What kind of rifle is this?

[Raverdave]

A Gunner eh? I did a six month stint with the drop-shorts on 105's. I used to love firing the things but found that the gunners worked a LOT harder than the infantry....well I guess what I mean is that it was much more intense and heavy work loading and unloading all that ammo is a real pain. (The Army REALLY needs a self propelled gun ! ) Thats interesting what you say about the Steyr, I never got to use it in the field. I do know of the rumours about it's "habit" of U/Ds and now wonder if it is due to the problem with small parts that you raised? Good to hear that the higher velocity 5.56mm round worked well in Somalia. Guess it goes to show that what they told us ( in that the 5.56 will be as good as the 7.62) is true, but as you said it lacks the punch of a 7.62. How many times have you seen soldiers training in the field taking cover behind a small tree? In real life you would never do that if the bad guys were shooting 7.62mm at you as they would simply aim at the tree and bingo ! [;)]
I also agree with what you say about section machine gun, for all of it's faults the M-60 was a fantasic weapon and I also have to question the move to a 5.56mm MG. If you are going to use a 5.56mm MG then give the Section two MGs. The Brit paras did that in the Falklands and it payed dividends.

I am like Les....the SLR was a great rifle and I loved everything about it. What really worrys me is that some time in the future some poor group of diggers will find themselves in a close combat situation. Now with the SLR you had a good heavy solid rifle that was good for hand to hand, you could butt-stroke someone and be sure that he was going to get a broken jaw, do you fancy doing that with a steyr? (And yes I know that the bad guys aren't meant to get that close but it has happend in the past and will happen again.) Also putting a bayonet on the end of a SLR would give anyone pause for thought, and if someone is still stupid enough to charge you, you have the length of the weapon to help you parry, just like you see in the old WW2 boot camp training movies[:D].

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Precisely.

Combat, real combat, not the stuff happening in the world today necessarily, is not nice not predictable, and doesn't obey the rules.

I want a rifle that is dangerous empty as well as loaded.

I want to know, that I can beat you to death with it, and then later load a clip into it when resupplied, and the rifle won't be broken.

Having a nice sledge hammer handle would of course also make me feel safe and happy.

[tmac]

Guys-
I almost fell out of my chair reading this thread. The mis-information in it is staggering, and I can only attribute it to opinions from folks who never served in the US Army, and bullsh*t from ages ago like Vietnam. Les. I have to take issue with you in particular. You quote Carl Sagan about the average US citizens ignorance, then utter total cr*p about how the US Army is trained and fights, and then run for cover with a "this is no slag intended" comment. Some of what you claim is totally ignorant, so what should we infer about the average Canadians intelligence?
The M-16 IS NOT used as a suppressive weapon, the older M-60 and now the SAW are, as are other crew served weapons like the Mark 19 and M-2 .50 cal. All US Army soldiers are taught to shoot aimed shots not fire indiscriminently. The only time riflemen should shoot suppressive fire is to cover movement of another element of their unit (which I would believe is doctrine in all modern armies). Where do you get this total bs about US soldiers not being trained in marksmanship? I have to qualify very year, and I am a total REMF. The troops going into combat get much more sustainment training. I use "sustainment" intentionally, because all soldiers are taught how to shoot correctly, and must prove it to even get out of basic training, and get follow on training for the rest of the time they serve.
Does this mean it always happens this way? Of course not, that is a function of training and experience, but that is true of all armies. Studies I have read cited historical data that many soldiers either don't fire aimed shots or don't fire at all in combat, regardless of nationality.
BTW, it is IMO a cheap shot to say the US hasn't faced a real opponent since Nazi Germany when your armed forces haven't faced ANY opponent since maybe Korea. To snidely refer to what my fellow soldiers are experiencing right now as not "real combat" angers me and is ignorant. Should we only refer to combat as "real" when we are forming squares or going over the top? Warfare changes over time, and is certainly different now than WWII or even Vietnam. Weapons, intelligence gathering, mechanization, and more all change how it is fought, but it always boils down to guy with a rifle holding or taking a piece of ground. Don't put down these guys who are dying by saying they are not being killed in combat, especially when you never faced what they are going through.
This is from a serving member of the US Army, in now for over 20 years, and I cannot stand by and listen to such odious garbage tossed my way.
If you have a problem with this, let me know. Otherwise, put a sock in your put downs of me and my fellow soldiers.
Tim

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Tim, my comments are from an old fart that generally DOES measure things in 1970 era terms.

If you can support that the US soldier is better traned today, I can live with that

But, and I will not back down here, the US situation in Iraq is A. not a war, and B. only lethal because the US troops (and those aiding them too), can't really identify their opponent any easier than they could in Vietnam.

Vietnam was not a war. Sorry they call it that in many places, but wars are when you declare them. Not when you just get killed a lot.

Korea was not a war, it was admittedly a serious conflict, and a lot of people don't realise, there is no peace, it is a ceasefire situation. But wars are only when you decalre them.

Brutal reality admittedly. Blame your politicians. They need to stomache calling it a war when it is.

