identical to .308 Win) for quite a while, like the G3 or the FN FAL. But you probably do not want any caliber more powerful than that in an automatic weapon that's supposed to be fired without a bipod ... even .30-06 has quite a bit more kick than .308 Win.

Then they'd slip out of the assault rifle classification, and into machine gun territory.

Quote
Wiki, which I know isn't entirely reliable, says that the M1 fired .30-06.

I looked it up ... and it depends on which M1 is meant - the M1 Garand rifle (which fires .30-06) or the M1 carbine (which fires .30 carbine).


Fair enough.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!