Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I still have to disagree with that. Not only was that initial assessment questionable WWI wasn't about just grabbing land and spoils. It was about a collision of imperial powers and who could levy the most influence. Germany wasn't just after influence either. And again unlike today none of those countries were nowhere nearly as deeply intertwined economically as nations are today. You simply cannot reasonably compare the world of 1912 to the world of 2014 and beyond. Russia now is also nothing like 1912 Germany. They are deeply reliant on the global market rather then their own internal industry. Nearly every major power on the planet is in the same boat. Especially with the notably increased importance of economic relationships between multiple nations with each other.
Just starting the kerfluffle with Ukraine before sanctions and fall of oil was hurting Russia's economy in a visible fashion and that kicked in nearly as soon as they stuck their nose in it. And again the cost of modern war far outstrips the cost of war back then especially when to do it you have to project your power to do anything beyond harassing your neighbors. Projecting power is very expensive.
Nukes are not the be all end all either.
Who watches the watchmen?
Who was Nazi Germany's biggest export market and business partner before June 22, 1941?
Yep, this one is obvious. Josef Stalin's Russia.
Trade ties are no guarantee that one or other parties in that trade will not decide to wage war on the other.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
They were not that deeply tied to Russia though. Germany still relied on a lot of their own internal industry followed by their unsustainable plundering of conquests which bit them in the ass. When it came to Hitler vs USSR nothing would have likely dissuaded Hitler from his choice of actions and such comparisons make poor choices for this argument. He was determined to squash the commies at any cost period. If they hadn't been trade partners that wouldn't have mattered either the outcome would have very likely been the same. Germany wasn't funding their nation and army off the trade with Russia in the first place so presence or lack of trade with them negligible.
And again Nazi Germany is not the world in 2014 it has been three quarters of a century since then and a lot has changed in everything including economics. Even more has changed since the early 20th century.
Who watches the watchmen?
Show an affirming flame
The Nazi Germany/Soviet Union case is something of an exception, as both sides were looking to backstab the other as soon as possible. Nazi Germany just happened to do it first (Stalin wouldn't have been ready for another few years, and—since he was used to being the Man With The Vote—forgot that in this case Hitler also had a vote in the decision).
It seems we'll have to disagree on the origins of WWI; for my part I haven't been able to find sources pointing to an economic clash, but plenty about Wilhelmine Germany's perennial security paranoia and huffiness about the lack of respect it was being treated with. (And Kaiser Willy II's own questionable decisions, lots of them, managing to singlehandedly make Britain drop its isolation and join the Entente despite being old foes with the Russians.) By hoping to knock out both its continental foes, Germany would buy itself a measure of geopolitical security, seeing that it wouldn't be surrounded by rising enemies. Economically it made no sense; politically it was a rational gamble.
Looking at the situation today, it is true that the world's economies are a lot more intertwined. But the problem is, if you're big enough, you can make stupid or unpopular decisions and be able to absorb the pain. (See the US's decision to stick our hand in a meatgrinder invasion of Iraq, for instance.) The global diplomatic backlash was very painful, but it wasn't accompanied by any real economic pain, aside from the trillion-plus dollars poured into the hole. On a geopolitical scale, Russia can calculate, quite reasonably, that if it can weather the sanctions the West imposes—sanctions that potentially can be circumvented by trading with non-Western countries—it can come out ahead politically, especially if it reckoned on a lack of resolve by the EU. What went wrong was the dip in oil prices (of course), but also that the EU showed itself to have an unexpected spine of German steel.
On that basis, the decision to gamble for political gains to offset the expected economic pain was potentially a rational one.
That's what has me worried. The economic pain for Russia is only going to worsen; it wouldn't be too hard for Putin—who has already signaled that he's all about the power politics, economic rationality and sunk cost fallacy be damned—to decide on doubling down on the military approach and striking Ukraine extra-hard, or lashing out elsewhere. And that's not taking into effect the complicating effects of signalling, irrationality, and miscalculation. I don't see him—for instance—dusting off the plans for Red Storm and staging an invasion of GermanyWell... ; as you've noted, power projection is expensive and likely beyond Russia's capabilities. But "harassing neighbors" could well extend to making mischief in the Baltics or in Central Europe, or to threatening other ex-Soviet states, and that's the kind of tension escalation where things are very likely to go wrong.
