This might be more of a challenge. What military investments/programs paid off well beyond expectations? Again post WW2.
The B-52 was mentioned in the other thread, the A-10 might be another contender?
The internet.
The liberty ship?
The T-34?
Probably that scale up from trial to full production of the spear head a few thousand years ago.
Quote from: Maximus on April 22, 2020, 09:50:12 AM
The internet.
I'd agree on that.
For military hardware I'll throw in the AK-47.
Quote from: Maximus on April 22, 2020, 09:50:12 AM
The internet.
Edgelords posting memes = success? But I guess there's porn.
PLUTO or Mulberry.
The Soviet R7 missile/rocket. World's first ICBM and backbone of the Soviet space program. Developed in the 1950s, derivatives are still used to this day.
AK-47 and successors for enduring popularity maybe. Origin is arguably WWII though. :hmm:
I'll see you the AK-47, and raise you the Lee-Enfield rifle. First developed in the late 19th century, main British and commonwealth rifle in both world wars. It was retired in Canada by the Canadian Rangers two years ago. Copies are still to this day being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
I'll see you the AK-47, and raise you the Lee-Enfield rifle. First developed in the late 19th century, main British and commonwealth rifle in both world wars. It was retired in Canada by the Canadian Rangers two years ago. Copies are still to this day being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Post WW2? :hmm:
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2020, 12:27:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
I'll see you the AK-47, and raise you the Lee-Enfield rifle. First developed in the late 19th century, main British and commonwealth rifle in both world wars. It was retired in Canada by the Canadian Rangers two years ago. Copies are still to this day being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Post WW2? :hmm:
Not even remotely. I just like talking about the Lee-Enfield.
ARPANET
I'm far from an expert on fighter jets, but some of the MiG series (17? 21?) seem to have successful production history and reasonable costs, even if they tended to get shot down from time to time by Israeli pilots.
GPS
Quote from: Maladict on April 22, 2020, 09:44:46 AM
This might be more of a challenge. What military investments/programs paid off well beyond expectations? Again post WW2.
The B-52 was mentioned in the other thread, the A-10 might be another contender?
This one is a way in the future, but I'd nominate the autonomous car. While looking for ways to automate military logistics, the DARPA Challenge seems to have boosted the field significantly.
Quote from: Maladict on April 22, 2020, 02:52:59 PM
GPS
Good one. The most successful military projects are ones that are not only useful to the military but become useful for civilian life.
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2020, 12:27:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
I'll see you the AK-47, and raise you the Lee-Enfield rifle. First developed in the late 19th century, main British and commonwealth rifle in both world wars. It was retired in Canada by the Canadian Rangers two years ago. Copies are still to this day being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Post WW2? :hmm:
Bah,
Pre WW2 the Mauser rifle. Lee Enfield was a much weaker action.
WW2 the M1 garand.
Post WW2 the AK 47
F-4 Phantom.
F-16 falcon (still on production 47 years after the first one flew).
The K-Bar knife was late WW2, but still in production for the US military.
The Arleigh Burke class destroyers seem to have been very successful, still in production 39 years after the first ship entered service (maybe a record for a warship class).
The Nimitz Class carriers were in production for 41 years.
The Romeo class submarine still has two dozen or examples still in service 63 years after the first tasted salt water, outliving not only its successor, but it's successor's successor.
The Israeli Merkava tank is still in production 41 years after first seeing service (probably a record for a tank).
NAVSTAR/GPS is the big one, though.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 05:26:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2020, 12:27:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
I'll see you the AK-47, and raise you the Lee-Enfield rifle. First developed in the late 19th century, main British and commonwealth rifle in both world wars. It was retired in Canada by the Canadian Rangers two years ago. Copies are still to this day being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Post WW2? :hmm:
Bah,
Pre WW2 the Mauser rifle. Lee Enfield was a much weaker action.
WW2 the M1 garand.
Post WW2 the AK 47
But that's just it - the Lee-Enfield spanned all three periods. That kind of longevity counts for something.
(and I know the risks of debating military arms with an ex-army soldier, but I'm going to chance it anyways)
Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2020, 09:36:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 05:26:27 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 22, 2020, 12:27:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2020, 12:26:17 PM
I'll see you the AK-47, and raise you the Lee-Enfield rifle. First developed in the late 19th century, main British and commonwealth rifle in both world wars. It was retired in Canada by the Canadian Rangers two years ago. Copies are still to this day being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Post WW2? :hmm:
Bah,
Pre WW2 the Mauser rifle. Lee Enfield was a much weaker action.
