Discussions

MontyB said:
My brother in law had a Chinese Type-56 and it was terrible, the front sights fell off and if you held it wrong the magazine fell out, it was loud and jumped like a kangaroo, I had a Russian AK at the same time and it was excellent, my only complaint was that it weighed a ton about the same as the L1A1 but without the accuracy.
/QUOTE]

The Type 56 AK's I ordered were quite good, no real problems and were quite reliable. I never did like firing the 7.62x39, its a nasty violent recoil for such a light bullet, the only real problem I had with the type 56 was the short butt

As I said, the quality of Chinese firearms depends on the factory where they were made, for all I know there is more then one factory making the Type 56
Click to expand...
 
The war reminds me in one aspect of the Spanish Civil War. People (mostly men) are going to Ukraine to fight against the Russian. The Spanish Civil War attracted young men to go there and fight against Franco.

Brit? I have fired 7.62x39 and the recoil didn't bother me much, but I was used to the 7.62x51, are/were you bothered by the recoil of the 7.62x51 too?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The war reminds me in one aspect of the Spanish Civil War. People (mostly men) are going to Ukraine to fight against the Russian. The Spanish Civil War attracted young men to go there and fight against Franco.

Brit? I have fired 7.62x39 and the recoil didn't bother me much, but I was used to the 7.62x51, are/were you bothered by the recoil of the 7.62x51 too?
Click to expand...

I did have a Parker Hale 300 Winchester Magnum Rifle, that was a bit of a kicker but didnt bother me, neither did the 7.62x51. what I think the problem was, the AK47 stock was too short, making it very uncomfortable.
 
I have seen Ukrainian soldiers with a bullpup rifle, do any one here know which one? I think it looks like the Israeli TAVOR
 
MontyB said:
Seems like a number of people are getting the blame and the boot (probably a bullet as well) in Russia at the moment
https://uawire.org/Contents/Item/Display/28204

https://uawire.org/kyiv-8-russian-generals-fired-because-of-failed-invasion-of-ukraine

And still more WTF moments from the Russian front.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-asking-china-for-military-equipment-us-says-ahead-of-meeting/

By the end of this we will have Syrian mercenaries with Chinese equipment fighting Ukrainians and Putin denying Russia was ever there.
Click to expand...

OTOH ..:we can only hope that Putin will continue to rule Russia,there is no proof that his successor would be better for our interests .
And,what Biden (young Carter ) is remaining silent about :we should be grateful that he was in the past the Czar of Russia, because, without him , not Assad but ISIS would rule Syria . It is due to the Russian intervention that Assad was saved,not because of the intervention of Obama: the PUS supported ISIS and its allies in their war against Assad .
Thus: Biden who is as responsible as Obama,should try to use his brains,before labeling the number 2 world ruler as '' war criminal ''.
What would have done Navalny in Syria ?
 
lljadw said:
OTOH ..:we can only hope that Putin will continue to rule Russia,there is no proof that his successor would be better for our interests .
Click to expand...

Would anyone else be any worse?
Putin has proven to be untrustworthy, somewhat irrational and driven by his own ego, I am not sure it would be possible for anyone to deal with him in good faith in the future.
Essentially he may be consigning Russia to decades of isolation and that will not be good for Russia nor world security.

And,what Biden (young Carter ) is remaining silent about :we should be grateful that he was in the past the Czar of Russia, because, without him , not Assad but ISIS would rule Syria . It is due to the Russian intervention that Assad was saved,not because of the intervention of Obama: the PUS supported ISIS and its allies in their war against Assad .
Click to expand...

Strangely I agree.

Thus: Biden who is as responsible as Obama,should try to use his brains,before labeling the number 2 world ruler as '' war criminal ''.
What would have done Navalny in Syria ?
Click to expand...

I don't agree, neither Biden nor Obama have done anything remotely close to a war crime in Syria by contrast Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on his own people, as for Navalny who knows what he would have done as he will never get out of prison alive.
 
MontyB said:
Would anyone else be any worse?
Putin has proven to be untrustworthy, somewhat irrational and driven by his own ego, I am not sure it would be possible for anyone to deal with him in good faith in the future.
Essentially he may be consigning Russia to decades of isolation and that will not be good for Russia nor world security.



Strangely I agree.



I don't agree, neither Biden nor Obama have done anything remotely close to a war crime in Syria by contrast Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on his own people, as for Navalny who knows what he would have done as he will never get out of prison alive.
Click to expand...