(Incidentally, the Russian case isn't particularly generalizable to, say, China. I would say, in theory, that you're right about economic ties making great-power war less likely, but in practice there are counterexamples enough to muddy the waters.)
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.
Pretty much. Guess who was Japan's biggest trade partner December 6 1941? The United States. The next morning? They were mortal enemies.
Nothing has changed. Projecting power in 1914 was very expensive. Adjusted for inflation, running just ONE battleship like HMS Dreadnought would be the same expenditure as a Nimitz class battlegroup. And the superpowers of the day had often a dozen battleships or more. And that was in peacetime. There's a reason why only the big economies of the world had large capabilities. They could afford the huge expenses of power projection and logistics.
It does however mean that the need for teaching recoil management is lessened. Less training needed to teach a trooper how to counteract recoil. Which could translate over into more training for how to shoot straight and shoot straight rapidly. That recoil management is huge because in the AK-family that long stroke piston causes a lot of momentum causing muzzle climb. It throws the center of gravity off during firing. Look at that vid Garcon had showing RGF in Chechnya recently. Their AK-74M's were bobbling all over and a lot of that bobble was from the piston system. The BARS eliminates that problem.
The amount of material added to a casket magazine is a little more than just over 2 cartridge widths and a couple springs. They didn't make them longer or more curvy. All casket mags are in relation to standard issue stuff is they are wider, that's it.
The AK-12 60 rounder has the same length and curve dimensions as the AK-74 30 rounder. The only dimensional difference between the two is the 60 rounder is wider. It even has the same magwell size fit.
Plus who's to say the new Kalashnikov 60 rounders weren't built with lighter materials? All plastics instead of metals unless absolutely necessary. Thinner materials for the same effective durability. (And unlike the US Army and Marine Corps, the Russians don't reuse mags. Once it's done, it's done unless the trooper in question wants to keep the empty mag. There's no doctrinal requirement to conserve old mags.)
And you gotta realize the Russians know from experience that it's folly to be pathologically afraid of full auto. It has uses.
Plus the casket mags turn every AK into an RPK in terms of capacity.
The magazine was one of its biggest faults. They learned in Afghanistan that 45 rounds in a machine gun is idiotic and incompetent. You could get the same results simply handing out RPK-74 mags to your AK-74 infantry rather than issuing an RPK-74 or two.
Lack of sustained fire of the RPK family is the reason why the PKM is much more common in the Russian military than the 240 is over here. A belt fed weapon was vastly superior for machine gun tactics. (And apparently the US Marines agree with the Russians with their M27's. Every passing day that gun seems to become more AR than SAW.)
The PKP Pecheneg was built more as a SAW than a tripod gun. Those same lessons from Afghanistan are why.
The other major fault of the RPK family is the same one plenty of light machine guns had. No QCB or capable cooling system.
As mentioned, there's a book written in 1912 that says exactly what were saying.
edited 31st Dec '14 6:12:57 PM by MajorTom
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I think I will accede your point on the Germans overall concern for security and influence.
As for the US though the US economy is it's own animal and is a bit more robust then Russia's. We are not as dependent on oil to float us and our state at the start of the conflict we were pretty good off. As it is now though we are definitely feeling the cost of those two wars. It cost us a lot in terms of money alone. The large amount of debt accrued will take a while to pay off and that is just the debt. Then there is the consequences impacting our medical and social system thanks to the inevitable draw down and a large number of vets suddenly dumping into a society already crowded with issues and the cuts and dings to military programs across the board. That was from two relatively subdued wars vs something much bigger which likely is not going to happen for a long while yet.
I could see Russia definitely going on to harass and/or invade their neighbours but I think that doing that will ultimately backfire on them. I don't think they will gain a lot from leaning harder on Crimea and Ukraine which is already surprisingly expensive venture in and of itself. From what I recall the sanctions are more slap on the wrist and aimed putting pressure on them out of concern of causing instability and problems in Russia which could lead to them lashing out as you described partly in desperation. If the rest of the world really wanted to they could put some serious clamps on Russia economically but like I said I don't think anyone wants to do that worried it might make them lash out locally possibly further.
