ww1 vs modern weapons

[chuy]

Hmm...were it me, if the enemy were that far away and that dug in and I had lots of open ground to cover, I believe I'd call in some artillery, and perhaps an air-strike. Or I'd have my support armored vehicles lay down some 20mm firefire....you know, just something to get their attention. Then when I'm sure the opposing force is decimated, I'll subject my ground troops to close quarters combat. If the ground troops come under small arms fire while covering open ground, I'll direct my snipers (who are under the safety of distance) to cover their advance (50cals are great for penetration..) If its still too hot, we'll pull out and repeat the scenario. If its mountainous terrain and the only support available is by air, then the troops want to be as light and nimble as possible. Modern weapons fit that bill better. The weapons are smaller and lighter. And the ammo is lighter as well.

To quote myself, from an earlier post: Or do you know more than today's military experts?


meh....after re-reading your reasoning....my only comment..... Go join the military, then, if you live, come back and tell us how you won the war killing an enemy with every cycle of your bolt just like you do now in RO2.

Military wont let you use your own bolt Maybe join Afghan military then maybe

And of course im no military expert. I am just questioning today's tactics. You did provide some answers to my questions. I mean, I hear all the crap of old bolt actions that they are ancient and they are made of wood and so on. Are they REALLY that obsolete? Just like how people like saying the PTRD/S were already obsolete when they were issued. Of course they weren't. They could be used as bunker busters, anti-troop carriers, dug-in personnel, and heck, they would mount these babies on fast moving vehicles and make a decent tank disabler to light tanks to some degree So there must be SOME use to them in modern times or are they just limited to hunting, competition, and Saturday range shootings?

 

[Tomcat_ha]

do you guys actually know how many bullets per kill were fired in iraq and afghanistan? We are talking about thousands and thousands of bullets. Good luck firing that many with your bolt action.

 

[chuy]

Original 1886 French Lebel 8mm rifle at 420 yards. - YouTube

A rifle thats is probably over a century old shooting a target at 420 yards is pretty impressive. Also knowing that the 8mm lebel is a small cartridge going at relatively slow speed of 2400 ft/s. I know there are details left out like how was the groups or what was the size of the target but nonetheless, very impressive. If we go by chronological improvements as time goes on (so if accuracy constantly gets better as time passes), I gotta say modern weapons are slightly behind


Oh and PS: I found a ptrs going on an auction for 5000 bucks. Woo. So worth the money. I see people spending thousands of dollars on a dumb ol' modern weapons when they can get this fine gun instead. Nice home defense weapon Great way to stop a theif's car in his tracks eh or maybe TWI should buy this rifle and fix their Sh*tty and rediculous penetration in their games. Maybe owning the actual rifle they can actual punch in numbers into the config files correctly -_-

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=375858861

 

[Shadegrown]

If we go by chronological improvements as time goes on (so if accuracy constantly gets better as time passes), I gotta say modern weapons are slightly behind

I don't really see where you get that from. For example, AK-47 OUT OF BOX ACCURACY TEST - YouTube is a dude shooting a civilian copy of a romanian AK that I believe nobody would use for sniping, but I do hear him getting solid shots on the 300 yard target, iron sights and without any fancy range supports. Modern weapons given out to soldiers tend to be as accurate as they need to be, more often its the accuracy of the shooter that matters more than mechanical accuracy that the gun is capable of.

You seem to be focusing on a particular strength of the bolt actions, but studies have showed that those strengths do not matter that much in modern battlefields that are withing the assault rifle's areas of strength. In addition to that, when things get up close and personal, the bolt action user is pretty much screwed after fumbling the first shot, while user of a modern assault rifle still has the confidence of as much as 29 new chances to come out victorious.

 

[Esh325]

Almost around time of WW2, I think they started figuring out that the accuracy of the bolt action wasn't necessary for most combat, and that semi automatic or fuly automatic fire was of much higher value.

 

[chuy]

I don't really see where you get that from. For example, AK-47 OUT OF BOX ACCURACY TEST - YouTube is a dude shooting a civilian copy of a romanian AK that I believe nobody would use for sniping, but I do hear him getting solid shots on the 300 yard target, iron sights and without any fancy range supports. Modern weapons given out to soldiers tend to be as accurate as they need to be, more often its the accuracy of the shooter that matters more than mechanical accuracy that the gun is capable of.