1 I do not care if the isolation of Russia would be bad for the Russians .I also do not see why the isolation of Russia would be bad for world security .
And about Putin himself : there is a proverb that says that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know .
It is not because Putin is a dictator and Navalny is not a dictator, that Navalny is better for us .Mobutu was a dictator,killed tens of thousands of people, but still he was good for our interests .
Besides : there is for the moment no successor for Putin in Russia : Navalny is a lawyer, thus someone who knows noting,while Putin has 20 years of experience .
3 Many more people have died because of conventional attacks from the USAF (Raqqa ) than by chemical attacks ordered by Assad . And here also ,it is not our business .
If the civilians who were the victims of chemical attacks,were supporters of ISIS, they had no reason to complain .
If they were the hostages ,the prisoners of ISIS,they should be grateful to Assad that he liberated them .Why did Assad use chemical weapons ? Because he had not enough conventional bombs .
Tens of thousands of French and Belgian civilians were killed by the RAF and the USAAF .They did not complain because they knew that the attacks were needed for the liberation of their country .
Finally : the quotes from Biden : today he said that Putin was a cruel man .Was this an intelligent thing to say ? Did it serve the interests of the US ?The answer is : NO .
Biden should accept that he is the President of the US ,and NOT the president of the world and that thus EVERYTHING he is saying must have only one aim = to serve the interests of his country .
Western (especially American ) politicians talk too much and want only more publicity .The old proverb ''verba volant, scripta manent '' (spoken words fly away,written words remain ) does not apply to presidents of the US .
Did Putin reply that Biden is demented ? No .
Last point : Russia has nuclear weapons : I trust more Putin with them than Navalny .
 
lljadw said:
1 I do not care if the isolation of Russia would be bad for the Russians .I also do not see why the isolation of Russia would be bad for world security .
And about Putin himself : there is a proverb that says that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know .
It is not because Putin is a dictator and Navalny is not a dictator, that Navalny is better for us .Mobutu was a dictator,killed tens of thousands of people, but still he was good for our interests .
Besides : there is for the moment no successor for Putin in Russia : Navalny is a lawyer, thus someone who knows noting,while Putin has 20 years of experience .
3 Many more people have died because of conventional attacks from the USAF (Raqqa ) than by chemical attacks ordered by Assad . And here also ,it is not our business .
If the civilians who were the victims of chemical attacks,were supporters of ISIS, they had no reason to complain .
If they were the hostages ,the prisoners of ISIS,they should be grateful to Assad that he liberated them .Why did Assad use chemical weapons ? Because he had not enough conventional bombs .
Tens of thousands of French and Belgian civilians were killed by the RAF and the USAAF .They did not complain because they knew that the attacks were needed for the liberation of their country .
Finally : the quotes from Biden : today he said that Putin was a cruel man .Was this an intelligent thing to say ? Did it serve the interests of the US ?The answer is : NO .
Biden should accept that he is the President of the US ,and NOT the president of the world and that thus EVERYTHING he is saying must have only one aim = to serve the interests of his country .
Western (especially American ) politicians talk too much and want only more publicity .The old proverb ''verba volant, scripta manent '' (spoken words fly away,written words remain ) does not apply to presidents of the US .
Did Putin reply that Biden is demented ? No .
Last point : Russia has nuclear weapons : I trust more Putin with them than Navalny .
Click to expand...

While for the most part I agree I can not agree about the use of chemical weapons.
On a "traditional" battlefield I can "sort of" agree (I personally think they should not exist at all) but using them against population centres is wrong, I am prepared to accept ISIS had women supporters but I doubt children had much of a say in where they were.

The second point is more about semantics but if those killed by RAF/USAAF bombing raids over Europe started complaining we would have more to worry about than just the Germans.
:)
While Putin didn't call Biden demented he did refer to him as senile but I am not sure name calling really means much at that level and if words meant anything in this matter Zelensky won this a month ago with the "I need ammunition not a ride" comment.
 
