Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There's still not a final proposal for the Modular Handgun System so no official list of competitors but it's likely that the Glock in 40 and 45, Smith and Wesson's M and P, Sigs 226, HK P2000, Beretta will probably submit the PX4. It's entirely possible that no current pistol will be selected based on some of the initial requirements I've read and the level of modularity being demanded, the Glock for example sounds perfect but the sources sought request said there must be an external safety. So Glock and Sig would have to modify an existing model. The durability requirement of 25,000 rounds actually puts the old 1911 back in the running, the Marines having run more than 50,000 through some of their M45 frames. So the answer is that it's still in the air but expect a heavy durable pistol from a major manufacturer, it absolutely will not be in 9mm though the SSR was specific in that regard.

To summarise, what people are saying is NOT that all American gun owners are just loud-mouth types with shiny bang sticks, but instead that there is substantially more to effective "soldiering" than just having the gun, whether it is access to a substantial ammunition train, or all the added exciting toys that a full-blown "army" gets to play with. There is a very good reason why the IED is the weapon of choice for insurgency..because no matter how many AKs and RPGs you have, you're still tootling around in a knackered Toyota with no radio net, no extended supply chain, no air support, etc etc. The average light armoured vehicle will quite literally crush you if it sees you.. This thread of course requires the conceit that the Chinese have actually invaded and occupied the continental USA, which means they must have somehow neutralised Americas regular fighting forces, or at least somewhat over-matched them. This done, when Bumhole, Kentucky wakes up to a column of Type-96's with close air support from Shenyang and Sukhoi en masse, its unlikely that even the craziest survivalist is going to be well-equipped to fight them off. As said, ground to air missile systems aren't available for purchase in Wal-Mart.

It isn't the orneriness or fighting spirit in question.. its the logistics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
edit: Red Dawn was a brilliant comedy. "Where is my anti-aircraft fire?" shouts the Russian para commander...whilst standing in front of a ZSU. Tard.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote: The chinese strike me as cowardly, compared to the Germans and Japanese, for example.

Epic assertions about national character notwithstanding, surely the greater "cowardice" of a nation makes them more likely to resort to insane methodology, not less?

Yeah, that's true.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jubear wrote:Owning a rifle does not make someone a soldier. And again It seems like everyone in iraq had access to a AK and it did not seem to help them much.

Why do you keep referencing this? Some facts, please? Iraq was a dictatorship before we were there, and I have my doubts that a significant portion of the population there was armed.

It takes a great deal of discipline and training to be able to have the balls to return fire when your being shot at. I would say that most professional soldiers would rather militia groups stay out of there way and would see them as a liability rather then an asset.

Or patriotism, or stupidity, or courage. It doesn't require anything but practice to put a bullet in someone's head.

These opinions seem backwards. The Berretta is neither particularly bulky nor heavy. If the complaint had been that the slide is prone to breakage or the cheap contract magazines in wide service in the US mil let sand get into the weapon I could at least see that whoever told you that had a point. As it is the M9 is neither particular heavy or bulky. It is certainly heavier than say a Glock, and longer to boot, but next to a Sig 228 or a FN Hi Power the weight is similar and it remains longer. This isn't a concealment weapon it's a combat sidearm. The heaver weight reduces barrel climb and decreases the time needed for an aimed follow up, the longer barrel means a longer and more accurate sight radius. I've qualified expert in pistol several times with the M9 and twice with the M11; I've also used my personal weapons on the same courses when the opportunity came to use it on a weekend. The difference between several handguns of similar caliber and capacity is negligible. It's personal preference.
Anyone who HASN'T complained about an M4 hasn't handled one in daily use enough to know it's faults, or just looks at gun porn. The M16 is a dirty, user level maintenance heavy system that had had complaints since it was introduced. Shortening the system has created a host of new problems solved by brute force rather than finding a real solution. I wouldn't argue in favor of a bullpup generally( I saw that earlier...its looks better than it works), but the M4 needs replacement and has many worthy successors. The M4 simply doesn't have the reliability that current designs are capable of as proven repeatedly by testing in Army labs. The weapon itself is militarily functional, there are simply better and less expensive alternatives that are more reliable. We aren't talking video game cool guns here, just functional replacements for an aging system.

