sealordlawrenceNo it doesn’t.
Yes it does.
sealordlawrence…germany ist the 14th biggest world population and the 3th largest world econemy.
What does you mean? Does the UK still trying to rule the world (after U.S) ?
Many countries gets more and more powerful (most of them from asia) and i think it´s okay and important to try to consolidat with other European navies to build an strong Europe against other regions or countries.
I never said anything about trying to rule the world, simply pointing out that your assertion that the UK is a small country is false.
sealordlawrenceYou’d be right with pretty much all that… but the pay grades for full-grade officers will be more than NCOs… (haven’t checked, but I’d be shocked to learn otherwise).
If they went with NCOs in the cockpits, they would save some money, which could then be funelled back into more aircraft or whatever.
[Basically, I think the personnel structure is top heavy… extremely top heavy].
Then all the pilots would go and fly airliners.;)
sealordlawrenceIt’s easy. Sell all those old, obsolete ships to Argentina. Let them build up a major navy in the southern hemisphere. And be sure to include a reverse lend-lease clause in the sale agreement. Isn’t it time the lambs and wolves laid down together?
UK is a small Island and its about time to realised it. In todays world where equipment is becoming more and more expensive it is simply cost prohibitive for a small nation to maintain a large and modern navy, army and airforce.
It’s about time that UK consolidated with other European nations and brought about a common European defence policy that falls outside of NATO.
22nd biggest population and 5th largest economy, not that small after all.
sealordlawrenceThis honestly would not surprise me. Note the recent very public attention seeking the Army has been doing, such things tend to proceed cuts. The RAF has the Russians doing their attention seeking for them whilst all the Navy has nothing to show for itself other than the continuing shame of the Iranian captives affair.
As for British defence, it is certainly is viable ask what is needed, after all what are the main threats to UK security?
sealordlawrenceNo. I demand it from you, becouse you made silly and baseless claim, that You so clearly cannot back up. You just try to twist it and hide behind comments that closes up to mockery and throw out silly comments like the Slovenian (or was it slovakia…:rolleyes: :rolleyes: ) example, yet even not bothering to back up your claims. Face it, there isent just man enough in you to admitt that you were wrong:)
And Im not fantazising over anything, Just claiming that AK is good weapon, and its generations main competitors doesen’t posess any qualities that makes them better pick than AK. Also I have all the time said that All Assault rifles are in practice as good as others what comes to accuracy, ergonomy and desing, but where AK triumphs is in its reability, and that is the most important factor of all in the main use of such rifles.
Perhaps for gun-crazy american civilians a soft and comfortable stocks and other penny details can do lot of differences when shooting in tidy gun ranges with too big weapons for that use… But fortuanetly I dont share that experience, I speak only from my subjective personal experience from my army days. Even a thougth of going into war knowing that there is big change for your weapon to jam or that its operationality is dicdated by the conditions you crawl with it…gives me creeps:eek:
Lol now you start insulting Americans, pretty much sums you up.:mad:
sealordlawrenceOK, if you clearly want to act like a seven year old, I propaply must start speak to you like I do with kids…
PART I: I have numerious time told you that I agree (that means that I think the same way like you in this matter, if the concept of that word is obscure to you) with You, that better ergonomics can improve the overal figthing capacity of the weapon, BUT (and Here comes the important part) THATS NOT WHAT IM ASKING from you.
PART II: Im asking from you, how does the ergonomics improve the accuracy of the rifle. Simple as that. Not how does it improve its overal handling, but how does it improve its shots.
No. Every weapon has its physical age, and REMEBER Slovenia inherited all of its equipment by war booty from JNA in 1990. No matter JNA would have used M-16s, there would be in need of replacement by now.
So therefore, our Slovenian friends goes shopping. And when we know that Slovenians are in high speed towards to becoming another Washington Lapdog in europe, so they purchase of weapons are 99% NOT going to come from countries that are potential enemies to NATO, but more likely from NATO countries. And you Can start counting yourself of how many NATO country currently manufactures Kalashnikoviks.
There, spot the pattern?
