|
EvanSchenck posted:Right. The PLA was much more lightly equipped than the UN, so they relied on operational deception and camouflage to disguise their maneuvers and concentrate troops for overwhelming assaults infiltration assaults launched at night, to minimize the effect of American firepower. Because of combat experience from the Sino-Japanese War and Chinese Civil War the PLA was hardened and their leaders were experienced with this kind of maneuver warfare. At first UN forces were caught by surprise and didn't know how to deal with what was being done to them, which accounts for how rapidly they were pushed back out of North Korea by the initial Chinese offensives. Eventually they were able to work out how to counter the Chinese tactics, and they established the firm line across the peninsula which is still held today. The American interpretations of the Korean war here are American and European-centric. The Chinese and UN had about equal numbers of total troops, but people forget that about 2/3s of the "UN" armies were South Koreans who were not much better armed than the Chinese and much less experienced, worse trained and motivated, not to mention often fighting in a unfamiliar foreign country (North Korea). The Chinese have decades of experience fighting not only better armed enemies but also their poorly armed local auxiliaries/puppets. Chinese offensives as a matter of policy generally concentrated attacks on South Korean held parts of the line specifically. Breakthroughs in every Chinese offensive invariably came at points in the UN lines held by South Korean units that were usually destroyed. The Chinese experience of the Korean war was about equally composed of fighting South Koreans as with Americans or Europeans, while American accounts usually focus only on American efforts. The Chinese anecdotes I've read(don't ask me to reproduce them) seem to indicate that they held the South Koreans in somewhat higher regard than their American allies did. When the Chinese had to fight Americans on the offensive, obviously they had to bring to bear superior numbers, even more than the usual 3-1 or whatever American doctrine calls for since an American battalion had more artillery than a Chinese division. What does it say about American preparedness when numerically inferior American units are constantly getting encircled and bushwacked by numerically superior Chinese units, all while the Americans had more or less air superiority, much more firepower, and aren't even actually outnumbered in terms of total troop levels? Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Dec 28, 2011 |
#
¿
Dec 28, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:We keep coming back to the total troop levels thing. While the UN and PLA may have had roughly equal numbers, total troop levels are irrelevant when there is localized numerical superiority. In such cases(as when the Chinese pushing UN forces back from the Yalu or the Chosin Reservoir), the only thing that matters is what troops are immediately present or close enough to influence the battle in one way or another. When we're discussing the encirclement of UN forces by PLA units, total troop parity matters gently caress all. The total troop level thing mattered because in the initial phases of the Chinese offensive it was always the UN that was ending up with localized numerical inferiority. Since the two sides were equal in number if the Chinese were achieving local numerical superiority in one section of the front, The UN must have local numerical superiority in another section. If your entire front is being put to flight by "localized numerical superiority" when the other side doesn't actually have more people in total than you do, what conclusion are we to draw?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2011 09:58
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Total troop numbers are misleading in more ways than one. Rough parity between UN and Chinese/Nork forces may have existed but there was an absolute numerical superiority in the vicinity of the Yalu River during the winter of '50-'51: 30 Chinese divisions against less than 18 UN divisions. These figures don't take into account the fact that a Chinese division had a much smaller tooth to tail(The Chinese had more trigger pullers in their divisions) ratio than a US division. It doesn't take into account the fact that American division had 18-20,000 men while a Chinese division had only 10,000, and the difference mostly lay in the attached tank and artillery battalions of the American division which was a powerful combined arms formation while the Chinese division was just a collection of rifle infantry. quote:As a result of revised tables of organization and equipment, the structure of U.S. divisions was distinctly different in many respects from that of their World War II counterparts. The modifications affected every unit level from squad upward; the latest change, to become effective on 29 November 1950, set the authorized war strength of an infantry division at 18,855, more than 4,000 greater than that of a World War II division. A comparable increase in organic firepower came largely from an increase in the number of field artillery pieces and the addition of tanks, antiaircraft artillery, and heavy mortars that previously had not been included in a division's own arsenal.15 I guess you could say the American division has a larger "tooth to tail" ratio because their massive numbers of tanks and artillery required more supplies relative to the actual numbers of "trigger puller" tank and gun crews, as opposed to the Chinese division which was basically just the 3 infantry regiments. You talk about the "tooth to tail" ration as if the "tail" of an American division were all USO bands and officer's wives. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 28, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
