Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

[Jumintiger]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

RPG's are one shot on a tank in real life. The chance of them getting a shot off is slim however. AK-47's are not used by the west for political reasons but they are the best by far! A lot of Americans died in the Vietnam war because of this. Some American soldiers picked up AK-47's off dead Vietnamese soldiers but were made to relinquesh them and use ****ty American weapons that jammed. Long story:)

Well there are lots of different types of RPGs. I only know of two: the RPG7, a weak one and the one ingame, can't scratch an M1A2, and the RPG22, which is extremely powerful and can destroy pretty much everything (except the M1A2, which is still impervious).

And please Uncle Bazza! Tell me that story!

[Mavlyn]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Come to think about it, why do the US army not use AK's? they are powerfull, effective and don't jam. They are cheap as well. So the US Army could save alot more money and put that back into their economy etc.

Quotes taken from a comparison of the two rifles at Answers.com, which gives a nice, laymans breakdown without getting too much into ballistics numbers. A very nice essay, so I used it rather than pounding out my own three hour ordeal.

Developement:
The M16 appeared much later than the AK-47 and thus provided a platform that offered much more development potential then the AK series. Unlike the AK-47, the M16 continues to benefit from every advance in the CNC field, which allows more and more small manufacturers to make M16 rifles. While the M16 is made using aluminum and plastics, it can also be made entirely out of machined steel and wood, at the expense of adding some weight. Where the AK-47 relies on huge Soviet-style, state-run factories, the M16 is ideal for free economy production, spread among many manufacturers around the country, which ensures that it would be very hard for anyone to disrupt US M16 production in the case of a major conflict.

Ergonomics:
The weight of the AK-47 is 4.3 kg (9.5 lb) without the magazine and is 87 cm (2'10") in length, although the general shape of the rifle and size of the magazine make it uncomfortable to fire in the prone position. The M16A1 model of the Vietnam era weights 3.6 kg (7.8 lb aprox) with the 30 round magazine and has a length of 100 cm (3'3"). The M16's lighter weight made it easier to carry and to aim quickly (being easier to swing). The later models of the M16 weighed more than the original with the addition of heavier (and more accurate) barrels and more rugged components. The M16A2, for example, weighs 3.99 kg (8.79 lb) loaded. The M16's ergonomics were often considered more comfortable than the AK-47's. However, the AK-47's shorter length may have aided in close quarters combat. In addition, the design of the M16's magazine allows for more comfortable and stable firing from the prone position.

In the field the M16 proves superior to the AK-47, due to it's similar weapons system based off the M1 Garand and the M14. When the last round exits the magazine the bolt stays locked back. The soldier simply presses the mag release, inserts the new magazine and taps the bolt release on the side of the receiver. While the AK-47, runs out of ammo and the soldier has to reload his weapon and proceed to pull the bolt back every-time a fresh magazine is inserted.

Cartridge:

The AK-47 was designed to use the 7.62x39mm Russian cartridge, whereas the M16 was designed for the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. In metric caliber designations, these numerals refer to cartridge dimensions. The initial set of numbers refer to the diameter of the actual projectile in millimeters, while the subsequent set of numbers refer to the cartridge case's length. Still, a quick comparison between cartridges reveals they are similar in ballistic performance, with the American cartridge having an edge in long range performance and penetration and the Russian cartridge having better performance against soft targets due to its larger calibre.