Canada for its own personal credit, invented the Peace Keeping concept. Yes, it was OUR idea. We invented it. It is of course idiotic that my government thinks we can ship our over worked soldiers anywhere as if we were rich and powerful like the US.

On the subject of Carl though, on average a Canadian youth is better educated than a US youth. But when you measure a Canadian youth against the world stage, the difference basically disappears.
Hence, I am not going to sit here and claim a large chunk of Canadians are anything but depressingly undereducated.

I can give you a good idea of my own actual education if you can handle being supremely bored to death though

When not being any better than most others (that being slinging around bad generalizations), I am able to argue a very good discussion. But most of my education is planetary science (and not really of much interest on a wargame forum ).

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Vietnam was not a war. Sorry they call it that in many places, but wars are when you declare them. Not when you just get killed a lot.

A bit offtopic here, but that's to generalize it a lot, isn't it? By your reasoning Les, USA has only been in war 5 times in the past 225 years.

Makes it sound a bit silly, doesn't it? War is war, whatever fancy name you chose to label it with.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Makes it sound a bit silly, doesn't it? War is war, whatever fancy name you chose to label it with.

You know it, and I know it, so it kinda makes ya wonder why our politicians try to hide behind those labels eh.

I doubt any of the guys in Iraq think "combat operations" have ceased, even if Bush thought so earlier.

But without that fancy label, a lot of very REAL concerns are easily swept under the carpet.

If you didn't fight in a "war", you don't have to abide by the rules we establish for "wars".
Our service personel risk getting told they can't claim benefits because those are for personel that serve in a "time of war". A lot of guys have gotten the shaft over that one before. And of course, you can't have "war crimes" if there was actually no "war" being fought.

Bush claims to be fighting a "War on Terror". But aside from making interesting newspaper headlines, what good does that term actually accomplish?
I will wager the "War on Terror" will look about as good as the "War on Drugs" in 20 years.

[Golf33]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

I do know of the rumours about it's "habit" of U/Ds and now wonder if it is due to the problem with small parts that you raised?

IMO the UDs with the F88 are almost all due to incorrect handling. If you don't chamber a round then take the safety off and pull the trigger, the F88 won't fire [:)] OTOH if you get casual about handling the weapon, like any other, it will bite you.

I also agree with what you say about section machine gun, for all of it's faults the M-60 was a fantasic weapon and I also have to question the move to a 5.56mm MG. If you are going to use a 5.56mm MG then give the Section two MGs. The Brit paras did that in the Falklands and it payed dividends.

Current doctrine is for two F89s per section, or at least it was when I left in '92. Essentially you get two rifle groups, each of which has a bit more punch than the old rifle-only rifle group.

Also putting a bayonet on the end of a SLR would give anyone pause for thought, and if someone is still stupid enough to charge you, you have the length of the weapon to help you parry, just like you see in the old WW2 boot camp training movies[:D].

I have heard that the carbine version of the F88 is more accurate, and that the Army only chose the longer version so they could have bayonet lugs on it, but I have only the word of a very crusty old SSGT to back that up, so take it with a grain of salt [;)].

Regards
33

[JaegerJ]

Oh my f-'n god! Jeekers! I couldn't wait to get through reading this thread so I can take up a firing position next to Tim and pop off some well aimed shots at Les-the-never-been-shot-at sarge. When bullets,(you know, those metal things that f-'n hurt when they hit you), are zinging through the air and some people are screaming when they're hit, or not because they're dead, THIS IS COMBAT. Combat, war, firefight. Whatever your "Educated" ass wants to call it.
I'm new to this websight and hate to make enemies right from the get go, but Les, you are so full of yourself and other stuff that you can't take a second and think before you write something as offensive as you did.
I served in the U.S, Army and was trained the way Tim explained. No I was never in combat but know quite a few veterans,(Even a Wehrmacht vet), who would be highly offended and saddened by Les-the-Sarges comments. Maybe Les needs to grab a weapon and go fight some,"UN-trained" kids and men from ANYwhere and then come back and tell us if it was war or not.
Sorry about the length and girth of this message but that guy really pissed me off!

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hmmm.

Welcome to the forum JaegerJ

When you have been around a little longer, you might realise why I am not overly worried about your post.

Until then, have a good time eh

[Makoto]

Oh my f-'n god! Jeekers! I couldn't wait to get through reading this thread so I can take up a firing position next to Tim and pop off some well aimed shots at Les-the-never-been-shot-at sarge. When bullets,(you know, those metal things that f-'n hurt when they hit you), are zinging through the air and some people are screaming when they're hit, or not because they're dead, THIS IS COMBAT. Combat, war, firefight. Whatever your "Educated" ass wants to call it.
I'm new to this websight and hate to make enemies right from the get go, but Les, you are so full of yourself and other stuff that you can't take a second and think before you write something as offensive as you did.
I served in the U.S, Army and was trained the way Tim explained. No I was never in combat but know quite a few veterans,(Even a Wehrmacht vet), who would be highly offended and saddened by Les-the-Sarges comments. Maybe Les needs to grab a weapon and go fight some,"UN-trained" kids and men from ANYwhere and then come back and tell us if it was war or not.
Sorry about the length and girth of this message but that guy really pissed me off!