You seem to be focusing on a particular strength of the bolt actions, but studies have showed that those strengths do not matter that much in modern battlefields that are withing the assault rifle's areas of strength. In addition to that, when things get up close and personal, the bolt action user is pretty much screwed after fumbling the first shot, while user of a modern assault rifle still has the confidence of as much as 29 new chances to come out victorious.

you guys dont give credit what old rifles has been through. They have been rushed to the battlefield, been exposed and worn out in harsh conditions of war. With what good accuracy we are getting with them, i gotta say they are a hell of a weapons. While you guys are comparing them to new, pristine quality modern rifles, i think we can all agree they will have superior ballistics.

yea. thats what im trying to say. Old or new rifles wont have bad accuracy or groups. Even better if you master that one weapon. The only thing they are trying to make modern weapons that didnt back then is to reduce kick so follow-up shots wont be as god awful-instead of the obvious rate of fire. Thats the only difference i see from good pre-ww2 rifles to modern rifles. The thing that people might dislike war rifles are that some of them were rushed to the battlefield and all the wear that it went through the wars. Well, imagine if they make the SAME EXACT rifle using original resources (wood, same metal of barrel etc etc)-with pristine quality, i think you might be surprised what the rifles would do. Just look at the PTRD. I heard that some officer re-barreled the PTRD to .50 bmg and proved accurate further than 2,000 yards :O

 

[Shadegrown]

Well, imagine if they make the SAME EXACT rifle using original resources (wood, same metal of barrel etc etc)-with pristine quality, i think you might be surprised what the rifles would do.

Not really. As I said in Finland we still got the old Mosin Nagants in active service as sniper rifles, and the ballistics are a non-issue with them. Lots of them have been used as hunting rifles too during the decades. I'm not sure what you are aiming at here, as far as I know nobody has denied that these things were pretty awesome in their day, but times have moved on during the last 100 years.

 

[Flogger23m]

Not really. As I said in Finland we still got the old Mosin Nagants in active service as sniper rifles, and the ballistics are a non-issue with them. Lots of them have been used as hunting rifles too during the decades. I'm not sure what you are aiming at here, as far as I know nobody has denied that these things were pretty awesome in their day, but times have moved on during the last 100 years.

This. Look at many of the iron sights of time period WWII rifles, including the type and location. Then look at modern iron sights on modern weapons (HK, AR, SCAR) and you'll see which has better designs in general.

Your typical modern assault rifle is about on par accuracy wise with your typical WWI/II bolt action rifle. The rounds of the time, like 7.62x54R and 30-06 did have a longer range overall than something like 5.56x45, but with a bolt action WWI/II era rifle the advantage is non-existent in combat. This is due to the iron sight only nature of the weapons and the fact that shooting past 600 meters is actually very rare.

When it comes to target shooting it is essentially non-existent as well as 5.56x45 out of a full length rifle will still get hits at 800 meters.

There are plenty of rugged modern rifles out there. The AK and AR-15/M16 are examples:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUgzlF_4XUs[/URL]

Even the Aimpoint holds up.

The only real advantage of a WWI/II bolt action rifle for combat use is that you can probably make them for less money. That being said, you can probably make an AK or a new simple semi automatic rifle with more modern production processes cheaper than you can make a K98K or similar. The Chinese quoted $90 per AK for India a few years back. Can you make a reliable weapon for much less?

 

[chuy]

Not really. As I said in Finland we still got the old Mosin Nagants in active service as sniper rifles, and the ballistics are a non-issue with them. Lots of them have been used as hunting rifles too during the decades. I'm not sure what you are aiming at here, as far as I know nobody has denied that these things were pretty awesome in their day, but times have moved on during the last 100 years.

Are you sure? Just look at the late-war japanese rifles. Those things were god awful compared to the earlier war ones. So quality does matter.

 

[Shadegrown]

Are you sure? Just look at the late-war japanese rifles. Those things were god awful compared to the earlier war ones. So quality does matter.

Now you've lost me. Yes, with shoddy machining, material and hurry any design can be made into a crappy gun, but weren't you talking about pristine quality guns? Even with perfect material, they still won't hold up to modern standards because of advances in machining, metallurgy, ergonomics, chemistry and such.

 

[chuy]

Now you've lost me. Yes, with shoddy machining, material and hurry any design can be made into a crappy gun, but weren't you talking about pristine quality guns? Even with perfect material, they still won't hold up to modern standards because of advances in machining, metallurgy, ergonomics, chemistry and such.

I believe they would give modern weapons trouble. Well, no way we would ever know

 

[Flogger23m]

Now you've lost me. Yes, with shoddy machining, material and hurry any design can be made into a crappy gun, but weren't you talking about pristine quality guns? Even with perfect material, they still won't hold up to modern standards because of advances in machining, metallurgy, ergonomics, chemistry and such.