I thought bows fell in and out of favour at various time periods with technology, i.e. when metal armour was widely used but central Asian compound bows were not. Did the Romans use bows in any great numbers?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I made a huge thread about this in D&D years ago (probably 2006). I can't find it. The delegation was pretty important since there wasn't really any effective way to actually communicate between ships other than flags and screaming. Basically the captain of each ship would have to get into a row boat and go to the flagship every day for orders.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
I found the British accounts of using bayonets in Iraq to be dubious at best. The infantry section of the modern British Army is composed of 8 men, of which 2 are armed with the L86 LSW, 2 with under barrel grenade launchers, 2 with the Minimi LMG. AFAIK none of these have provisions to mount a bayonet. That leaves 2 men out of 8 who even have bayonet lugs on their rifles and these are the section commander and his second, who should be busy directing the rest of the section anyway, and not individual bayonet duels. Even if you suppose that not every section has its full complement of support weapons, it's not really much of a bayonet charge when over half your force don't even have anywhere to put them, is it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
I like turtles posted:Something I occasionally wonder about : Things in Greece are looking kind of glum, the military might decide they've had enough of the civilian government, kick them out, and then restart the Cyprus thing with Turkey. Or maybe Canada and Denmark will start actually putting their armies where their mouths are over that island in the Atlantic they're bickering about. It's been too long since we've had an inter-NATO war. The continent needs a release. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Flippycunt posted:Sorry to go back to WW2 but something just occurred to me: I posted about them in this thread already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_participation_in_the_Eastern_Front#Aftermath TL;DR They had even less winter clothing than the Germans did, which made the march to Siberia pretty uncomfortable. EDIT: The source of the information on their winter clothing comes from the Time-Life WW2 series book on Stalingrad.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
A lot of the success of the Germans in the Second World War can basically be attributed to the allies and Stalin looking at the map and saying "Well, this Hitler fellow would have to be CRAZY to think that's going to work, and since he's a perfectly reasonable fellow he would never hey wait what are you oh god" I mean, a reasonable person would look at things in 1941 and probably not conclude that invading the USSR was a good idea, and yet here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Of course, the Japanese eventually took Port Arthur, so the lesson everyone learned was "keep trying the human waves, it'll work eventually" That is literally what the Japanese took away from WW1.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Are you referring to Russian and Japanese materiel specifically or to armaments in general between 1905 and 1914? I...think the SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield) was magazine fed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
The Soviets managed to assassinate a German general by burying a giant bomb in the basement of a house that they thought the Germans would use if they captured the city, which they did, and the bomb was detonated by radio from behind Soviet lines when the partisans confirmed that the general was in the building, or something like that. I read it a long time ago in a book written by a Red Army officer who was part of it, but I can't find anything on wikipedia, anyone know what I'm talking about? 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
They never had a very good system to replace leaders when they died, so in between the bits where they were lucky to have a few good emperors in a row, the Roman army spend rather more time fighting other Roman armies than external enemies. Although to be fair none of their enemies/neighbours were exactly parliamentary democracies or otherwise any better at it so I guess it wasn't really a "disadvantage" per se.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:What was the reason for the development of the torpedo? Was it just an idea that someone came up with, or was it designed as a response to another invention? Naval warfare in the late 1800s essentially composed of armoured ships shooting big guns at each other. The problem with big guns is that you need a big ship to carry them, so a coastal navy with smaller vessels couldn't do much to a large battleship because the large battleship also had larger guns that outranged the small boats. Torpedos were one way that a force of smaller, more numerous ships/boats ("torpedo boats", as it were) could take on a larger ship that outgunned them. It wasn't a great solution because early torpedos didn't have much of an effective range so the attackers had to get really close to the target, and big ship navies also came up with "torpedo boat destroyers", later called just "destroyers", to combat this threat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I never knew the Poles had Zouves (for a short while at least too). Did they decline, or did German unification suddenly result in a unified and powerful neighbor out of nowhere?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
beefnoodle posted:Do you really mean 18th century, or do you mean post-Napoleon? I....figured he must mean 19th century, what with that Napoleon guy and all. 