I mean, I've never used them, so I wouldn't know. I was just picking out points I've read from some 'Kit-blogs'. Apologies. Is there any comparable alternative on the horizon?

Here you go

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq

ranked number 8 in the world in terms of gun ownership.

Yes pointing out that Iraq at number 8 is comparative to the US at 1 seems to strengthen your argument. Especially since the ratio of guns to people is 34%:88% betwixt the two...leaving out the small matter of the 10x larger population holding those guns.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:To summarise, what people are saying is NOT that all American gun owners are just loud-mouth types with shiny bang sticks, but instead that there is substantially more to effective "soldiering" than just having the gun, whether it is access to a substantial ammunition train, or all the added exciting toys that a full-blown "army" gets to play with. There is a very good reason why the IED is the weapon of choice for insurgency..because no matter how many AKs and RPGs you have, you're still tootling around in a knackered Toyota with no radio net, no extended supply chain, no air support, etc etc. The average light armoured vehicle will quite literally crush you if it sees you.. This thread of course requires the conceit that the Chinese have actually invaded and occupied the continental USA, which means they must have somehow neutralised Americas regular fighting forces, or at least somewhat over-matched them. This done, when Bumhole, Kentucky wakes up to a column of Type-96's with close air support from Shenyang and Sukhoi en masse, its unlikely that even the craziest survivalist is going to be well-equipped to fight them off. As said, ground to air missile systems aren't available for purchase in Wal-Mart.

But said ground-to-air missiles are available in other locations that can be looted, we've had people steal tanks from armories and drive them through the streets before. Anyways, its also likely that any militia forces that are fighting would also be fighting while the normal military forces were going at it. Not like Red Dawn, but like the French or Norwegian Resistance. They were small partisan groups fighting the Germans while normal armies did as well, and that's a big factor. We have a military force that not only has to invade, but also hold land and that means they will have to split their own forces to deal with both threats. So while a partisan "US of Awesome" partisan force is harassing supply lines or even communications, the normal forces will deal with the actual war. Civilian weapons may be outdated as well, but if a militaria collector gave people Kar 98s then those Kar 98s can still pierce modern helmets despite it being 50+ years old and they can still do a number on infantry. Pipe bombs and other explosives can be made to deal with infantry, and more importantly there's a chance that a partisan group will be able to steal from an invading force. A partisan army may not have weapons on par with the invading forces, but after killing a few invaders they begin to catch up.

AustonT wrote:There's still not a final proposal for the Modular Handgun System so no official list of competitors but it's likely that the Glock in 40 and 45, Smith and Wesson's M and P, Sigs 226, HK P2000, Beretta will probably submit the PX4. It's entirely possible that no current pistol will be selected based on some of the initial requirements I've read and the level of modularity being demanded, the Glock for example sounds perfect but the sources sought request said there must be an external safety. So Glock and Sig would have to modify an existing model. The durability requirement of 25,000 rounds actually puts the old 1911 back in the running, the Marines having run more than 50,000 through some of their M45 frames. So the answer is that it's still in the air but expect a heavy durable pistol from a major manufacturer, it absolutely will not be in 9mm though the SSR was specific in that regard.

Wow, awesome! You gave the full story, thank you. I'm joining the navy soon, and although I won't get to shoot much being a squid, it does interest me what the other guys get to use.

I have my doubts the 1911 will make it, mainly because Colt overcharges like crazy for their guns. Unless they totally do something new, which would be unlike colt. They definitely have the money and skill to design something totally new.

AustonT wrote:Yes pointing out that Iraq at number 8 is comparative to the US at 1 seems to strengthen your argument. Especially since the ratio of guns to people is 34%:88% betwixt the two...leaving out the small matter of the 10x larger population holding those guns.

