Doesn't matter .30 Carbine still goes through level III armor like a hot knife through butter, and your not stopping a something that can do that with a fucking padded winter jacket. Second I trust testing more than soldiers on the field because combat is stressful and sometimes you just miss, its not a dig at the soldiers or anything its just a fact.
Lmao what? Small arms made up a minority of kills in WW2, having an STG isn't going to stop you from being baited into firebags and shelled to death by a gorillion soviet artillery pieces. Nor will it stop you from constantly getting encircled because Stalin realised that actually Tukhachevsky was right and we should actually implement deep battle doctrine (somehow Russia forgot about this until last year too).
Reminds me of the US army propaganda about the MG34/42 and how "you're safe from it because although it sounds scary it's really inaccurate! Now let's see how our superior BAR does boys!", which is funny till you remember LindyBeige actually tried to make that argument, Spandau.
Personal biases go a long way in creating delusions, people seem to forget that most military equipment (even the Challenger 2 which I have previously ragged on) is very rarely truly bad, most of it is just doctrinally different. Germany would have benefitted from a more reliable tank, but it's not like they had the same industrial capacity, or logistical strain that the USA had that forced them to produce an extremely reliable tank, that can also be shipped across the Atlantic, and be shat out as fast as humanly possible. Equally, the Soviets wouldn't have benefitted from trying to produce a high quality, highly reliable tank, just one that does it's job well enough, fit their doctrine, and can be made quickly. It's like people arguing over the T-72 being a terrible design, it's not, it was just designed with a different doctrine in mind (even if it has some obvious flaws, like reverse speed).
Actually incorrect, KPA soldiers benefitted from being armed by the soviets, AND being the primary fighting force of the DPRK, meaning they had their best gear, the PVA on the other hand were equipped primarily with surplus Japanese weapons from the 2nd Sino-Japanese war, they also had very little in heavy firepower, being almost entirely light infantry, which is part of the reason why their performance in the Korean war was so impressive, and shows how the PLA had a very good understanding of Clausewitzian theory.
Luckily I know to hold the bolt back when I put the clip in. Can't say the same for many other Garand fanboys.
That's the funny thing about self-proclaimed students of war like LazerPig and Animarchy. They don't see the doctrine behind some vehicle designs.
IIRC the whole BTG thing that the Russians were going for was more their attempt at becoming a western-style military with high mobility and extensive reliance on professionals. Them going back to Deep Battle and proper divisional structures was them realizing that building a military that's suited well for fast warfare is no compensation for the sheer volume of fire that the more traditional Soviet model can throw at the enemy.
You keep using those words. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Which is a microcosm of how out of touch with reality the Russian general staff were prior to the invasion of Ukraine, for western high mobility doctrine to work you must first secure air supremacy, not superiority, supremacy, you then have to obliterate both critical infrastructure (power grid, command structure, rail links, etc), and make sure your army has both a strong NCO corps, and the independence to act on their own initiative at a hugely devolved level. Only then can you invade, and when doing so it must be with relative manpower parity. My basis for this is of course the Gulf war, being the last large-scale NATO military action against what could be called a more traditional adversary (note that I'm not referring to them as a peer, despite the propaganda claims of the time about "the 3rd largest army by manpower", and "Air defences as good as those around Moscow", Iraq was by no reasonable measure a peer), as desert storm was split into two phases, the initial air war, lasting a month, and seeing over 100,000 sorties from Coalition air power, and the ground invasion, which was conducted not before key Iraqi targets were annihilated, which guaranteed total ground flexibility by uncontested aerial recon, and on demand CAS whenever particularly stiff resistance was met.
I'm not gonna dogpile you but that is the most fudd of all fuddisms.
Given the choice between the STG and the M1 Carbine I would choose the Carbine, it's smaller and lighter than the STG and still packs enough wallop to put someone down at reasonable distance. I'd take a Garand over anything else though.
Back in the day, the US Military had the opinion that the average grunt cannot be trusted to not mag dump at the earliest opportunity. They were afraid infantrymen would burn through all their ammo early into a battle.
It would require a good deal of reworking to lighten it to something usable for a riflemen, the budget was slashed after the war in one of the few times the Army got the worst of it, expensive, production lines would have had to been switched over during said cut, reliable detachable magazines were still relatively expensive, yada yada the money wasn't there you get it. Juice wasn't worth the squeeze to develop a rifle that *might* give you a leg up on the bad guy if it worked perfect, even if Ordnance trusted grunts to not try to eat the magazines. With no pressure from a foreign power to mass adopt self loaders, everyone was happy to let a purpose built firearm develop.
They want 20'' barrel penetration from a 16" incher against hard armor. Will it work? I have my doubts and suspect the M7 will join the pile of failed pretenders.
A M14 with a loaded mag weighs 5+ pounds less than an empty M1918. The lightest BAR-ish rifles I'm aware of are still 12+ pounds.
That all makes good sense, thank you.
Also a good point, wasn't aware that the thing was that difficult to make light.
Damn, I'm sad I missed this dude's fuddpost. I would have definitely dogpiled him. IIRC .30 carbine is *roughly* around .357 magnum in power. I don't think the chinks were rocking solid kevlar coats.
That would be kinda like the brits trying to make the Bren into a infantry rifle.
The M1 Carbine was the gun of choice for innawoods survivalist types and anti-government prepper weirdos for decades, well into the eighties when they were supplanted by the Mini-14/Mini-30 and the AR15.