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
You're overselling it a bit. You know who else had a huge submarine force? The USSR. Who do you think is supplying pretty much everyone, Chinese, Iranians, Indians, etc with these great subs? Most of the USN has been spending the last 50 years and whole %s of American GDP specifically on fighting submarines, it was a big part of the "transport our armies across the Atlantic before the Europeans are overun" thing. I'm going to be that they can handle whatever submarine threat the Iranians might bring to the table.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 11:28
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:These sorts of systems can't really compare directly. Like Evan said above about the kilo class, air independent systems can provide a much longer underwater endurance, but not much in the way of mobility. The target would pretty much have to stumble over the sub, but could ambush in a narrow choke point like the straight of Hormuz. The whole point of a submarine is to stay undetected below the water. How do you "lay in ambush in a narrow chokepoint" when the Americans also know where the chokepoints are? Do the Iranians even have any good undersea charts of the waters off their coast? You be your rear end the Americans do, since they and the Russians have been sailing their subs all over the world doing things like charting underwater terrain, a thing that you need a big force of submarines to do and something you pointedly do not share with even your own civilian agencies, let alone foreign powers. The whole "take a picture of an American carrier during exercise" story is a cute marketing ditty for the Swedish companies that want to export submarines, pretty much all non-US companies selling everything from submarines to fighters have a story like it, but doesn't really mean anything other than the Americans run meticulous exercises. If in an exercise my team assaults and captures a position with no casualties, I don't just end the exercise and go home because I think I've got this thing nailed down, we go back to our starting positions and keep tweaking the parameters of the exercise until something goes wrong, and them we build and learn from that. It's the same for air to air combat, when the newest American fighters go up against a simulated enemy and then notionally shoots them all down with BVR missiles, they don't just declare victory, return to base and take the rest of the day off, of course they are going to continue on to dog fighting at close range with short range missiles, guns, etc. I'm sure at one point in the exercise a Mig-19 is going to shoot down an American plane with cannons or something, but you probably shouldn't conclude that cannon armed Mig-19s are some existential threat to the American air force. So in an ASW exercise, of course the enemy sub is going to get through and "kill" a carrier at one point. It would be a pretty pointless exercise and a huge waste of money if it didn't. How many times was the sub detected and killed instead? That the Americans a) understand the importance of all this, b) have such a professional and apolitical military that they don't care when "Swedish SSK kills Carrier" becomes a headline, and c) actually have/are willing to spend the money to do these kinds of huge exercises is what makes the US armed forces such a terrifying enemy. TL;DR: USA USA USA
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:http://www.informationdissemination.net/search?q=asw I'm not sure I "get" this blog post? His whole point seems to revolve around the fact that the carrier deployed off the Chinese coast today is deployed with fewer escorts and ASW helicopters than a carrier would have during the cold war. What's so surprising about this? The cold war is over and the US and China are not at war. Is the writer also terrified that the US is now more vulnerable than ever to a massive Soviet armoured attack across central Europe that it was in 1985? If the US went to war against Iran it would deploy more ASW escorts and helicopters to its carrier groups than it currently does to the one off China. There, crisis averted. 
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
the JJ posted:I just skimmed through but it seemed some of the assets were not maintained/decommissioned, and reaction time/which side initiates hostilities might preclude instant beefing up to Cold War status. What assets? I read one of the articles that that article linked to and it seems to indicate that the S3 might be one but no more details are given. Here: quote:Even with only 4 escorts I think the Nimitz CSG is adequately protected against air attack, even noting the strike group has the ships necessary to protect from ballistic missile attack if necessary. This is a CEC force, the way I see it, they are better prepared with these 4 ships than any 20 ships together would have been during the cold war. I also think given the payload options of the Hornet force, the strike group could also adequately defend itself from an attacking enemy surface fleet. The problem is, among the four escorts only the USS Princeton (CG 59), the most important AAW defense ship of the Nimitz CSG escorts, has all the right tools for ASW. Of the other three escorts, none have all of the equipment that would best be utilized for ASW, and with only 4 helicopters to go around, the best you can hope for to be actually conducting an ASW patrol is 1 from the surface ships, and probably no more than 1 from the aircraft carrier, for a grand total of 2. I'm assuming Princeton is a Ticonderoga class cruiser, the US has like 60 of those, if things in Iran really heated up you think they can't re-assign a couple more to the Gulf? "Cold War Status" means 200+ Soviet submarines, I don't think "beefing up to Cold War status" will be necessary to counter the threat of 3 Iranian diesel subs. quote:His point should be pretty obvious: The threat to a CSG from diesel-electric subs exists and is credible. The Navy isn't well practiced nor as capable at finding subs as they used to be. If you had read it, you would see him casting some doubt on some doom/gloom study wrt to China's submarine fleet while highlighting that the Navy is inherently less capable at defeating or neutralizing submarines than they used to be. Once again, this isn't to say the Iran's 3 submarines are going to wreak havoc in the event of a shooting war with the US but that their threat is far from negligible. The original argument was about Iran, the fact that Iran has 3 submarines not 200 is quite relevant. Your article that the USN of today is less capable of dealing with enemy submarines today than it was during the cold war, fine, I remind you my original post was a response to this statement: quote:Go up against someone with a semi-decent submarine force, and you're pretty much hosed. I disagree. Where are you on this question? Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 05:06 on May 5, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Gulf War 1 and 2 pretty comprehensively proved that the best, most experienced World War 1 army in the world is no match against even an inexperienced 21st Century army. The Iraqis have lots of experience with everything up to and including widespread use of gas, turns out none of that does you any good when the other side has B2s and F15s.  The Americans and South Korean forces are much, much better at all kinds of things today than they were in 1991. Now many night vision devices do the North Koreans have per soldier? As soon as it turns dark your huge NK infantry columns who *can't see poo poo* are just going to be fish in a barrel to the Americans who can.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
"Type" is just the commonly accepted translation for the Chinese character 式， pronouced as a voiced consonant "shi". They could have also translated it into "model" or "pattern", but whatever, "type" stuck. and yes that is actually what the Chinese called stuff. The usage is slowly going out of favor though, being replaced by a designation using the pinyin letter of the type of equipment, so fighter aircraft all start with J, bombers with H, APCs with WZ, etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:It's also worth noting that most of the Battleship losses in WW1 were the result of deliberately sailing old about-to-be-scrapped battleships up the Bosphorus channel into minefields to try to clear them. They weren't lost in battle.  Looking at the wikipedia article, it seems like they were trying to force the straits in preparation for an invasion and older ships were used both because casaulties were expected and also because the Ottoman navy wasn't as dangerous as the German navy and thus the modern ships were held back for the Atlantic. I don't think there were literally trying to sail battleships into minefields trying to clear them like some kind of Somme on the ocean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_operations_in_the_Dardanelles_Campaign#Forcing_the_straits
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
This seems like a very convoluted way of saying "Well, poo poo, China is a real country so we can't deal with them like we do the Bosnian Serbs.". 
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 04:07
|
|
|
Not an expert on air combat but I get the impression that pilot skill and experience plays a pretty big role in who comes out of an air to air engagement alive. Look at how badly the Israelis manage to maul their Arab opponents in the air or the Americans do in Korea and Vietnam and even the latter stages of the Pacific war, and it seems plausible to me that the very best German pilots, facing much less well trained enemies and with a high operational tempo, could have shot down hundreds of enemies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Well, like EvanSchneck(and Throatwarbler but he doesnt post here much) would note: The PVA didn't really utilize human wave attacks in the strict sense of the phrase. I've been overwhelemd by your human wave of posts.  quote:Did the Spartans really kill children that were weak or had birth defects? This sounds like a my from other peoples, as I have a hard time seeing a parent willingly surrender their child to be killed. Like a lot of extremly martial ancient societies the Spartans didn't leave many historical records of their own, most of the records that exist came from the Athenians and their other enemies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
It's not like manned aircraft operate without any communications links, if there was a threat of being jammed then it has to be dealt with anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
How is it that in this age of iPhones aircraft are still not able to tell whether other aircraft are friend or foe? Can't you just have all friendly aircraft just send their GPS coordinates back to base in real time and have that show up in all other friendly aircraft?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There was a Polish ammunition ship called the Kielce which sunk in the Channel in in 1946, they tried to clear it in 1967 and inadvertently set off an explosion of about 2 kilotons, it left a crafter 150' long and 20' deep on the Channel floor. So that one stuck in the Thames mud? Nobody wants to touch it, because it will blow the gently caress up. It was sunk in 1946? By whom?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'll never forget how my high school teacher told me that Russia's war in Afghanistan was all about getting a warm water port, because that's what mountainous landlocked nations are just full of. Well not the most recent one, but during the "Great Game" of the 19th Century wasn't the ultimate goal of the Tsarist Russians to eventually expand into British India?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
Morholt posted:So while it should have been obvious from the ACW that cavalry charges don't work anymore, at the beginning of WW1 there was still French cuirassier units wearing polished, shining breastplates. This and the French blue uniform thing is a little overplayed. So what if the breastplates are polished - It's a bunch of guys riding huge horses, running at speed. What are they going to wear, ghillie suits? General issue military uniforms are more about distinguishing yourself from the enemy than making you look like a tree.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Speaking of this, can somebody explain the cons of the bullpup configuration for assault rifles? The AUG, FAMAS, and L85 have full-length barrels but similar or shorter overall length than the M4. I understand that it introduces difficulties for left-handed users because of the ejection port, and they have bad triggers or whatever. But is there a concrete reason aside from inertia and familiarity with the standard layout that stops some countries from adopting bullpup rifles? Well triggers are pretty important when it comes to accuracy so that's not a trivial drawback. Having the magazine in the back also has some ergornomic drawbacks when being operated from the prone position, especially if you're using a Kalashnikov style long curved magazine - 5.56mm is quite a bit smaller and not so problematic, but still problematic enough that the original M16 was issued with 20 round magazines for this reason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:How about, how useful were armoured trains? I have read that they achieved great things in the East. They saw a lot of use in the Russian and Chinese civil wars of the 1900s-1920s, if you're fighting roving bands of peasants along railway tracks. I don't think they are much use against actual armies with tanks and planes and what not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
