A picture is worth two AKs...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
OK so you too have stated your opinion on the matter. You happy now?
Seemingly unlike some, I'm most always happy. :D
Quote:
OK so you are good with a short range weapon being selected for medium to long range combat situations?
I'm quite happy that a reasonably well trained guy on the ground will select and use the weapons he believes is best suited for the particular job at hand; say a raid on a compound where some CQB might be the order of the day. I also suspect he would, quite properly, pay little attention to the thoughts of someone several thousand miles away.
Quote:
Yes the message. It just as well could have been "look at me I've got an AK".
Coulda, woulda -- WE (that includes you) do not know why he had the weapon. You are of course free to indulge in idle speculation. We all have our strengths.
Quote:
Any guesses why calling a guy carrying a AK a poser touched a nerve with Tanker Steve?
I suspect because the comment was unnecessary and you have a penchant for making disparaging innuendos that strike at anyone or anything that is not the way you believe (sometimes sensibly, sometimes not) it should be or that they should act. Add to that much of such comment is obviously from a point of relative ignorance of the Afghan theater and I suppose that's why he reacted the way he did. I wouldn't say you touched a nerve, I'd say you made an ill informed and speculative somewhat derogatory comment, one of your frequent attacks by innuendo and that you simply got called on it...
Quote:
PS: go try to find a pic of Aussies in Afghanistan where they are pictured with the ANA they are mentoring who are carrying AKs. I obviously need some help on this.
As on so many things. Obviously. Here you go, results of a less than three minute Google search.
I'm sure your eagle eye will note that the Australians depicted in both pictures are carrying the Stryne infantry's standard issue F88 (Steyr AUG) as opposed to the original pictures second SOF guys M4 like weapon. What that means is that the SOF guys -- Stryne and Afghan -- carry M4 / M16 mods (or whatever they want...) while the regular Infantry is armed with the F88 for the guys from Oz and -- as seen in the pictures below -- the non SOF Afghans still mostly have AKs at this time, though that is changing fairly rapidly (thus my comment that the original pic guy may have wanted to apply a different signature...).
Thanks, Pete, somehow I missed that post from Rex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rex Brynen
Dammit, Ken--does this mean I can't launch into my critique of US airborne doctrine based solely on the fact that your avatar shows a rabbit descending by parachute? I had it primed and all ready to go... :wry:
Absolutely not.
I have it on good authority that there are Rabbits and parachutes in Canada. That from my son who visited the PPCLI in Edmonton in 2006, saw the expected the Rabbits but thought the Parachutes died with the CAR. He was pleased to find out there were some still around. He also noted that "Canadian women are sort of forward." He didn't expand on that and I didn't ask but it sounds like a trait you and I could and should explore. Therefor you you can pick on our flawed Airplane doctrine and / or the Conejo Paracaidista -- If I can remember why I thought that comment on your local fauna might be of interest to me...:confused:
Casual and aside note for Pete. Partly correct on the Playboy Bunny. The avatar relates to a set of circumstances, a parachute jump, a bottle of I.W. Harper and a radio call sign in one Small War. It seemed appropriate for here.
Casual and aside note for Seth B, JMA and Wilf. I'm inclined to agree and to disagree with you. 10cm at 100 meters is totally valid IMO but I also realize our 'standard' for the current weapon is based on its capability and that means for us the ordained (not desired) accuracy really sorta has to be a greater spread. Whether that is an appropriate rationale and standard or not is open to discussion. IMO it is not but it is reality at this time. So 12-16cm at 100m would be more realistic.
I personally have grave reservations on the accuracy and combat applicability of a 25m / 1,000" zero. That bogus 'standard' was introduced partly due to the loss of real estate for range use due to a number of pressures. It was also partly introduced because it is easier on the Trainers...
It really has little validity (not least because on many posts, the ranges are really 1,000 inches or 25.4m...) and replaced the old 200 yd (not 100) zero which was a far better combat zero in most -- not all -- terrain. So FWIW, I'd also run Wilf's standard out to 200m and 15-20cm. ;)
In theory, a 25m (or even a 25.4m ;) ) zero should translate mathematically and mechanically to greater ranges, in practice, for a variety of reasons -- mostly but not all shooter induced -- it is not consistently reliable. Both Shooters and Weapons have personalities and real physical differences. So does the weather and the wind...
The biggest flaw with the Task, Condition, Standard process is that conditions vary wildly and widely from time to time, war to war and situation to situation. The solution to this is to make the conditions in training super hard -- however, that makes more work for the Trainers, who object. Strenuously...
One should always make the training standard harder, not easier, than combat. If a person can meet a really tough standard in training, he or she will have better prospects in combat. To my knowledge, the UK RM SBS is the only force that routinely practices this. OTOH, our current process of low standards to achieve high 'Go' rates in training breeds complaisance and problems.
Thank you for conceding the point, no need for you to apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
That I see as being the specification. I would guess that most weapons perform better than that. I do however agree that to allow this poor performance to make it into the specification should be a concern.
That's all I said...
Quote:
That quote from Wikipedia has no citation (so carriers no authority), sorry.
I don't believe anyone would ever deem the Wiki to be authoritative in any case. I certainly do not. The quoted "slightly" and my "extremely" are interpretations and opinions. The actuality is likely somewhere in between as is usual. What is your experience with the weapon -- and the particular weapon is the issue, not the shooters or weapons in general -- in question?
At any rate your acknowledgement that it is a cause for concern is precisely what I contended.
I'll also note that the majority of your pronouncements also carry no citation so can we assess them as not carrying any authority. :wry:
Quote:
A nation gets the politicians they deserve (after all they elect them) and its rather disappointing to see a clearly out of control procurement system operating to the detriment of the armed forces. Maybe the military needs to be a little more shall we say... abrasive, in order to put things right?
If you from a distance think it's disappointing, you should try living with it. The military tradition in this country does not tend to abrasiveness with the elected civilian 'leadership' and we prefer it that way, YMMV. Speaking of politicians, how were and are all yours doing? :D
Quote:
Not everything is negotiable Ken, a soldier can either shoot to the required minimum standard or he can't and where the tools he is given to do the job are perceived to be substandard the individuals shooting ability and his ability to handle weather conditions become even more important. If the military doesn't have the skilled marksmanship coaches then get these Appleseed Project guys involved to help get on top of the problem.
My, the perfect solution. Why didn't we think of that...
No indeed, not everything is negotiable -- nor is everything perfect when humans are involved. That's reality, not negotiation. One copes and does ones best at ignoring the armchair critics ungrounded in distant realities.
Quote:
No idealised view here Ken.
Really? Boy, you fooled me...
Quote:
I find it hard to believe that a nation (any nation) can knowingly and avoidably send its soldiers into battle with substandard kit. And barley a whimper is heard.
And that's not an idealized view? Heh. In any event, I agree in theory. However, the reality is that most nations have done that to one degree or another for Centuries as hundreds of millions throughout history -- less you, apparently -- have experienced. I doubt we'll see much change in that.