Main Military Weapon of Your Country: Mk. VI

[Spreewerke]

Saracen doctrine is fire a lot of bullets for suppression, let the artillery hit the target @ carbines

That and carbines made sense when said doctrine was "lolurbandefensive".

At carbines?

EDIT: Top pager gun porn;

[Sieen]

Saracen doctrine is fire a lot of bullets for suppression, let the artillery hit the target @ carbines

That and carbines made sense when said doctrine was "lolurbandefensive".

At carbines?

Someone questioned me using the AK-105 because it's a carbine. <.>

[Spreewerke]

At carbines?

Someone questioned me using the AK-105 because it's a carbine. <.>

I'm questioning the use of your "at" (@) sign.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

At carbines?

Someone questioned me using the AK-105 because it's a carbine. <.>

You're losing the sum total of less than four inches of barrel length (and barely four and a half inches of length overall)?
It will make very little difference to your manoeuvrability and a fair difference to your downrange performance. Despite the hilarity of it, the AK-103 (and AKM) sight has increments up to one kilometre. It's intended to be useful at 300m and slightly further). The lost few inches of barrel will probably compromise accuracy at that range.

Plus if you're 'lolurbandefensive', I'm not sure that relying exclusively on artillery is the wisest option. The Soviet practice of using the machine gunner and sniper as the actual killing implements of the unit would be far superior (and would likely reverse in urban combat anyway).

[Sieen]

Someone questioned me using the AK-105 because it's a carbine. <.>

You're losing the sum total of less than four inches of barrel length (and barely four and a half inches of length overall)?
It will make very little difference to your manoeuvrability and a fair difference to your downrange performance. Despite the hilarity of it, the AK-103 (and AKM) sight has increments up to one kilometre. It's intended to be useful at 300m and slightly further). The lost few inches of barrel will probably compromise accuracy at that range.

Plus if you're 'lolurbandefensive', I'm not sure that relying exclusively on artillery is the wisest option. The Soviet practice of using the machine gunner and sniper as the actual killing implements of the unit would be far superior (and would likely reverse in urban combat anyway).

Was, urbandefensive; was.

Edit: Beyond that it's a personal choice, I want to use a Kalashnikov but I don't want to use one of the overused Kalashnikovs.

[Puzikas]

AK-103 is all well and good, if your a mostly urban area and don't expect to be engaging targets terribly far away.
Personally, I trust the 415mm barrel of the rifle length Kalashnikov over the 314mm barrel of the -105 series, for a main service rifle. But it is, once again, your call. If you like the polymer look on AK series and want something a bit more modern than the AKM or AK-74, I would use the AK-103 or AN-94. If your guys are going to be going for a long period of time for weapon familiarization, the AN. If not, the -103.

Thats just my two cents though.

[Bafuria]

Someone questioned me using the AK-105 because it's a carbine. <.>

You're losing the sum total of less than four inches of barrel length (and barely four and a half inches of length overall)?
It will make very little difference to your manoeuvrability and a fair difference to your downrange performance. Despite the hilarity of it, the AK-103 (and AKM) sight has increments up to one kilometre. It's intended to be useful at 300m and slightly further). The lost few inches of barrel will probably compromise accuracy at that range.

Plus if you're 'lolurbandefensive', I'm not sure that relying exclusivel.y on artillery is the wisest option. The Soviet practice of using the machine gunner and sniper as the actual killing implements of the unit would be far superior (and would likely reverse in urban combat anyway).

The 7.62x39 cartridge actually burns its powder very fast, you only lose about 100-150 fps from shortening it to ~300 mm.
The sight radius problem can also be resolved with optics.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

You're losing the sum total of less than four inches of barrel length (and barely four and a half inches of length overall)?
It will make very little difference to your manoeuvrability and a fair difference to your downrange performance. Despite the hilarity of it, the AK-103 (and AKM) sight has increments up to one kilometre. It's intended to be useful at 300m and slightly further). The lost few inches of barrel will probably compromise accuracy at that range.

Plus if you're 'lolurbandefensive', I'm not sure that relying exclusively on artillery is the wisest option. The Soviet practice of using the machine gunner and sniper as the actual killing implements of the unit would be far superior (and would likely reverse in urban combat anyway).

Was, urbandefensive; was.

Edit: Beyond that it's a personal choice, I want to use a Kalashnikov but I don't want to use one of the overused Kalashnikovs.

Don't want an overused Kalash? Go with a '103 :3

They're surprisingly infrequently used ICly, judging by this thread.

You're losing the sum total of less than four inches of barrel length (and barely four and a half inches of length overall)?
It will make very little difference to your manoeuvrability and a fair difference to your downrange performance. Despite the hilarity of it, the AK-103 (and AKM) sight has increments up to one kilometre. It's intended to be useful at 300m and slightly further). The lost few inches of barrel will probably compromise accuracy at that range.

Plus if you're 'lolurbandefensive', I'm not sure that relying exclusivel.y on artillery is the wisest option. The Soviet practice of using the machine gunner and sniper as the actual killing implements of the unit would be far superior (and would likely reverse in urban combat anyway).

The 7.62x39 cartridge actually burns its powder very fast, you only lose about 100-150 fps from shortening it to ~300 mm.
The sight radius problem can also be resolved with optics.

The '105 is a 5.45.
Plus, especially with the case of the 7.62, losing all that velocity at the start means it only runs out of usable ME so much sooner. And of course, accuracy suffers at longer ranges, too. Plus the suppressive effect. I was referring to the shot placement, not the sight's personal accuracy with regards to downrange accuracy.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Was, urbandefensive; was.

Edit: Beyond that it's a personal choice, I want to use a Kalashnikov but I don't want to use one of the overused Kalashnikovs.