The light 62 grain (4.0 g) projectile of the 5.56 with its high velocity of 3,000 ft/s (910 m/s) permits a high degree of accuracy. The original ammo for the M16 was M193 ball, a 55 grain (3.6 g) projectile that exited the muzzle at 3,250 ft/s. It is often stated that this round "would tumble" upon striking a target. All bullets tumble. This is not the wounding mechanism. At ranges of up to 75 meters the lead cored round is traveling fast enough that the force of striking a body will cause the round to fragment along the cannelure (crimp where the bullet is clamped to the casing) into at least three pieces (front, back, and jacket). Three fragments are far more likely to strike something vital than one, hence the fearsome reputation of the M16 in close range jungle combat. The much slower and heavier AK-47 round even from the muzzle enters a target at a velocity below which it would fragment, unless it strikes a bone. During the 1970s and 1980s the quest for greater accuracy and armor piercing capability from light machine guns led to the adoption of a heavier, slower, steel cored round, the M855. A major grievance of American troops in Somalia in 1993 was that the M855 round would drill cleanly through a target without fragmenting. The 7.62 x 39 mm round, not to be confused with the full power 7.62x51 mm NATO round, weighs in at 122 grains (7.9 g) and on full auto unleashes an enormous amount of heavy volume fire on opposing combatants at close range. Its drawback is that at 122 grains (7.9 g), with only an intermediate size case and charge (39 mm compared to the NATO 51 mm), its accuracy suffers considerably beyond 100 yards (100 m) because it is essentially underpowered. The bullet takes on a wide looping trajectory while in flight that confounds accuracy beyond these ranges.

Reliablity:
The AK-47 has always enjoyed a reputation of reliability. It is gas operated, using the gas from the barrel to push a piston against the bolt, operating the action. The gas tube is fairly large and is visible above the barrel. The AK-47 is often built with generous tolerances, allowing it to function easily in a dirty environment.

The M16, though, had reliability issues in its initial deployment. The direct impingment gas system used by the M16 is similar to normal gas operation but with a few differences. Gas from the barrel is used to cycle the action but lacks the piston, so the gas alone impinges upon the bolt carrier. This allowed a number of parts normally used with a piston gas system to be removed, making it more stable and thus accurate. But the design allows residue to be blown into the receiver as well as quickly accumulating carbon buildup within the gas port channel, negatively affecting reliability. The tube was also smaller and thus easier to clog. The original M16 of the Vietnam era fared poorly in the humid, dirty environment of the Vietnamese jungle, and would also face problems in the sandy environments of the Middle East. However, the use of cleaner powders in the ammunition and the replacement of some components fixed many of the reliability issues.

The modern variants of the M16 are considered by many to be a great improvement over the original. Even today with American troops abroad in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, it is standard operating procedure to strip and clean the M16/M4 carbine three times a day whether it was discharged or not, attesting to standard modern military procedure. This is not as difficult as it may sound, since the weapon is designed to be field stripped easily (a soldier can do it in under ten seconds). The use of proper chroming in the rifle, as well as the correct powder type, has removed almost all of the reliability issues of the Vietnam-era weapon, whose infamous reliability problems were due almost entirely to early production errors and an arbitrary decision by military brass to use a cartridge that the rifle had not been designed to fire (the M16 was originally designed to fire 7.62x51 mm NATO ammo as the AR 10; only after being redesigned for 5.56 NATO did problems surface).

Accuracy:
The AK47 is generally considered a less accurate rifle, as the loose tolerances that increase reliability and decrease manufacturing costs have an impact on accuracy. The relatively heavier recoil of the 7.62x39 cartridge also aggravates this. Aside from the AK-47 being un-comfortable to fire, the Minute Of Angle of a standard issue AK-47 was 4-5 which is a very bad number especially since it denys the ability of the AK to hit any thing past 100 yards with-out frustration. The M16's direct gas system allows several moving parts forward of the firing chamber to be removed, which results in less barrel vibration during action cycling, which contributes to greater accuracy in fully automatic mode, along with the lighter recoil and high velocity of the 5.56 NATO round. The original M16 and M16A1 did not offer the accuracy that has been achieved with the later M16A2 using the SS109 bullet in semi-automatic mode. The M16 came from the factory shooting with an MOA of 2 and under which allowed it to hit targets past 300 yards with deadly precision.


The "ghost ring" or aperture sights of the later M16A2 are superior to those used on most earlier assault rifles. Using an aperture rear sight, a small hole to center the front blade in, the human eye automatically centers the front sight post, making aiming faster and more consistent. The M16A2's rear sight features two aperture settings. The larger aperture enables faster sighting for close-range combat. The smaller aperture permits more precise aiming for long-distance targets. The AK-47's sights are of a more traditional "open" style. The rear sight is a simple U- or V-shaped notch in which the front post is to be centered. This requires more concentration to use, as both the front and rear sight must be kept in alignment, and must be placed further away from the eye, or the same 'blurring effect' of the aperture sights will hinder performance. The M16's sight radius (the distance between the two sights) is greater, which contributes to more precise sighting.