The population centers were attacked because ISIS used them as means to stop Assad and the US .If these attacked them , the media would claim that Assad and the US killed civilians .If they did not attack them,their advance would be stopped .
Two stats (reliable or not )
2000 civilians were killed and 18000 wounded by air attacks with chemical weapons by the armies of Assad against military targets,where ISIS intentionally concentrated civilians to stop the advance of Assad .
1600 civilians were killed , no info about wounded, by air attacks with conventional weapons by the US air force ,against military targets ,where IS intentionally concentrated civilians to stop the allied advance .
In both cases (Gouza, Raqqa ) ISIS was responsible for the presence of the civilians, not Assad,not the US .
During WW 2, Britain and Germany evacuated children from the cities . IS concentrated them in the cities .
Last point :
US used chemical weapons in Vietnam and did nothing when its ally,Saddam Hussein,used such weapons against revolting Kurds .
This means that their condemnations of Assad is hypocrisy .
Turkey used chemical weapons, but Assad had not the right to do it .
 
lljadw said:
Last point :
US used chemical weapons in Vietnam and did nothing when its ally,Saddam Hussein,used such weapons against revolting Kurds .
This means that their condemnations of Assad is hypocrisy .
Turkey used chemical weapons, but Assad had not the right to do it .
Click to expand...

I am not going to support anyone's use of chemical weapons although I would argue the US use of agent orange has probably killed more Americans than Vietnamese and I am not sure the use of defoliants is the same as a chemical weapons.

With regard to ISIS I fully support wiping them off the face of the planet by any means.
With regard to the Russia/Ukraine conflict it is a hard choice as the Ukrainians are certainly not saints, they have a lot of dubious elements operating within the Ukraine but they are not invading Russia the Russians are attacking them so I am happy to support them in this case.
 
MontyB said:
I am not going to support anyone's use of chemical weapons although I would argue the US use of agent orange has probably killed more Americans than Vietnamese and I am not sure the use of defoliants is the same as a chemical weapons.

With regard to ISIS I fully support wiping them off the face of the planet by any means.
With regard to the Russia/Ukraine conflict it is a hard choice as the Ukrainians are certainly not saints, they have a lot of dubious elements operating within the Ukraine but they are not invading Russia the Russians are attacking them so I am happy to support them in this case.
Click to expand...

I do not support ,nor condemn the use of CW ,as nothing of what I say/do not say has any influence on what is happening .Zelensky neither Putin will take any notion of what I am saying .
About Ukraine : if I was 20 and an Ukrainian, I would join the army and kill Russians .
But , I am not 20 neither am I an Ukrainian .
I am neutral and the fact that the Russians invaded Ukrainian is not a reason for me to support Ukraine .Besides my support will consist of words only .
War is not only human but a reality: peace is a transition from war A to war B .
If we had some intelligent politicians in the West, the problem would be very quickly solved. Intelligent people would use the following norm :
is a war won by Ukraine good or bad for us ?
If he is good for us ,we should remain silent and sell weapons to Zelensky ( If the US want, they could give them for free ) to make some money
If a victory of Russia is bad for us,we also should remain silent but not sell weapons to the Russians unless Putin asks for them .
But,our stupid and hypocritical politicians prefer war hysteria.
Macron because there are presidential elections in France very soon, Biden because in November there are mid term elections .
The media are telling us new fairy tales = that the attack ( without reason ) of a neutral country is a crime and than they continue with other stupidities as :moral duty, moral responsibilities, war being bad and we must have eternal peace ( WHY ? ),knowing well that this will resort in eternal war .
Ten years ago there was a civil war in Libya between the dictator Gadafi (Libya ruled by Gadafi was good for us ) and its opponents ,supported by ISIS . Because of ''moral '' considerations, Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy ( who had received money from Gadafi !) attacked him and supported de facto ISIS (the good terrorists ). At the same time,Putin was saving Syria from ISIS,not because he had any sympathy for Assad, but because Assad was good for his interests .Where was the common sense ?
In Moscow, not in Paris, NY or London .
The invasion of Ukraine is not a crime, but a mistake . So is the Western reaction and both, Russia and the West will pay for their mistakes.
That the president of the US is acting as a stupid journalist,calling his opponent a war criminal who should be liquidated,forgetting that the today's opponent is the tomorrow's ally,is something future generations will refuse to believe .
 
Ok moving away from the rights and wrongs of this war I have another question...

Are we seeing a shift to a new form of warfare, where MBTs, Artillery and Airpower are replaced with high-powered "personal" weaponry such as Manpads, ATGM's and drones?

Or to reference Terminator, are we seeing the rise of the autonomous machine in combat.
 
MontyB said:
Ok moving away from the rights and wrongs of this war I have another question...