Yeah but how many of those guns in America are pistols,small caliber hunting weapons etc? And I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of those guns in Iraq would most likely be Ak47s. The point is that its a heavily armed population of whom most likely a larger percentage would most likely have some form a military background was ineffective so why would America be any different?

Jubear wrote:

AustonT wrote:Yes pointing out that Iraq at number 8 is comparative to the US at 1 seems to strengthen your argument. Especially since the ratio of guns to people is 34%:88% betwixt the two...leaving out the small matter of the 10x larger population holding those guns.

Yeah but how many of those guns in America are pistols,small caliber hunting weapons etc? And I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of those guns in Iraq would most likely be Ak47s. The point is that its a heavily armed population of whom most likely a larger percentage would most likely have some form a military background was ineffective so why would America be any different?

How many Iraqis are fighting against us? Also some have argued that they have been successful if only because of family at home being notified that their loved ones have been killed or maimed. Also, its America who attacked the Iraqis and last time I checked their regular fighting forces were no match for our regular forces.

Really? 9,750,000 civilian guns with a population of 32 million. Woah. That's a huge amount. But at 150$US a gun, why wouldn't everyone buy one?

I wonder how much 7.62 goes for in Iraq? Probably cheap as dirt.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

AustonT wrote:There's still not a final proposal for the Modular Handgun System so no official list of competitors but it's likely that the Glock in 40 and 45, Smith and Wesson's M and P, Sigs 226, HK P2000, Beretta will probably submit the PX4. It's entirely possible that no current pistol will be selected based on some of the initial requirements I've read and the level of modularity being demanded, the Glock for example sounds perfect but the sources sought request said there must be an external safety. So Glock and Sig would have to modify an existing model. The durability requirement of 25,000 rounds actually puts the old 1911 back in the running, the Marines having run more than 50,000 through some of their M45 frames. So the answer is that it's still in the air but expect a heavy durable pistol from a major manufacturer, it absolutely will not be in 9mm though the SSR was specific in that regard.

Wow, awesome! You gave the full story, thank you. I'm joining the navy soon, and although I won't get to shoot much being a squid, it does interest me what the other guys get to use.

I have my doubts the 1911 will make it, mainly because Colt overcharges like crazy for their guns. Unless they totally do something new, which would be unlike colt. They definitely have the money and skill to design something totally new.

I wouldn't count the 1911 out, whatever replaces the M45 will have at least a shot in the competition the frontrunners are Kimber and Springfield Armory so Colt has to make their price point compete against them. Especially since SA has been supplying parts to Quantico already. I actually misspoke, I missed a zero some of the government manufactured frames have 500,000 rounds throughout them. That kind of durability is hard to beat, the downstroke is that using a 1911 actually takes a pretty high level of training, in addition to the level of training it already takes to produce a competent handgunner that is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jubear wrote:

AustonT wrote:Yes pointing out that Iraq at number 8 is comparative to the US at 1 seems to strengthen your argument. Especially since the ratio of guns to people is 34%:88% betwixt the two...leaving out the small matter of the 10x larger population holding those guns.

Yeah but how many of those guns in America are pistols,small caliber hunting weapons etc? And I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of those guns in Iraq would most likely be Ak47s. The point is that its a heavily armed population of whom most likely a larger percentage would most likely have some form a military background was ineffective so why would America be any different?

I hope you can hear me rolling my eyes from there.
Ireland has a fraction of the firearms owned in Iraq, infinitesimal next to the US and the UKs Occupation of Ireland went off without a hitch...
Someday you'll have an epiphany, I'm not holding my breath.

halonachos wrote:

Jubear wrote:

AustonT wrote:Yes pointing out that Iraq at number 8 is comparative to the US at 1 seems to strengthen your argument. Especially since the ratio of guns to people is 34%:88% betwixt the two...leaving out the small matter of the 10x larger population holding those guns.

Yeah but how many of those guns in America are pistols,small caliber hunting weapons etc? And I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of those guns in Iraq would most likely be Ak47s. The point is that its a heavily armed population of whom most likely a larger percentage would most likely have some form a military background was ineffective so why would America be any different?