This. There have been advances since the 1800s, believe it or not. And expected round counts of pre-WWI was much lower than what it is now days. For example, the M1911 required 5,000 shots or so to pass in 1911. Now, the US military is looking for reliability tests with as much as 35,000 shots fired for a pistol.

I have even read people claiming that newly bought AKMs (for Afghan police/military, various countries/variants) start coming apart sooner than M16s that eventually phased out many of the AKs. it would not suprise me given the more advanced manufacturing qualities of the AR-15/M16 compared to that of the AK.

And then consider other refinements, like ergonomics. We can easily make a "infantry style" modern bolt action that is lighter, recoils less, better balanced, quicker to reload/bolt, modular, and has better iron sights than what was offered over 100 years ago.

If you need to kill some people, an old Mosin from 70-100 years ago will work just fine. But so will a 500 year old sword. Or a 4,000 year old rock. But why limit yourself to Mosins or rocks when you can use a superior FN SCAR or other more modern hand held weapon?

 

[chuy]

This. There have been advances since the 1800s, believe it or not. And expected round counts of pre-WWI was much lower than what it is now days. For example, the M1911 required 5,000 shots or so to pass in 1911. Now, the US military is looking for reliability tests with as much as 35,000 shots fired for a pistol.

I have even read people claiming that newly bought AKMs (for Afghan police/military, various countries/variants) start coming apart sooner than M16s that eventually phased out many of the AKs. it would not suprise me given the more advanced manufacturing qualities of the AR-15/M16 compared to that of the AK.

And then consider other refinements, like ergonomics. We can easily make a "infantry style" modern bolt action that is lighter, recoils less, better balanced, quicker to reload/bolt, modular, and has better iron sights than what was offered over 100 years ago.

If you need to kill some people, an old Mosin from 70-100 years ago will work just fine. But so will a 500 year old sword. Or a 4,000 year old rock. But why limit yourself to Mosins or rocks when you can use a superior FN SCAR or other more modern hand held weapon?

funny on the rock and sword references. But tell what happen to that american with a knife against a jap wielding a sword in hand-to-hand combat. I mean, yes swords are outdated but saved some jap lives when the sword was needed. This applies much less to the bolt. But whats up with the semis replacing the bolt as a sniper's rifle?

 

[Flogger23m]

funny on the rock and sword references. But tell what happen to that american with a knife against a jap wielding a sword in hand-to-hand combat. I mean, yes swords are outdated but saved some jap lives when the sword was needed. This applies much less to the bolt. But whats up with the semis replacing the bolt as a sniper's rifle?

Rate of fire, lower recoil, and you don't have to change hand position and possibly avoid re-shouldering means quicker follow up shots. Thanks to modern technology, semi autos can be very accurate. For most combat shooting distances there is really no difference between a bolt action and semi.

Once you go past 800 meters is when the bolt action sniper rifles come out, and those are usually in larger specialized calibers like .338. Under that and a 7.62x51 semi is essentially equal accuracy wise.

 

[Tomcat_ha]

there are also some semi's coming out with very high accuracy like the Gepard series.

 

[UncleDrax]

Oh and PS: I found a ptrs going on an auction for 5000 bucks.

$5k was the reserve.. $16k was the Buy-It-Now. and still requires a DD stamp.. and of course ammo :]

 

[Trotskygrad]

there are also some semi's coming out with very high accuracy like the Gepard series.

all current semi-automatic designs will be inherently less accurate due to the motion of the BCG during the firing of the rifle.

Also OP is an idiot.

Accuracy and Durability are trade offs. The reason why modern rifles are so accurate is because of bedded stocks, free floated barrels, fancy things like that that make a weapon less durable. You can't have both, everything is a compromise.

the British Army acquired a new 7.62x51mm rifle instead of digging out their old FALs when they wanted a DMR simply because design advances in times, and a new design will simply be more accurate than an old, ceteris paribus.

 

[chuy]

$5k was the reserve.. $16k was the Buy-It-Now. and still requires a DD stamp.. and of course ammo :]

o that's right.


If 1,600 people donate 10 bucks to TWI, we can have some actual accurate penetration to tanks...

 

[Shadegrown]

o that's right.


If 1,600 people donate 10 bucks to TWI, we can have some actual accurate penetration to tanks...

Not unless you'd have X amount of dollars to buy some tanks to test them with. In general it would be a waste of time and money on every party involved.

 

[Tomcat_ha]

you just dont want to have fun do you?