We Never Learns....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK

You want reliable? Look to Russia. Reliability is one thing the Russian-made weapons have in bucketloads.

Even the old weapons, like the Nagant revolver were simple.

"If something went wrong with a Nagant, you could fix it with a hammer"

Does that not sum it up?

But in terms of quality, the US is far and away in front of other countries. An AK is powerful. But you couldn't hit a bloody shed from a foot away looking down those sights.

An M16, on the other hand is accurate. But not particularly reliable in humid or sandy conditions. You can't fix it with some motor oil and a hammer, but you can be a damn good shot.

It's a trade-off. US for being able to hit things, and CIS/Russia for your weapon working even if poorly maintained.

---

Yeah, accuracy and realiability is a trade off. It is hard to have both. Reason is that metal clearing tolerances need to be generous in order to have something be reliable. Tight tolerances cause jams when debris gets in there. Lose tolerances help debris clear. But lose tolerances also mean that everything does not fit together very tight thus there is more movement and give... which causes inaccuracy.
But if my life depended on a weapon I would want it to fire. I can compensate for inaccuracy by getting closer to the target or shooting at a higher rate of fire. (i.e. accuracy by volume). But I cannot compensate for weapon failure.

Patriotic fervour?

I mean, sure, the Challenger's not amazing (it has flat sided armour! Come ON BAe!) but it's slightly more advanced, i.e. a rifled barrel, Mark 2 Chobham Armour, etc.

The Abrams is a very, very good tank. It's fast, reliable and has good protection. But it has a smoothbore. Smoothbore tank guns aren't as accurate or have as much punch as a rifled gun. The Leopard 2 only has a smoothbore because of costs. Otherwise it would be better than the Challenger, gun-wise.

Smoothbore has two advantages over rifled

1. It gives the barrel a longer life, which is useful when you are expecting your tank to maintain a high rate of fire over an extended period of time. Which is what the Abrams had to do in the gulf war, if their barrels had been rifled, there is a good chance they would have cracked before Saddam's vast tank army was finished off.

2. It allows for it to use a large variety of ammunition, which is useful in the resale and practical when you are talking about fast deployment. Without it, you would have to change the barrel every time you wanted it to perform a different task.

And the armor is always the tank's most important feature. And the M1abrams has a mesh of Depleted uranium making it able to survive most anything.

Though the Challenger is by far more fuel efficient.

Its really tough to compare them when they are built with such radically different philosophies.

On topic, Saudi Arabia is perhaps the biggest threat next to Iran and when the US sells them their stuff, they are easier to deal with should a war come. After all, knowledge is half the battle.

And the training given to the Taliban isn't even used by them anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrotherhoodUK

You want reliable? Look to Russia. Reliability is one thing the Russian-made weapons have in bucketloads.

Even the old weapons, like the Nagant revolver were simple.

"If something went wrong with a Nagant, you could fix it with a hammer"

Does that not sum it up?

But in terms of quality, the US is far and away in front of other countries. An AK is powerful. But you couldn't hit a bloody shed from a foot away looking down those sights.

An M16, on the other hand is accurate. But not particularly reliable in humid or sandy conditions. You can't fix it with some motor oil and a hammer, but you can be a damn good shot.

It's a trade-off. US for being able to hit things, and CIS/Russia for your weapon working even if poorly maintained.

---

True and even the Brits built reliable weapons look at the Bren and the .303 as long as the Flanders mud was kept out of them ya couldn't kill 'em

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richie_B

Who needs weapons when you can just have a large amount of emigrants spread your nation's blood all over the world? :devil: I mean, how many people can claim to have Irish/British ancestors in America and Australia? I'd say the figure is high enough.

*Realizes this is now Seriously Off-Topic instead of normal Off-Topic and puts on serious voice.*

I think [insert on topic thought-provoking and valid statement].

---

OHH OH! *raises hand* I'm of Irish decent and English, Welsh, German, Scottish and Norweigan and I'm Aussie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boleslav

What do you think would happen if the US didn't sell weapons to Saudi?

---

We do not need to sell weapons to anyone. In gulf war the US (and allies) helped protect Kuwait against Iraq. We destroyed Iraq and did not give/sell weapons to anyone.

I think it is OK to sell weapons. Someone is going to do it. Would you rather have someone sell inferior weapons that are not as efficient?
Inefficient weaponry = more deaths and longer battles.
So whoever makes the best weapons should sell them.
I am against war and violence. But I am also a realist. It is going to happen. So allow for makers of the best weapons to sell them. It will actually save more lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japanpimp

I think it is OK to sell weapons. Someone is going to do it. Would you rather have someone sell inferior weapons that are not as efficient?
Inefficient weaponry = more deaths and longer battles.
So whoever makes the best weapons should sell them.
I am against war and violence. But I am also a realist. It is going to happen. So allow for makers of the best weapons to sell them. It will actually save more lives.

---

Yes, but what happens when/if we sell them weapons and they use the weapons against us. I would rather let them use inefficient weapons and not do well in the war then take a chance that they have better weapons to use against us.
I know it is bad to say since more of their people will die, but it is not the US's responsibility to ensure everyone has the best weapons to fight their enemies.

They rely on us for the ammo to those weapons still.

Someone should blow up the factories that make the weapons. Problem solved. Perhaps in an irnoic twist, they could use the weapon of choice against each own factory.