Doctrine and Philosophies:
The M16 and the AK-47 are designed with different beliefs in mind. Their design, capabilities, and role on the battlefield were reflections of the different experience and doctrine of the United States and the Soviet Union.
The AK-47 was the result of Soviet combat experience during World War II. Studies of battlefield reports showed that most combat occurred within 300 meters, and the winner was usually the side with the most firepower. The bolt-action weapons used on the eastern front were not designed for this kind of combat. The AK-47 was the answer to these reports. It would give the average soldier a high rate of fire, increasing a squad’s firepower tremendously. The AK-47 was never meant to be an accurate rifle beyond 300 meters since in mobile warfare, distances were covered rather quickly. It also had the advantage of not needing particularly experienced soldiers to be effective - the gun required very little maintenance, and accuracy wasn’t very important which was ideal for the large conscript-based Soviet army. Weight wasn't important either because Soviet doctrine placed an emphasis on the use of armored spearheads in an attack, followed closely by troop transports like the BTR-70.


The M16, on the other hand, was influenced by the U.S. Army's preference for an accurate semi-automatic weapon. Although the U.S. Army’s studies into World War Two combat accounts came up with very similar results to that of the Soviets', the Army maintained its traditional views and preferred highly accurate weapons. This culminated in the M14. Combat experience in Vietnam showed that this traditional philosophy was anachronistic. A replacement was needed, in the middle between the traditional philosophy of highly accurate semi-automatic rifles, and that of the automatic AK-47. The M16 was the middle ground. It was not expected to be fired at targets beyond 300 meters, and although it was far more controllable in full automatic mode than both the M14 and the AK-47, the M16A2 took away this feature altogether. Lighter weight, accuracy and ergonomics were the priority for the American armed forces, and aviation materials were used in its construction, which resulted in higher costs per unit and an overall lower reliability when compared to the simple steel construction of the AK-47. The average American soldier was considered more professional and better trained than their Soviet counterparts, so maintenance issues were not deemed as important. Because American patrols in the thick Vietnamese jungle were restricted to foot and later on, helicopter movement, weight was a very important consideration.



That is why we Americans use the M16, and why most countries that can afford it, or another weapon with a similar design philosophy, do so. The AK is designed for "the best when you can't afford better". It's very good at what it does, but it is not the best.

[Bickus^Dickus]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Tax in sweden and the other nordic countries is the highest in the world as far as i know.Here in sweden its 30 percent.

[imported_VISTREL]

Re: RPG Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Wow!!!!!! Finally EA has given the right weapon to the right army. When I was playing BF2 using the MEC, I was using anti-tank and was like "Guerillas don't use this crap". And now I have the formidable RPG-7. Is there a way of using this weapon in maps like Sharqi Peninsula, and other regular non-SF maps?

Sounds like you got what you wanted! Now go to become a guerilla!

[EyeofG]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

The RPG rocks
Who or even why care that you can't aim it. It's A Gradne! You can't Aim a Grandrne! I think it rocks the way it is

[rowdyman]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Mavlyn; you could've used a hyperlink old boy. But just the same thanks for the research.

[Mavlyn]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Mavlyn; you could've used a hyperlink old boy. But just the same thanks for the research.

Well, hey, half the people on a board won't click a link for fear that it will redirect them to 99 pop-ups of Goatze. (If you don't know what that is... do not ask, seriously. You'll regret ever having seen it.)

[rowdyman]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

I am blissfully unaware. Thanks again, it was a good read.

[Mavlyn]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

I am blissfully unaware. Thanks again, it was a good read.

No probs!

[Graphic]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

No but Hezbollah launch their missiles, at civilian targets, from villages full of "civilians" without any care as to the military response.

Not too different from the IDF actually...

IDF Civilian Casualties:
43 killed
about 1,350 injured (of which 875 were treated for shock)

Compare to...