No Tom simply adjusting for inflation doesn't come close to covering it. Troops are paid more, logistical costs have gone up, gear and equipment are a lot more expensive, and a Nimitz now costs way more then a battleship did then even adjusted backward it is far more expensive. Our gear and equipment has gotten more costly across the board even with adjustment for inflation. Individual soldiers alone are notably more expensive then their early counterparts in nearly all aspects. Adjusted for inflation your average basic WWII rifle grunt cost about 170$ bucks. Now you are talking over 17k for a troop these days with projected costs continuing to go up. Same is true for pretty much all modern forces including the Russians who have notably increased their sophistication of their equipment and arms.
They still need to teach recoil management period. It doesn't remove recoil just helps manage it just like all recoil management systems. Short controlled bursts even with a recoil system still beats full auto in both accuracy and ammo consumption. There is no significant changes in training going to happen there. Bullets will still drift and drop the laws of physics haven't changed. They could shoot straight and rapidly before. Its called Semi-auto the Russians know how it works. BAR does not eliminate it, it reduces its overall impact it is still there and they still need to compensate for it. Then you are failing to remember the bar adds more movement to the whole system by pushing forward when it shoots that needs to adjusted for as well. It will likely make it easier to use in full auto but it isn't eliminating recoil and adds more movement to the weapon.
Added material for the magazines is a lot more then two cartridge widths they are not just two cartridges wider they are physically built differently from the ground up. It is a center wall dividing the stacks, larger spring(s) and followers, and the whole thing is quite visibly larger and the neck doesn't taper till almost the very top. That is going to be notably heavier then a regular mag of the same material. It uses more material internally and externally to make. It is very obviously physically larger then it's 30 round counter part. It is going to weigh more unloaded and loaded. The big kicker is the Russian P-Mag is the same size in length as the 50 round not the 60 round and the 60 round is about as wide as the 50 leaving only one direction to go to get those extra 10 rounds and that is length. To top it off it looks like it is made of the exact same materials as their p-mag and 50 round mag. It isn't likely to get any lighter. None of that negates ammo weight which is the biggest factor of magazine weight unless your mag is made of steel.
I can almost guarantee you they re-use magazines plenty enough gets kinda pricey otherwise especially for training. I even bet they do the same thing the US does and keep used mags for training and lower tier units and just push out the new ones to frontliners. If new mags are slow in coming I can guarantee you they will just scoop up their used mags and re-use them later.
They only turn the AR's into LMG by capacity alone. Capacity is not the same as being built like an LMG. The Russians also know to use short controlled bursts rather then just blowing all their ammo holding the trigger down. They long ago started training their troops to use smarter tactics then that. They demonstrate it all the time. They almost never go all rock and roll and for the same reasons troopers in other militaries with proper training don't. It is both wasteful and inaccurate. The uses for full auto are few and narrow compared to how useful short controlled bursts or single aimed shots are. The Russians know that lesson rather well to. As you noted full auto is better suited to belt fed weapons to begin with chiefly because of how they tend to be built.
If capacity was the only flaw for the RPK they had an easier answer in the drums. It had mechanical issues on top of that but yeah those box mags for an LMG was not a great idea. I almost get the sense it was meant to be like the BAR or the late war FG-42. Though both of those used full sized rifle cartridges.
The thing with M27 and the M-249 is it is a half-truth. While the M-27 is a "replacement" for the SAW it was kind of odd that units ultimately had the discretion to keep the SAW's and issue them anyway. That and the Corps so far is still holding out for the Caseless LMG tech. That and like you noted Tom the Corps is not exactly strictly sticking to it as an Automatic rifle and are considering expanding the platforms role to include it as a DMR type weapon. It would be nice to see the M-27 as possibly the new regular rifle over the M-16 and short stock version over M-4. If the reports from the grunts are true it is getting 800yd effective shots. Sure beats the pants off of the M-16 500yd. That or someone actually build a properly aligned piston M-16 upper as the drop in's and after market mods tend to not line up correctly with the bolt and/or recoil buffer and increase wear.