How many Iraqis are fighting against us? Also some have argued that they have been successful if only because of family at home being notified that their loved ones have been killed or maimed. Also, its America who attacked the Iraqis and last time I checked their regular fighting forces were no match for our regular forces.

So you assume that a greater percentage of Americans would fight compared to Iraqs?

AustonT wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:

AustonT wrote:There's still not a final proposal for the Modular Handgun System so no official list of competitors but it's likely that the Glock in 40 and 45, Smith and Wesson's M and P, Sigs 226, HK P2000, Beretta will probably submit the PX4. It's entirely possible that no current pistol will be selected based on some of the initial requirements I've read and the level of modularity being demanded, the Glock for example sounds perfect but the sources sought request said there must be an external safety. So Glock and Sig would have to modify an existing model. The durability requirement of 25,000 rounds actually puts the old 1911 back in the running, the Marines having run more than 50,000 through some of their M45 frames. So the answer is that it's still in the air but expect a heavy durable pistol from a major manufacturer, it absolutely will not be in 9mm though the SSR was specific in that regard.

Wow, awesome! You gave the full story, thank you. I'm joining the navy soon, and although I won't get to shoot much being a squid, it does interest me what the other guys get to use.

I have my doubts the 1911 will make it, mainly because Colt overcharges like crazy for their guns. Unless they totally do something new, which would be unlike colt. They definitely have the money and skill to design something totally new.

I wouldn't count the 1911 out, whatever replaces the M45 will have at least a shot in the competition the frontrunners are Kimber and Springfield Armory so Colt has to make their price point compete against them. Especially since SA has been supplying parts to Quantico already. I actually misspoke, I missed a zero some of the government manufactured frames have 500,000 rounds throughout them. That kind of durability is hard to beat, the downstroke is that using a 1911 actually takes a pretty high level of training, in addition to the level of training it already takes to produce a competent handgunner that is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jubear wrote:

AustonT wrote:Yes pointing out that Iraq at number 8 is comparative to the US at 1 seems to strengthen your argument. Especially since the ratio of guns to people is 34%:88% betwixt the two...leaving out the small matter of the 10x larger population holding those guns.

Yeah but how many of those guns in America are pistols,small caliber hunting weapons etc? And I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of those guns in Iraq would most likely be Ak47s. The point is that its a heavily armed population of whom most likely a larger percentage would most likely have some form a military background was ineffective so why would America be any different?

I hope you can hear me rolling my eyes from there.
Ireland has a fraction of the firearms owned in Iraq, infinitesimal next to the US and the UKs Occupation of Ireland went off without a hitch...
Someday you'll have an epiphany, I'm not holding my breath.

So you agree that an armed population is nigh on useless in total war situation?

Your parents must have had the patience of Saints and the souls of Martyrs.

No need for personal attacks because I hold a different opinion to you.

Jubear wrote:

AustonT wrote:Yes pointing out that Iraq at number 8 is comparative to the US at 1 seems to strengthen your argument. Especially since the ratio of guns to people is 34%:88% betwixt the two...leaving out the small matter of the 10x larger population holding those guns.

Yeah but how many of those guns in America are pistols,small caliber hunting weapons etc? And I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of those guns in Iraq would most likely be Ak47s. The point is that its a heavily armed population of whom most likely a larger percentage would most likely have some form a military background was ineffective so why would America be any different?

Emphasis mine.

Are you aware that for hunting purposes, NATO 5.56 (.223 cal) is considered a small caliber 'varmit round' for hunting, say, racoon and other similar sized critters? Shooting a deer with it means the deer runs for a couple miles and dies well beyond the average hunter's capacity to follow - not to mention being considered 'inhumane and cruel'. 7.62 (.30 cal) would be the normal for hunting a 'man sized' (150-200 lb) animal.

And yet, NATO 5.56 is the standard military round for the various western nations. Somehow I think those 'small caliber' hunting weapons will do just fine.