Stuff like this should go to AOW or Doggie's saloon. I don't like Les much either (used to) but I play by the rules, you don't diss people in the General Forum; it's like a goldfish pond, bad business if you bring in a shark. Oh and BTW, Les served his country too, he deserves at least a token of respect because of that.

that is all

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

A hard lesson to learn, and I am not saying I am any better, is it is better to say "hey your remark was out of line" and then just leave it at that, as opposed to upping the ante and retaliating.

We are not all angels.

But the guy you burn today on the forum, might have been the guy you needed tomorrow when you had an urgent need.

Everyone that knows me knows I am opinionated

But everyone that knows me, also knows I am much more interested in being a help as opposed to a hassle

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

fully 50% of the US adult population is unaware the earth revolves around the sun (and not the other way around).

50%

Think about that for a minute. Take two minutes if you like.

Now I can only conclude from that, one conclusion.

50% of the US adult population is incredible undereducated.


put a sock in it les [8|]

Oh ya, US troops just spray and pray like the dumb uneducated hicks that they are. Carl SAgan says so [8|] And while they're doing that les will lay prone like a big fat slug, taking them all out one at a time w/ perfectly aimed shots [8|]

[2ndACR]

For a forum that is supposed to be "nice" Les you sure do talk alot of smack. You say things that you know will p*ss people off and you think you are safe. Go somewhere we can really tell you off. When you have served in any kind of combat maybe then you can talk the talk until then STFU.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Everyone that knows me knows I am opinionated

That's why you'll never be anything but a crappy 9-1.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: UndercoverNotChickenSalad
US troops just spray and pray like the dumb uneducated hicks that they are.

Is this intended as a compliment or a criticism?

BTW, 100 percent of the U.S. population is unaware that the earth revolves around UNCS.

[UndercoverNotChickenSalad]

earth revolves around UNCS

I am the only stationary matter in the universe. Everything else revolves [;)] So when I go to the bathroom or something the universe kind of wobbles a little, but its not noticeable.

Is this intended as a compliment or a criticism?

I'm not sure. I'll have to ask Carl Sagan. [8|]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: UndercoverNotChickenSalad
So when I go to the bathroom or something the universe kind of wobbles a little, but its not noticeable.

Thank god you're a stable body of matter.

Let me know what you find out from Carl, willya?

[riverbravo]

US troops had to be trained during WW2 to fire on targets that couldnt be seen.

Once US troops hit France and Boccage country the enemy was dug in well in the hedgerows.The US troops were skiddish to fire on a target they couldnt see and had to learn to "spray and pray"

ALL US troops are trained to put steel on target,and as stated in other posts must qualify annualy.

Just because we have bullets to burn doesnt mean US troops "spray and pray" all the time[8|][:-]

20 good shooters from the canadian army?I didnt know there was 20 people in the canadian army.

I would suggest to take the those 20 canadians and use them to hoist the sales on the vessels in the canadian navy[8|]

[riverbravo]

Oh yea,being how we have no shortage of ammo and it doesnt hurt any of youre fellow troopers,why not spray some ammo.

Im under the impression that inf men like to fire auto/burst wepons and generaly lay waste to areas.

Like I said if its no harm/no foul,lite it up!!

Also,when dealing with armies such as Iraq and other third world countries whynot use some fire power.Half of the time after you unleash a wall of lead the hands come up and the white flag waves.

But OTOH a well placed from range is equal to or more than an intimidator than a spray tactic.

But to think that US troops arent trained to shoot is insane.

[Raindog101]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Depends on how you want to pronounce the name.

FN FAL/FNAL basically the same thing.

Fabrique Nationale Fusile Automatique Legere (stretching myself there, so no one get picky ).

Beautiful weapon. But it's a battlefield rifle ie, the idea is you use it differently than the way an M16 is used. I think of the M16 as a mid range supression weapon.

I was taught to aim it, and kill my target.
The US train their men to lay waste to the area while the LT decides exactly what to do

Depends on many things, but I would rather be with 20 Canadians trained to efficiently eliminate their targets, as opposed to being with 20 Americans that can defoiliate a region with small arms fire, and still need to call in air support hehe.

Ok I am aware I am going to get flak over picking on the US and their inability to hit the broad side of a barn door

Those 20 Canadian grunts that only have the discipline to fire at a target, would all be dead 10 minutes into their first firefight in Vietnam. Charlie would rake them with AK-47’s, chuck a few grenades in on them, and them spit on ‘em for good measure, and the 20 marksmen would never have even seen them.

Real combat isn’t ASL In real combat, most shooting is in reaction to getting shot at. Aiming is not an option. Suppressing the source of fire is.

For being such poor shots, Americans sure kill a lot of bad guys, while taking relatively few casualties of our own.

Are you sure you were in the military? Not having an ASL flashback?