Lebanese Civilian Casualties:
692-1009 killed
3,600 injured

- wikipedia

[Mavlyn]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Not too different from the IDF actually...

IDF Civilian Casualties:
43 killed
about 1,350 injured (of which 875 were treated for shock)

Compare to...

Lebanese Civilian Casualties:
692-1009 killed
3,600 injured

- wikipedia

This also might be due to the fact that Hezbollah has the lovely habbit of placing weapons on top of apartment buildings and hospitals, or tucking a mobile gun into a busy intersection. It's hard to avoid civilian targets when the enemies Command Post doubles as a school.

[Graphic]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Then it's on the IDF to be above Hezbollah's level and not indescriminately bomb a school, rocket emplacement or not.

[Mavlyn]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Then it's on the IDF to be above Hezbollah's level and not indescriminately bomb a school, rocket emplacement or not.

I don't want to hijack a thread, so this will be my last post on this topic.

It's not a matter of rising above. Israel moved in to root out Hezbollah, this was their declared objectives. If Hezbollah wishes to use human shields, then the weight is on their shoulders for every piece of collateral. Let's remove this to a hypothetical level, to get rid of emotional charge.

B and A really don't like each other.

B attacks A.

B hides behind human shield to avoid A.

This is the equivelant of hopping over a border, or, at a smaller scale, of starting a fight and then hiding in the principals office, using the rules of the scenario (fight/war) to excape retribution for your actions. Now, in a schoolyard, A could simply wait out B, and jump him after class, but this is lethal, so lets go with the border approach.

A could stop at the rule line (the border/the shields), and be within the law. However, B would then return and repeat his attack (robbing a bank, shooting rockets), and simply use the rules to escape again. A would almost never catch B and stop him.

-or-

A could break the letter of the law (cross border in pursuit/bomb anyway). This would lead to reprimands (censure by superiors/international condemnation), but would almost guarantee that B would not be able to return and strike again (more banks/more rockets). If A stops B, then the criticism will fade, and A will be far more secure in the long run.

So, A has a difficult choice: be the "good" guy, and get abused; or be not so good and stop the abuse. Most people, and more nations, would choose to stop the abuse.

Back to the scenario in real life...

Israel could have simply started strat-bombing Southern Lebanon, and would have been within the bounds. However, they even took the time to distribute leaflets to the buildings that would be hit, pre-bombing with propaganda that even said which buildings would be hit. They were willing to let Hezbollah mobile assets escape to reduce civilian casualties.

So compare the sides: Israel, uses precision weaponry to surgically target enemy assets, telegraphing movements to reduce collateral; and Hezbollah, which dumb-fires masses of rockets into Israel trying to hit civilian centers. Israel has been more than "better" than Hezbollah, they've been a world above them, and trying harder than they needed to. To a nation, there is no greater asset than sovereignty, and the kidnappings were a slap in the face to that, and the rockets a direct assault. There was no possible other response than war.

Place your own nation in Israel's shoes, and imagine if your neighbors sent warbands over your border to kidnap your people, and then shot rockets at your border towns. Wouldn't you want your government to "do something" to stop it?

PS: Most police, at least in the US, do pursue over jurisdictional borders. They got sick of people running into the next state. Just an FYI.

-Mavlyn

[Graphic]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

You seem to assume that I'm anti-Israel or a Hezbollah sympathizer when nothing could be further from the truth. It's because I hold Israel and her army -- being the civilized, just party in the conflict -- to an infinitely higher standard than terrorists that I'm disappointed with them.

There are far more humane ways that Israel is absolutely capable of to damage Hezbollah they could have used but instead took the easy road with bombing the crap out of everything and going "hey, not our fault, they're using human shields!"

And I don't recall ever saying Israel shouldn't be "doing something" about it.

[SERIALBUTCHER]

Re: Rgp Baby!!!!allahu Akbar!!!!!!!!!

Then it's on the IDF to be above Hezbollah's level and not indescriminately bomb a school, rocket emplacement or not.

Actually it is Lebanon's responsibility to not allow terrorists to operate freely within their borders (unless they condone their actions)

Lieutenant General |SI|SERIALBUTCHER

"PEACE in the Middle East":)