WW2 the M1 garand.
Post WW2 the AK 47
But that's just it - the Lee-Enfield spanned all three periods. That kind of longevity counts for something.
(and I know the risks of debating military arms with an ex-army soldier, but I'm going to chance it anyways)
I can see your point but the Mauser spanned just as long. Major innovations, stripper clip loading and controlled round feed. The Enfield was a good rifle to be sure, but not the success the Mauser was and is.
There is a reason the mauser action way outstripped the Enfield in the civilian sector too. It is still copied and also made by Mauser to this day and the Enfield isn't.
M24 series
vz. 24/vz. 33
Type 24 rifle
M1903 Springfield
Pattern 1914 Enfield
M1917 Enfield
Arisaka Type 38/Type 99
M48 Mauser
Kb wz. 98a/Karabinek wz. 1929
FR8
Modern hunting/sporting rifles like the Parker Hale, Holland and Holland, CZ 550, Heym Express Magnum, Winchester Model 70, Mauser M 98, etc. Modern sniper rifles like the GOL Sniper Magnum and Zastava M07. Versions of the Mauser action designed prior to the Gewehr 98's introduction, such as that of the Spanish/Swedish Mauser rifles and carbines, lack the third locking lug and feature a "cock on closing". It was the most copied bolt action rifle.
There's a reason why the British and American got the snot shot out of them in the Boer War and Spanish American War respectively. Their opponents were using Mausers.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 22, 2020, 12:15:00 PM
AK-47 and successors for enduring popularity maybe. Origin is arguably WWII though. :hmm:
Yes the German StG 44 and M1 Garand. Here's a good article.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/05/05/rifle-paternity-test-pinning-down-the-m1-garands-influence-on-the-ak/
The M1 Garand definitely laid ground for today's generation of automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
Quote from: grumbler on April 22, 2020, 08:32:39 PM
F-4 Phantom.
F-16 falcon (still on production 47 years after the first one flew).
The K-Bar knife was late WW2, but still in production for the US military.
The Arleigh Burke class destroyers seem to have been very successful, still in production 39 years after the first ship entered service (maybe a record for a warship class).
The Nimitz Class carriers were in production for 41 years.
The Romeo class submarine still has two dozen or examples still in service 63 years after the first tasted salt water, outliving not only its successor, but it's successor's successor.
The Israeli Merkava tank is still in production 41 years after first seeing service (probably a record for a tank).
NAVSTAR/GPS is the big one, though.
Nah, I'd argue the T-72
11B4V, what do you think of the Mannlicher compared to the Mauser?
The Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle is still in production, after 70+ years.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
Nah, I'd argue the T-72
Wow, they're still making them?
Quote from: Maladict on April 23, 2020, 02:35:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
Nah, I'd argue the T-72
Wow, they're still making them?
Don't know. I'd argue the T72 is far more successful than the Merkava
I'm not sure exactly what the expectations were in each case, but for several countries that developed nuclear weapons after WW2 those weapons have certainly been very successful (they may also have been expensive, but the rewards are also great). Just after WW2 it wasn't clear that the family of nuclear states would remain so small, but since it is having nuclear weapons pretty much guarantees Significant Power status.
Quote from: Maladict on April 23, 2020, 02:35:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
Nah, I'd argue the T-72
Wow, they're still making them?
A new model, the T-72B3, was introduced in 2010. If you mean the basic model, no idea.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 10:32:53 PM(...) Versions of the Mauser action designed prior to the Gewehr 98's introduction, such as that of the Spanish/Swedish Mauser rifles and carbines, lack the third locking lug and feature a "cock on closing". It was the most copied bolt action rifle.
There's a reason why the British and American got the snot shot out of them in the Boer War and Spanish American War respectively. Their opponents were using Mausers.
Could you expand on that regarding the Spanish American war? It's a topic (military hardware) that I know very little about and this comment surprised me a bit, as the immage of that war over here does not really put the Spanish armed forces under a good light, equipment-wise.
Quote from: The Larch on April 23, 2020, 08:02:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 10:32:53 PM(...) Versions of the Mauser action designed prior to the Gewehr 98's introduction, such as that of the Spanish/Swedish Mauser rifles and carbines, lack the third locking lug and feature a "cock on closing". It was the most copied bolt action rifle.
There's a reason why the British and American got the snot shot out of them in the Boer War and Spanish American War respectively. Their opponents were using Mausers.