Are we seeing a shift to a new form of warfare, where MBTs, Artillery and Airpower are replaced with high-powered "personal" weaponry such as Manpads, ATGM's and drones?

Or to reference Terminator, are we seeing the rise of the autonomous machine in combat.
Click to expand...

This war might be the last time we see MBT's, the armed forces around the world will use those they have, but I think these tanks are the last ones. The cost of develop and produce tanks is much higher than to develop and produce ATGM's.

The air forces will go in the same direction with using more drones so the so we will probably see more drones being developed and produced to a cheaper price tag than to produce regular military aircrafts. I am not surprised to see how the Ukrainians are using their drones. I took a closer look at the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the latter used drones and was successful. Drones were also used in the attack against the Saudi oil facility a while back. Israel was the first nation that used drones in a war. The Israelis used them when they militarily intervened in Lebanon, but they were used for intelligence gathering and providing the Israeli commanders with real time information about their opponents.

The only weapon system I can think of that can be autonomous are mines. They have always been somewhat autonomous, but modern mines can differentiate between different targets. Some air defense systems are already autonomous, but there is always a human who decide to let the air defense system to clear the skies. The Aegis systems are designed to do so when the human push the button. I think it would be quite bad to have completely autonomous weapon system.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
This war might be the last time we see MBT's, the armed forces around the world will use those they have, but I think these tanks are the last ones. The cost of develop and produce tanks is much higher than to develop and produce ATGM's.

The air forces will go in the same direction with using more drones so the so we will probably see more drones being developed and produced to a cheaper price tag than to produce regular military aircrafts. I am not surprised to see how the Ukrainians are using their drones. I took a closer look at the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the latter used drones and was successful. Drones were also used in the attack against the Saudi oil facility a while back. Israel was the first nation that used drones in a war. The Israelis used them when they militarily intervened in Lebanon, but they were used for intelligence gathering and providing the Israeli commanders with real time information about their opponents.

The only weapon system I can think of that can be autonomous are mines. They have always been somewhat autonomous, but modern mines can differentiate between different targets. Some air defense systems are already autonomous, but there is always a human who decide to let the air defense system to clear the skies. The Aegis systems are designed to do so when the human push the button. I think it would be quite bad to have completely autonomous weapon system.
Click to expand...

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was, at the time, unprotected by Dorchester armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[14] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.

Challenger 2 is now being up graded:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK2y2dt8v38

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HzhqGa2Mac

Will lMBT be phased out? I have no idea.
 
MBT's have been declared obsolete from time to time, but they are still an integrated part of the armed forces. The AT weapons have been better and better trough the time since the Second World War and a lot cheaper to produce than MBT's. The infantry can reach out and touch MBT's at a greater distances now than what they could do before. Will we see new MBT's after the Challenger, the Abram, the Leopard, the Leclerc, the Merkava, and the South Korean tank? I don't know, but we might see a development of lighter and more deportable vehicles in the future.
 
About the ''WHY '' of Putin's attack : there is a claim ( in Conservative firing line ) that he has terminal thyroid cancer and that a cancer specialist visited him 35 times in Sotsji and that his treatment caused his erratic behavior .
 
lljadw said:
About the ''WHY '' of Putin's attack : there is a claim ( in Conservative firing line ) that he has terminal thyroid cancer and that a cancer specialist visited him 35 times in Sotsji and that his treatment caused his erratic behavior .
Click to expand...

While possible it seems a fairly large leap to go from thyroid cancer to invading another country.
I know there were rumours last year that he was in poor health and would quit the job early this year but I think that time frame has passed.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/ru...rns-reports-claim/DVQAUV73ZNQRGT6RZWKG76XYOU/

One of the big problems with this war has been the amount of misinformation being circulated, in this war Hiram Johnsons statement has been accurate, the first casualty of war is the truth.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
While possible it seems a fairly large leap to go from thyroid cancer to invading another country.

One of the big problems with this war has been the amount of misinformation being circulated, in this war Hiram Johnsons statement has been accurate, the first casualty of war is the truth.
Click to expand...

Winston Churchill once said, The truth is so precious it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies
 
Last edited:
BritinBritain said:
Winston Churchill once said, The truth is so precious it must be protected by s bodyguard of lies
Click to expand...

I bet he had ULTRA in mind when he said that, in this Ukrainian conflict I suspect one of his other quotes is rather accurate as well...
"There are a lot of lies going around... and half of them are true."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top