Most successful military projects

[11B4V]

... it was easy to service even under fairly primitive conditions.

Not just service. A skilled gunsmith can make AKs even in the developing world. And do so really cheaply.

Take into account that only the best trained soldiers will be bothered by its lack of accuracy. An individual Somali miltiaman is unlikely to be as good a marksman as a US Ranger, so why would you give him a rifle that costs 50 times as much and is so much harder to acquire?

And if you want a quality AK, get one with a machined receiver not stamped.

[11B4V]

The Swedish S-tank never had to fire a shot in anger. Not even having to fight is, dare I say it, Sun Tzu-esque.

The Bork's also had a good semi-auto battle rifle, the Automatgevär m/42 or Ljungman. But, will never know if it would have stood the rigors of combat. 

[Hansmeister]

Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.

I'm not sure how many got that reference.  Of course the T-72 was a crappy tank, not just today but even at the time it was first fielded it was already inferior to western tanks.  Just because it was produced in large numbers doesn't make it good.  Stalin used to say "quantity has a quality of its own", but that doesn't apply to modern warfare where quality beats quantity almost irrespective of quantity.  The T-72's only use is to go after irregular light infantry or protesters, against anyone with a real Army they were just cannon fodder. 

[Barrister]

Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.

I'm not sure how many got that reference.  Of course the T-72 was a crappy tank, not just today but even at the time it was first fielded it was already inferior to western tanks.  Just because it was produced in large numbers doesn't make it good.  Stalin used to say "quantity has a quality of its own", but that doesn't apply to modern warfare where quality beats quantity almost irrespective of quantity.  The T-72's only use is to go after irregular light infantry or protesters, against anyone with a real Army they were just cannon fodder.

It was some EUOT tool who claimed to be an Army ranger way back in the day.

[11B4V]

Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.

I'm not sure how many got that reference.  Of course the T-72 was a crappy tank, not just today but even at the time it was first fielded it was already inferior to western tanks.  Just because it was produced in large numbers doesn't make it good.  Stalin used to say "quantity has a quality of its own", but that doesn't apply to modern warfare where quality beats quantity almost irrespective of quantity.  The T-72's only use is to go after irregular light infantry or protesters, against anyone with a real Army they were just cannon fodder.

It was some EUOT tool who claimed to be an Army ranger way back in the day.

I certainly hope we are playing nice and not just insulting off the cuff.

[Hansmeister]

No, that guy was an obvious fraud.  He was 19 years old and claiming to be both an Army Ranger and a tanker.  Based on his birth date and various other claims he made he must have been 16 years old when he went to Ranger school. 

When asked for his class number he was stumped since he had no idea what it was, he ended up posting a picture from the Ranger school website claiming that it was his class.

He also claimed that the T-72 was vastly superior to the M-1 Abrams. 

[Malthus]

If going strictly by year of introduction and widespread export, the Soviet tank will certainly win, as it was developed earlier and exported much more widely.

The latter, however, is more a function of the fact it was originally a Soviet machine. The Soviet Union subsidized its export of military hardware, and the recipients were glad to get the tanks, whether they were 'the best' or not. The fact it is kept in use for so long may also have to do more with he break-up of the Soviet Union than with the machine's qualities.

This seems to me to contrast with the example of the Kalashnikov, which was both widely exported and highly sought after in its own right because of its inherent qualities.

In addition, the question became which of the two were most successful. It could be the case that a third was more successful than either.

My understanding is that the AK-47 is actually a fairly shit weapon.  It's popularity derives from the fact that the USSR (and other communist states) sold so very many of them all over the world, and that it was easy to service even under fairly primitive conditions.

The value of the AK-47 is that it does the job reliably under all sorts of conditions. This makes it popular above weapons that, in terms of performance stats, would appear to be superior.

[Malthus]

It was some EUOT tool who claimed to be an Army ranger way back in the day.

Good lord, I vaguely remember that dude. That was a long time ago now.