The standard British infantry section is composed of 8 men equipped as follows: 1x Section Commander, L85 rifle 1x Section 2IC, L85 Rifle 2x Grenadiers, L85 rifle with AG36 grenade launcher 2x marksmen, L86 LSW 2x Machine gunners, Minimi LMG. So out of 8 men, 6 are using weapons that do not have anywhere to mount a bayonet. The only people who even have bayonet capable weapons would the section commander and 2IC. I guarantee you that you are hearing these stories about the British army because the Britain happens to have a very active and sensationalist tabloid press. It is very unlikely to me the army that gave us the Somme and conquered half the planet because "thank god that we have the Gatling gun and they do not" has suddenly decided that bayonets are cool.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
I think one of the policy platforms of the BNP is forcible Anschluss with the Republic of Ireland, which they regard as a rouge province?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 03:44
|
|
|
Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Satsuma_War Sweden is on the list of countries never invaded and they were neutral during WW2. They were on the French side on the Napoleonic wars but I don't think Britain actually invaded the Swedish homeland. So Britain didn't get to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikstan or Uzbekistan, so that means they *did* invade Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
I read about US forces using CS gas to clear tunnels in Vietnam, but it was a very specific use in a very specific scenario. The problem with using CS is the same as with any airborn chemical agent - once you start throwing it out it's very difficult to control and use in a targeted manner. So the enemy is occupying a position, you unleash gas on them, but now your own forces have to presumably attack and take the position and are now exposed to the gas, if it hasn't already blown over to your own lines already. People have to remember the old Clauswitz thing that the difference between armies fighting wars and random assholes loving with each other is that an army fights a war for a specific (political) goal, and that extends all the way down to the lowest ranking soldier on the front line. Chemical weapons are one of those things that is pretty lovely but also in most situations not really even that helpful, when you actually have a specific objective/goal, so generally armies try and stay away from it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
Hitler and the Nazis were not very good at anything, but Germany was/still is by far the largest economy in Europe and at the time the second largest economy in the world, with a per capita GDP equal to Britain but almost twice the population , or in other words almost equal to Britain and France, the next 2 largest European economies, combined. German universities led the world in terms of technology and scientific development and that was something that only changed after the war. One of the overriding lessons of the second world war was that Fascist/totalitarian government needed to be fought and defeated wherever they arose and as soon as possible, because if you ignore the problems, even the richest, most advanced and "civilized" country in the world becomes capable of the worst atrocities and barbarism the world has ever seen. The American military still did all right in Iraq even with a lackluster commander-in-chief. It's also a pretty good explanation for the economic "miracle" that Germany and Japan experienced after the war. Ultimately economies prosper because of good institutions and social cohesion/consensus, Germany and Japan were already very rich, advanced industrial nations before the war, the people didn't stop being Germans and Japanese just because their houses were burned down. As long as your society stays together the physical capital stuff isn't really a big deal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Chamale posted:Is it true that firing all 30 rounds in a row from an M16 will permanently damage the gun? I remember reading some book where a soldier hears a long burst and says to a reporter, "someone just ruined their rifle." It seems like one of those "made by Mattel" myths about the flimsiness of the M16. There is a number of rounds one could fire at a fast enough speed that will heat up the barrel enough to cause permanent damage, but it's much higher than 30. It's not usually a problem for rifles but it is a serious problem for belt fed machine guns. The Maxim guns talked about a few posts above had a water cooling jacket around the barrel for this reason, and modern machine guns like the FN Minimi and MAG are issued with multiple quick changeable barrels that can go for around 400 rounds before getting too hot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 03:16 |
|
|
Phobophilia posted:I thought burst fire mechanisms made weapons more unreliable and expensive and prone to jamming. I am told that the 3 round burst trigger does make the trigger pull needlessly heavy and inconsistent, and the particular design of the M-16 pattern 3 round trigger also operates in a way that it "counts" the number of rounds, so suppose you have it in 3 round burst, only fire two rounds and release the trigger, the next pull of the trigger will only fire one round, which sounds like it would be confusing as hell under stress.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 09:04
|
|