The PkP is a proper GPMG though both in caliber and in broad use. It is certainly a nice infantry portable weapon. The only thing I don't like about it is how hard it is to apparently swap the barrel out if you have to. If we can keep them from trashing the weapon dev budget maybe we can make a LMG in .30 cal that isn't a remodeled/reworked M-249 and uses that telescopic ammo tech. Edit: Correction the PKP is just LMG after all. I could have sworn I saw it on a mount for a vehicle pintle but I was mistaken the angle was bad and another pic of the same guy was just him bracing it on the vehicle in an odd way.
Speaking of Russia and trade. There is another dimension I think we forgot about that Russia could be partially aiming at. Arms trade in general. They have traded reasonably newer tech to various countries and why buy the old AK stock when you can buy new ones instead. They have also entered into development and supply agreements with places like India. As it is Russia has one tenth of the worlds top arms trading companies or something along those lines. They are trading both new and older weapons and systems all over the world. Argentina traded food stuffs and other goods via an agreement in exchange for some aircraft and few other systems from Russia. Their only real competitor in arms trade is the US.
edited 31st Dec '14 8:28:53 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
wow whoops
edited 31st Dec '14 8:08:38 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Thinking on all the ways including the strange ones that have been tried to improve guns capacity and/or fire rate reminded of a few odd pieces. Like the Treeby Chain Gun A manually operated percussion cap chain rifle.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Colt .90 Caliber Anti-armor gun
◊
rollin' on dubs
The M-4 Carbine Is Here to Stay
Unlike many armies, the U.S. Army deploys worldwide into every possible geographic setting and climate.
In the decades since adopting the M-16 series, the Army fought in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. It fought in jungles, deserts, cities, flat plains and rugged, high mountains.
The possibility of fighting anywhere on the planet means there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the Army. Compromises are inevitable.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Boo we want a piston carbine not this overheating hunk of junk.
Who watches the watchmen?
^^
Another load of tripe by an AR-15 family fanboy who apes popular media on the AK. Just because Timmy Taliban can't hit shit with one doesn't mean GI Joe won't if he's handed the same weapon.
Modern AK's like the 74M, the 100 series and the AK-12 fire very accurately, as good or better than many of their Western counterparts including the AR-15 family.
edited 6th Jan '15 5:20:03 PM by MajorTom
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The older AK models not so much but training helps quite a bit. The newer ones though are reasonably accurate.
Who watches the watchmen?
Depending on the quality of ammo and manufacture location (Izmash AK or Chinese Type 56 or Somali tin shop, etc.) the original AK-47 and AKM can achieve accuracy of as good as roughly 4 MOA.
Of course sadly owing to the ballistics of 7.62 Soviet ammunition this accuracy rating only held up to a maximum of 400 to 500 meters in best conditions.
rollin' on dubs
The article has some good points:
- The US Army is a very busy global force, most journos seem fixated on raw numbers, they tend to not notice that.
- Developing and fielding a new rifle would be a mess. Same with a new caliber.
- Most of the proposed piston upgrades or new calibers add weight.
- Many rifles offered as M-16/M-4 replacements have their own problems. The G-36 has sand issues in Afghanistan.
7 mags at 30 rounds each is 210 rounds per soldier. All those proposed larger carbines cut into the round counts.
A new rifle would also mean new field manuals, training and changes to basic. THAT would go over like a lead balloon.
The Army wants the technical data package (blueprints) to any rifle it buys, mostly to shop it around to other gunmakers for less money. Several US gunmakers balked at that.
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Yeah but the M16 blows some serious ass. Like you can make a serious argument that it's the worst standard infantry rifle in use with any modern army right now.
Oh really when?
Ugh it was a mistake to close down and sell off Springfield Armory. When THEY were running things they made some beautiful cutting edge, battlefield effective and cost-effective weapons. Stuff like the 1903 Springfield which made the German Mauser look like a pussy in BOTH World Wars. None of that bullshit you cited mattered. If they were gonna innovate they were gonna innovate and there was nothing the US Army could say that would stop them.