[11B4V]

No, that guy was an obvious fraud.  He was 19 years old and claiming to be both an Army Ranger and a tanker.  Based on his birth date and various other claims he made he must have been 16 years old when he went to Ranger school. 

When asked for his class number he was stumped since he had no idea what it was, he ended up posting a picture from the Ranger school website claiming that it was his class.

He also claimed that the T-72 was vastly superior to the M-1 Abrams. 

Yea that's something you don't forget even with dementia.

The T72 vastly better than the M1...oh brother 

[The Larch]

It was some EUOT tool who claimed to be an Army ranger way back in the day.

Good lord, I vaguely remember that dude. That was a long time ago now.

Yeah, it's dredging up some long forgotten EUOT lore. 

Guy's name was Sir Hockey or something like that, right?

[Hansmeister]

It was some EUOT tool who claimed to be an Army ranger way back in the day.

Good lord, I vaguely remember that dude. That was a long time ago now.

Yeah, it's dredging up some long forgotten EUOT lore. 

Guy's name was Sir Hockey or something like that, right?

Yep, that was it.  I had forgotten his name.

[Hansmeister]

If going strictly by year of introduction and widespread export, the Soviet tank will certainly win, as it was developed earlier and exported much more widely.

The latter, however, is more a function of the fact it was originally a Soviet machine. The Soviet Union subsidized its export of military hardware, and the recipients were glad to get the tanks, whether they were 'the best' or not. The fact it is kept in use for so long may also have to do more with he break-up of the Soviet Union than with the machine's qualities.

This seems to me to contrast with the example of the Kalashnikov, which was both widely exported and highly sought after in its own right because of its inherent qualities.

In addition, the question became which of the two were most successful. It could be the case that a third was more successful than either.

My understanding is that the AK-47 is actually a fairly shit weapon.  It's popularity derives from the fact that the USSR (and other communist states) sold so very many of them all over the world, and that it was easy to service even under fairly primitive conditions.

The value of the AK-47 is that it does the job reliably under all sorts of conditions. This makes it popular above weapons that, in terms of performance stats, would appear to be superior.

Indeed, very inaccurate, but very reliable with little to no maintenance.  Most of the times it is used as a "spray and pray" weapon.  Very popular in 3rd world countries and good in urban environments where most engagements are at 50m or less.  It was basically a ruggedized version of the German StG 44.

[The Brain]

It was some EUOT tool who claimed to be an Army ranger way back in the day.

Good lord, I vaguely remember that dude. That was a long time ago now.

Yeah, it's dredging up some long forgotten EUOT lore. 

Guy's name was Sir Hockey or something like that, right?

Thank you. I had forgotten the dude's name.

[derspiess]

... it was easy to service even under fairly primitive conditions.

Not just service. A skilled gunsmith can make AKs even in the developing world. And do so really cheaply.

Take into account that only the best trained soldiers will be bothered by its lack of accuracy. An individual Somali miltiaman is unlikely to be as good a marksman as a US Ranger, so why would you give him a rifle that costs 50 times as much and is so much harder to acquire?

And if you want a quality AK, get one with a machined receiver not stamped.

Looks prettier, but does it make much of a difference otherwise?

I've about given up on buying an AK-pattern rifle. None of the ones in a reasonable price range seem to be made worth a damn.

[mongers]

Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.

I'm not sure how many got that reference.  Of course the T-72 was a crappy tank, not just today but even at the time it was first fielded it was already inferior to western tanks.  Just because it was produced in large numbers doesn't make it good.  Stalin used to say "quantity has a quality of its own", but that doesn't apply to modern warfare where quality beats quantity almost irrespective of quantity.  The T-72's only use is to go after irregular light infantry or protesters, against anyone with a real Army they were just cannon fodder.

It was some EUOT tool who claimed to be an Army ranger way back in the day.

It was Sir Hockney in the relatively early years here on Languish.