Could you expand on that regarding the Spanish American war? It's a topic (military hardware) that I know very little about and this comment surprised me a bit, as the immage of that war over here does not really put the Spanish armed forces under a good light, equipment-wise.
I think that's mostly the case of the navy, which was in a laughable state of modernization compared to the US. The Spanish infantry IIRC put up a good fight.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 23, 2020, 07:47:21 AM
Quote from: Maladict on April 23, 2020, 02:35:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
Nah, I'd argue the T-72
Wow, they're still making them?
Don't know. I'd argue the T72 is far more successful than the Merkava
The one time they actually squared off against each other was in the Lebanon War, in 1982 or thereabouts - my recollection is that the Israeli tanks demolished the Syrian T-72s. Though I have also heard the Syrians claimed the opposite.
Though all things were of course not equal, so it was hardly a fair test of the capabilities of the two weapons.
Certainly the T-72 was widely exported.
Quote from: celedhring on April 23, 2020, 08:06:04 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 23, 2020, 08:02:08 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 10:32:53 PM(...) Versions of the Mauser action designed prior to the Gewehr 98's introduction, such as that of the Spanish/Swedish Mauser rifles and carbines, lack the third locking lug and feature a "cock on closing". It was the most copied bolt action rifle.
There's a reason why the British and American got the snot shot out of them in the Boer War and Spanish American War respectively. Their opponents were using Mausers.
Could you expand on that regarding the Spanish American war? It's a topic (military hardware) that I know very little about and this comment surprised me a bit, as the immage of that war over here does not really put the Spanish armed forces under a good light, equipment-wise.
I think that's mostly the case of the navy, which was in a laughable state of modernization compared to the US.
Larch, I'm talking the lowly infantry rifle.
Spanish Mauser v. Krag Rifle. Also, US units were even equipped still with the 1873 Springfield 45-70. Both were far inferior to the Mauser. That conflict spawned the development of Springfield Model of 1903 because of the Mauser. The '03 Springfield is essentially a copy of the Mauser.
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 09:00:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 23, 2020, 07:47:21 AM
Quote from: Maladict on April 23, 2020, 02:35:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
Nah, I'd argue the T-72
Wow, they're still making them?
Don't know. I'd argue the T72 is far more successful than the Merkava
The one time they actually squared off against each other was in the Lebanon War, in 1982 or thereabouts - my recollection is that the Israeli tanks demolished the Syrian T-72s. Though I have also heard the Syrians claimed the opposite.
Though all things were of course not equal, so it was hardly a fair test of the capabilities of the two weapons.
Certainly the T-72 was widely exported.
By your comparison (battle results) it would be the M1 Abrams.
From the OP
QuoteThis might be more of a challenge. What military investments/programs paid off well beyond expectations? Again post WW2.
Again the T72 not the Merkava.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 23, 2020, 10:30:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 09:00:23 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 23, 2020, 07:47:21 AM
Quote from: Maladict on April 23, 2020, 02:35:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on April 22, 2020, 11:15:01 PM
Nah, I'd argue the T-72
Wow, they're still making them?
Don't know. I'd argue the T72 is far more successful than the Merkava
The one time they actually squared off against each other was in the Lebanon War, in 1982 or thereabouts - my recollection is that the Israeli tanks demolished the Syrian T-72s. Though I have also heard the Syrians claimed the opposite.
Though all things were of course not equal, so it was hardly a fair test of the capabilities of the two weapons.
Certainly the T-72 was widely exported.
By your comparison (battle results) it would be the M1 Abrams.
From the OP
QuoteThis might be more of a challenge. What military investments/programs paid off well beyond expectations? Again post WW2.
Again the T72 not the Merkava.
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.
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. :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 01:40:13 PM
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.
An automatic rifle that works even when full of mud doesn't sound shit to me.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2020, 02:06:42 PM
An automatic rifle that works even when full of mud doesn't sound shit to me.
If only the soviets could have built a tank that works when full of fire.
:rolleyes: Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.
I think Beeb and Valmy are both kind of right. The AK platform remains the best option for less developed parts of the world. But it falls far short of what most modern armed forces are using.
As Nick Cage himself said in "Lord of War":
"Of all the weapons in the vast Soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than (...) the AK 47, or Kalashnikhov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle, a weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam or overheat. It will shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy even a child could use it, and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin, Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War the Kalashnikhov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar and suicidal novelists. One thing's for sure, nobody was lining up to buy their cars."
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 01:56:22 PM... 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?
Quote from: Iormlund on April 23, 2020, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 01:56:22 PM... 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.
Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2020, 01:53:25 PM
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
:rolleyes: Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.