Don't want an overused Kalash? Go with a '103 :3

They're surprisingly infrequently used ICly, judging by this thread.

The 7.62x39 cartridge actually burns its powder very fast, you only lose about 100-150 fps from shortening it to ~300 mm.
The sight radius problem can also be resolved with optics.

The '105 is a 5.45.
Plus, especially with the case of the 7.62, losing all that velocity at the start means it only runs out of usable ME so much sooner. And of course, accuracy suffers at longer ranges, too. Plus the suppressive effect. I was referring to the shot placement, not the sight's personal accuracy with regards to downrange accuracy.

Which I don't get because it's a great AK.

[Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen]

Prepare your body.

9.2 Senestrian next to puny 7.62 and 5.56 NATO.

[The Republic of Lanos]

My body refuses since my shoulder would require reconstructive surgery.

[Aqizithiuda]

Prepare your body.

9.2 Senestrian next to puny 7.62 and 5.56 NATO.

I take it that it doubles as a club?

[Ea90]

Prepare your body.

9.2 Senestrian next to puny 7.62 and 5.56 NATO.

Awesome.
Pointy bullet is pointy.

[Bajireyn]

Prepare your body.

9.2 Senestrian next to puny 7.62 and 5.56 NATO.

My body is not ready.

[Mactovera]

I've seen tanks, infantry, and artillery here.
But what about submarines? Seems to me that they are the ideal weapon of war (for my waterlocked nation, at least).
1. They are relatively undetectable (totally invisible if they're equipped with a caterpillar drive)
2. Subs can get close to coasts for offshore bombardment/missile launches
3. They're just frickin' cool
Anyway, just wondered if I'm crazy obsessed with submarines, or they're good general purpose naval ships.

[Kouralia]

I've seen tanks, infantry, and artillery here.
But what about submarines. Seems to me that they are the ideal weapon of war (for my nation, at least).
1. They are relatively undetectable (totally invisible if they're equipped with a caterpillar drive)
2. Subs can get close to coasts for offshore bombardment/missile launches
3. They're just frickin' cool
Anyway, just wondered if I'm crazy obsessed with submarines, or they're good general purpose naval ships.

Hmm, well. A submarine can (I am told) be detected at thousands of miles away and tracked very accurately - no matter how small it is.

However, if you RP with people who do not have top-notch tech, I'd say they can do pretty good. Soviet UnderwaterAircraftCarrier gogogo!

[Aqizithiuda]

I've seen tanks, infantry, and artillery here.
But what about submarines? Seems to me that they are the ideal weapon of war (for my waterlocked nation, at least).
1. They are relatively undetectable (totally invisible if they're equipped with a caterpillar drive)
2. Subs can get close to coasts for offshore bombardment/missile launches
3. They're just frickin' cool
Anyway, just wondered if I'm crazy obsessed with submarines, or they're good general purpose naval ships.

Well, you can have submarine aircraft carriers, submarine arsenal ships, submarine amphibious assault ships, etc. They will, however, still be detectable and are inferior to their surface counterparts.

[Mactovera]

I've seen tanks, infantry, and artillery here.
But what about submarines. Seems to me that they are the ideal weapon of war (for my nation, at least).
1. They are relatively undetectable (totally invisible if they're equipped with a caterpillar drive)
2. Subs can get close to coasts for offshore bombardment/missile launches
3. They're just frickin' cool
Anyway, just wondered if I'm crazy obsessed with submarines, or they're good general purpose naval ships.

Hmm, well. A submarine can (I am told) be detected at thousands of miles away and tracked very accurately - no matter how small it is.

However, if you RP with people who do not have top-notch tech, I'd say they can do pretty good. Soviet UnderwaterAircraftCarrier gogogo!

Well, that's by the US, which can deploy (and has) thousands of active-sonar devices on the seafloor, and a sub at sufficient depth can pull a Red October-style escape into the depths of the most dangerous seafloor features.
And enemy subs/ships use passive sonar, to prevent the sub from getting a lock on them.
Depends on your method of detection, I'd say.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Nope. Expensive in every aspect, high crew turnover, limited defence measures, limited speed.

They're an integral and vital part, but they can't be the only part.

[Aqizithiuda]

Also, isn't the "caterpillar drive" Tom Clancy bullshit (aka not MT and probabky doesn't provide the claimed benefits)?

[Spirit of Hope]

Also, isn't the "caterpillar drive" Tom Clancy bullshit (aka not MT and probabky doesn't provide the claimed benefits)?

The idea behind it is real, and is used, it's just not as good as Tom Clancy portrays it.

EDIT: See the Virginia class submarine, its called pump jet propulsion.

[Puzikas]

Prepare your body.

9.2 Senestrian next to puny 7.62 and 5.56 NATO.

Not big enough.

On a side note, what is the least plesent recoil you have all felt? Handgun, rifle, shotgun...whatever it may be.

[Wolohanistan]

Finally getting round to working on one of 5 WIP firearms, here's a bullpup BR :V

[Aqizithiuda]

Also, isn't the "caterpillar drive" Tom Clancy bullshit (aka not MT and probabky doesn't provide the claimed benefits)?

The idea behind it is real, and is used, it's just not as good as Tom Clancy portrays it.

EDIT: See the Virginia class submarine, its called pump jet propulsion.

Ah. Cheers for that info!

[Mactovera]

Also, isn't the "caterpillar drive" Tom Clancy bullshit (aka not MT and probabky doesn't provide the claimed benefits)?

The idea behind it is real, and is used, it's just not as good as Tom Clancy portrays it.

EDIT: See the Virginia class submarine, its called pump jet propulsion.

Until you combine it with NationStates RP, in a post-modern technology reigon...