WI-main battle rifles upgraded and mass produced to this day

thank you for all this information it is truly interesting

but the WI had a somewhat different point
the point was, and im sorry if i didnt put it in the right way, what would this do to nato stile body armour?
someone mentioned the rifle round can "tear trough" body armour
with this in mind i had the idea of a urban tactical unit of a dosen gunman, armed with AKs and RPGs but at least two or three carying high powered battle rifles, and actually using them, in combination with AK fire, on relativelly short range targets, in other words shooting armoured soldiers from some 100-200 meters

or taking a place 500-700 meters awy and attempt to pin down a group of soldiers in body armour

one of the basic consequences i can imagine, if the "tear trought" armour capability is an actuall fact, is more casulties on side of western forces during firefights, wich would impact morale at home( war becoming even more unpopular) and in the warzone, (soldiers loosing faith in their armour, greater percived risk of getting killed and so on)

for this i thought a tradition of mass producing battle rifles in the soviet union after WW2 is needed, so as to provide cheap and avalable guns parts and ammo, as the western production is not as cheap, or avalable in most warzones
or am i compeltely wrong on all of this?
 
It doesn't work, Battle Rifles require way more training than AK's. As well as way more TLC. Any such tradition would negate any advantage Third World Rebels/Guerillas had with the Kalashnikov series. Over there mostly 7.62 carrying Govt. opponents. Aso current Gen Personal Armor will stop the 7.62 at all but pointblank range. All you really end up doing is speed up R&D for better armor,While inflicting more defeats on insurgent groups through lower effectiveness. In fact most terrain is completly unfavorable to longer ranged engagements, example jungle engagements usually take place at less than 5 Meters making a Rifle that is slow to fire or uncontrollable in Full-Auto dangerous to the survival of your troops , especially if your enemy is using a weapon designed to put out rounds in a controlled fashion and decent volume.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
for this i thought a tradition of mass producing battle rifles in the soviet union after WW2 is needed, so as to provide cheap and avalable guns parts and ammo, as the western production is not as cheap, or avalable in most warzones or am i compeltely wrong on all of this?

Maybe have the AK-47 never be adopted. Make the battle rifle dominant in the Soviet Army. That way, they prefer to send battle rifles throughout the world.

Anyone think that is possible?
 
The vast majority of army casualties in 20th century wars were caused by artillery, with most of the rest down to machine guns. The type of rifle carried is not, and never has been, a significant issue in deciding the outcome of battles.

Whatever theory might say about the effectiveness of full-power rounds, in practice it's volume of fire which has been more important.

Having said that, the current fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is most unusual because it isn't all-out war in terms of massed tanks and artillery doing their stuff against large armies; far more of the fighting is infantry combat at close range. So rifles have a greater importance now than they normally do.

The 5.56mm military rounds have been shown to be somewhat erratic in effectiveness. A cartridge intermediate between this and the full-power 7.62mm rounds would probably be the best compromise. However, it isn't going to be anything conventional like the 6.8x43 Rem SPC or the 6.5x38 Grendel: the US LSAT programme for lightweight ammo and guns is the best opportunity, and that won't result in a service weapon until 2015 at the earliest.

The photo below is from this article on my website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

P1070008.jpg


Current service rifle/MG rounds and potential developments, from left to right: 7.62x54R, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, 7.62x51, 5.56x45, 5.8x42, 6.8x43 Rem SPC, 6.5x38 Grendel, earlier versions of LSAT caseless and LSAT plastic-cased.
 

burmafrd

Banned
The whole rationale behind the original M16 was weight. Did not matter that in every important combat measure it was inferior to the M14. Soldiers are always going to complain about carrying too much. They have been like that for a thousand years at least.
My best friend did 4 tours in VN in special forces (the last one was with Phoenix). He is still in as a training officer (got pulled back after 9/11).
He has always despised the M16 and anytime he visits his units in either Iraq or Afgan he carries the same weapon- a M14.
 
Top