No wonder the procurement system is fucked. We have incompetent people running the system. Sunk Cost Fallacy is not good logic!
Nah, third worst. The L85 is the worst followed by the FAMAS as second worst. Then the M-16/M-4 family.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
I dunno, the new Abomination is supposedly fixed but the FAMAS is still busy being French. I'd say FAMAS first, then M16 and then L85A2. Unless it's the old Abomination in which case your order is probably right.
edited 6th Jan '15 6:28:28 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
We have demonstrated an ability to minimize new round issues repeatedly so that doesn't wash. Even easier when you are not actively fighting a war and can rotate troops in to train. The only reason new dev is a mess is they let the corporations do to much dick sucking, whining, and sabotaging the process. Also most of the alternative offers are a lot better and have comparatively few issues. The M4 is a hot mess period.
Tom: The Ak round for whatever reason starts to really peter out at about 400m when the trajectory droops a lot. It could hit further but you have to make the right adjustments for drop. I kind of wondered why they didn't make a new cartridge to address that. The Russian 5.45mm round does pretty well so they certainly have the means to make improved AK 7.62 bullets in general.
Who watches the watchmen?
7.62 Soviet peters out at 400 to 500 meters because it's a heavy, somewhat slow bullet compared to other rifle rounds (like 7.62 Russian or 5.56mm NATO both of which are significantly faster in flight). Originally it was a carbine round for 300 meter shooting in the SKS like .30 Carbine was in the West.
They did try an improvement program because the M43 model of the round while it hit very hard compared to M193 5.56mm in raw kinetic energy (making it useful for shooting through light cover) it also had very consistent and easy to treat bullet wounding profiles. (Unlike 5.56mm at short range.) It relied on hydrostatic shock and proper hit location rather than yaw or fragmentation, something that was not reliable at ranges beyond 200m with that particular model's ballistics. The new M67 model did a lot better but wasn't really adopted by anyone outside Yugoslavia.
Of course by the time that round could have been fielded and fully replaced everything, the AK-74 had just been adopted with its 5.45 Soviet round.
rollin' on dubs
There is the M855A1, the first batch had issues. But the newer rounds are getting to troops. A different caliber? That's another ball of pepsi...
How well do the ARs stand up to sustained fire, though? That's the LMG role. Besides, I side with Tuefel on this one: improved optics and cased telescope ammunition look like they'll be much more of a game-changer than casket mags. Still, the change will be marginal at best.
Where I would like to debate Tuef some more is the argument that economic connectedness reduces the likelihood of war because it'd be too expensive for everyone. Actually, that was true as far back as WWI; economic analysts even back then foresaw that war between equal powers would likely turn into a long, ruinous war of attrition that no amount of war booty would make up for. (There was a book that came out in 1912 predicting that gteat-power war would be impossible for that very reason.) WWI came about not due to economic considerations; every combatant that entered the war knew that it would likely emerge in worse shape than it entered (though, obviously, not to quite the extent that actually happened). Instead, part of it was Germany and Austria-Hungary deciding, quite rationally, that the continued decline of A-H would Germany in an untenable position geopolitically, alone as it was against France, Britain, and Russia; also, 1914 was when Germany was in the strongest position relative to the other Great Powers. There was a fair bit of miscalculation and misperception on all sides, but geopolitically speaking, Germany's decision to undertake the gamble to go to war made sense—even if, economically speaking, it was extraordinarily dangerous. By the way, colonial considerations played no part: while squabbling over colonies had happened before (for instance, the three-ring circus that was the Fashoda incident) they never led to war, and WWI was about purely Continental matters.
That's what has people worried about Russia; it's already shown that it's willing to suffer some degree of economic pain for geopolitical advantage. (Again, maybe not quite the amount of pain that it's currently suffering, but hey. Rolls of the dice are like that.) Also, it's likely that Russia will only get weaker; now or never. I don't see it going for a full great-power war due to the presence of nuclear weapons, but a geopolitically weakened Russia helmed by a desperate Vladimir Putin may still lash out.
edited 31st Dec '14 4:53:16 PM by SabresEdge
Charlie Stross's cheerful, optimistic predictions for 2017, part one of three.