:lmfao:
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 23, 2020, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
:rolleyes: Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.
:lmfao:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 23, 2020, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
:rolleyes: Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.
:lmfao:
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.
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. :lmfao:
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. :lmfao:
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 01:56:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 01:40:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 03:36:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 23, 2020, 04:22:31 PM
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. :lmfao:
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. :lmfao:
Yea that's something you don't forget even with dementia.
The T72 vastly better than the M1...oh brother :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 03:36:50 PM
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. :lol:
Guy's name was Sir Hockey or something like that, right?
Quote from: The Larch on April 23, 2020, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 03:36:50 PM
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. :lol:
Guy's name was Sir Hockey or something like that, right?
Yep, that was it. I had forgotten his name.
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 04:41:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 01:56:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 01:40:13 PM
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.
Quote from: The Larch on April 23, 2020, 05:20:53 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 03:36:50 PM
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. :lol:
Guy's name was Sir Hockey or something like that, right?
Thank you. I had forgotten the dude's name.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 23, 2020, 03:03:05 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on April 23, 2020, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 01:56:22 PM... 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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 23, 2020, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on April 23, 2020, 03:24:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 23, 2020, 02:14:38 PM
:rolleyes: Any Ranger/Tanker can tell you that Russian tank armor is greatly superior.
:lmfao:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 23, 2020, 04:41:21 PM
The value of the AK-47 is that it does the job reliably when (e.g.) operated by an untrained child soldier without proper maintenance.
Provided some greater specificity.
Quote from: derspiess on April 23, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
Looks prettier, but does it make much of a difference otherwise?
Proper machining will result in much tighter tolerances. In a gun I guess that would affect how accurate fire is and perhaps how likely it is to jam or blow up in your face.
Machining parts can also be orders of magnitude more expensive though. You need a lot more time, expensive tools and trained machinists.
I guess you would have to list the M-1 Abrams as one of the great military projects. Insanely successful tank, and almost certainly still the best in the world at what it does. Part of a system of US Army weapons and training that basically created a world where nobody would even contemplate going to war conventionally with the US and its allies.
Quote from: Berkut on April 24, 2020, 09:47:30 AM
I guess you would have to list the M-1 Abrams as one of the great military projects. Insanely successful tank, and almost certainly still the best in the world at what it does. Part of a system of US Army weapons and training that basically created a world where nobody would even contemplate going to war conventionally with the US and its allies.
FYP.
Quote from: Berkut on April 24, 2020, 09:47:30 AM
I guess you would have to list the M-1 Abrams as one of the great military projects. Insanely successful tank, and almost certainly still the best in the world at what it does. Part of a system of US Army weapons and training that basically created a world where nobody would even contemplate going to war conventionally with the US and its allies.
The M-1 is a good choice - it's been in operation with variants for 40 years, and as far as I know, the US has for now decided to simply keep upgrading it. There is no question this is a very successful project.
Here's an interesting blog article comparing the Abrams with the Merkava: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-m1-abrams-tank-vs-israels-merkava-who-wins-18913
The upshot being, the two tanks are somewhat specialized for different roles - the Abrams, for defeating its counterparts on a conventional battlefield, the Merkava for fighting against insurgents armed with anti-tank missiles. The Merkava lacks the advanced depleted uranium armour and ammo if the Abrams and is slower, but has better anti-missile protection.
The blog doesn't actually answer the "who would win" question, though if it was just one on one, all being equal, the Abrams should win.
How about the Douglas DC-3?
Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2020, 05:29:08 AM
How about the Douglas DC-3?
Not a military project? Not post-WW2?
Quote from: The Brain on April 26, 2020, 05:49:28 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2020, 05:29:08 AM
How about the Douglas DC-3?
Not a military project? Not post-WW2?
Except for the "Not a military project" and "Not post-WW2," what has the DC-3 ever done for us?
Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2020, 05:29:08 AM
How about the Douglas DC-3?
There are still some DC-3s still in active service in northern Canada IIRC. That's pretty amazing given it went into service in the 1930s.
Sorry, I should have said the C-47.
Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2020, 11:35:07 AM
Sorry, I should have said the C-47.
The C-47 is just a DC-3 sold to the military. Not military and not post-war.
The postwar equivalent would be the C-130. First flew in 1954, and still being produced as front line aircraft 66 years later. The last DC-3/C-47, by comparison, came off the line 14 years after the first. Four times as many DC-3/C-47 aircraft were built, but their total load capacity was only 40% that of the C-130s built.