LOL your still doing it on both counts, fantasizing about the AK’s absolute superiority to all other weapons and demanding data that you know cant be provided without mass trials of a large number of weapons.:D :p
sealordlawrenceI wondered what made his claim ringing odd bells in my mind, becouse to my knowlidge, Slovaks use the Chech Vz 58, but Im not that familar with that weapon in order to say wheter its based on kalashnikovik or not. Slovenians decission is propaply due the fact that the inherited bas of zastavas AKs are getting old, and they dont have facitilities to produce the rifle themselves. So choosing something more desirable to small nations alligment needs is rather natural.
Lol, keep telling yourself that. Just becouse you dont want to believe that the weapon you are so in love with is now outdated and inferior to most modern western designs.:D
sealordlawrenceYeas, But Im asking you how these claimed ergonomigs inpact on the actuall shooting, or better said, accuracy of the rifle. Simple as that. Its pathetic to claim that I “dont get it”, when I constantly try you to back your words by asking rather simple and clear thing, where As you try to hide behind your “Im allready listed it” arguments, THAT DOESENT EVEN COVER THE SAME TOPIC, that Im asking from you.
Now, did you copy that? Or do I have to spell it into you?
How does the ergonomics effect on the disperse of the shots?
Not, how it will marginally increase the comfortably of the weapon, nor how by that the overal combat capapility comes minorly improved!!!! I have allready agreed with you on those matters, BUT HOW DOES IT inpact on the disperse of the shots.
Once again, Ergonomics improves combat effectiveness, something which is impossible to numerically quantify within the confines of this thread. I am astonished that you are unable to understand it.:eek:
Thanks for the heads up Arthur.;)
sealordlawrenceYou wont need to repeat anything, as you haven’t mentioned in this thread any exact data or reference how you claimed better ergonomics affect on the dispersion of hits. You know this, So no need to start throwing degatory comments about myself to hide it.:mad:
Again, the number of factors involved make a simple numerical analysis within the bounds of this thread. The fact is that better ergonomics improve combat effectiveness, I have even listed at least some of the factors involved in combat effectiveness in a simple equation for you but you still seem unable to get it.:rolleyes:
By the way, slovakia has replaced its AK’s with FN-2000’s, go google it.
sealordlawrenceReckon same can be told about you and your unconditional love for M-16?
Truth is, this kind of comparison was done ad noseum hundreds of times on different forums. And no one ever changed anyone’s opinion. It all goes down to “accuracy vs reliability” and thats where it stays. In the field it comes down to solder’s personal preference. I’ve seen enough GI’s with AK and Hamas with M-4. Both firearms have advantages and shortcomings.
I have never expressed unconditional love for the M-16, if you actually read a thread before posting in it you will pick things like that up.:p :rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceIIRC BSP also mentions that other versions were planned including one towed behind a Land Rover and a tracked version.
sealordlawrenceNo, you have mentioned some areas where better ergonomics can make a difference and I haven’t denyed that. I’ve stated all along that the difference is merely marginal. You have stated that its not marginal but haven’t given any data, information nor even your own estimation how much the ergonomics would improve the performance. Are we talking about millimeters, centimeters or meters in disperence of hits?
Its not that hard…unless you know yourself that you are wrong…
As previously stated, I have no intention of repeating myself to you. You are clearly in love with the AK and are convinced by its absolute superiority so I am not even going to bother with some one who can only produce comments about how the AK never hurt you when you fired it.:D
Combat effectiveness= reaction time, pointability, weight, control location, length etc etc etc. It is impossible to numerically quantify it.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceThis thread has a really poor title, for a minut I had visions of thousands of french ship builders beavering away 24 hours a day whilst being on drips containing glucose and steroids!:D
sealordlawrenceWell as we are basing our stands on personal experiences, do you Lawrence think that the ergonomics have substantial difference in accuracy between Ak’s and AR15’s? Give a rough estimation, how large disperese in hits let say at 150 meters???
Repeat after me, ‘general combat effectivness’. I have listed all this before and I have no intention of doing it again.
Sign In