The hunter's effectiveness vs. an occuplying army, I cannot tell you.

Vulcan wrote:Yeah but how many of those guns in America are pistols,small caliber hunting weapons etc?

Emphasis mine.

Are you aware that for hunting purposes, NATO 5.56 (.223 cal) is considered a small caliber 'varmit round' for hunting, say, racoon and other similar sized critters? Shooting a deer with it means the deer runs for a couple miles and dies well beyond the average hunter's capacity to follow - not to mention being considered 'inhumane and cruel'. 7.62 (.30 cal) would be the normal for hunting a 'man sized' (150-200 lb) animal.

And yet, NATO 5.56 is the standard military round for the various western nations. Somehow I think those 'small caliber' hunting weapons will do just fine.

Note that the muzzle velocity of an M16 is also at least twice the muzzle velocity of a standard .22 cal rifle. Which means that the M16 is more likely to penetrate armor and obstructions.

AK-47s use a 7.76 (about .30 cal) and have a muzzle velocity about 50% more than a standard .22 cal.

Anyway, just posting to remind you that your standard .22 calibur rifle doesn't really compare with the rifles that fire NATO 5.56.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Really? 9,750,000 civilian guns with a population of 32 million. Woah. That's a huge amount. But at 150$US a gun, why wouldn't everyone buy one?

I wonder how much 7.62 goes for in Iraq? Probably cheap as dirt.

Well when the yanks where in somolia in the 90's, a pack of smokes was more expensive then a AK. Two american dollars would get you a AK-47. Now ammo was a different story.

In all honesty I can't see China ever invading North America. Most people around the world just don't realise how big both Canada and the US really is. In my opinion if some hard-liners ever got into power in China and wanted to attack the US it would either be a pre-emptive first strike using nucular or biological weapons.

Bio weapons are very cheep compaired to nukes. They can be smuggled into a country rather easly compaired to nukes. And the critical factor is the US & Canadian governments wouldn't have a clear picture of whats going on until it's reached a critical mass and it's too late. Land is much easier to take over once you have gotten rid of the previous inhabitants, just ask the native americans about that.

Honestly though there is no pratical reasion for china to want to wipe out the US. They own to much of the US debt, they are to inter-related with commerice and manufacturing.Why would they want to spend all that money to try and take over north america for little to no gain. If they just wait another decade or two they will practically own the US anyways. For gaks and giggles go around your house and see how much stuff is stamped 'made in china or taiwan You can't collect from a deadman why do you think loan-sharks just break your fingers or legs and not kill you? I could see them making a play for taiwan,maybe expand into the 'Stans' if there is some kind of minerial wealth or oil reserves present.

Unless one of those crack pot dictators ( or iran) decides to try to wipe israel off the map, then all betsare off.

Great discussion though. It's interesting to see peoples different views on what would and wouldn't happen.

When it comes down to it I think it's much more likely that it's going to be a scrap over Taiwan, and in that case, well the US has spent a very long time being a global power. It knows how to use its navy and it has a large reserve of institutional experience, and notwithstanding section level problems, the US is likely to be much more flexible in its thinking than the Chinese. You have to remember that the Chinese haven't fought anyone in a straight war since before the Revolution. They only have the rulebook to go by.

As for the importance of aircraft carriers... Look at the Falklands. Royal Navy was operating thousands of miles away from home while Argentina was right next door. However, British had a better time of it because the aircraft carriers meant that the Harriers didn't have to travel very far to resupply, while Argentine aircraft got to the Islands and pretty much had to turn right around again. Having an aircraft carrier is much more flexible than relying on land based airstrips.

Jubear wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Jubear wrote:

AustonT wrote:Yes pointing out that Iraq at number 8 is comparative to the US at 1 seems to strengthen your argument. Especially since the ratio of guns to people is 34%:88% betwixt the two...leaving out the small matter of the 10x larger population holding those guns.

Yeah but how many of those guns in America are pistols,small caliber hunting weapons etc? And I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of those guns in Iraq would most likely be Ak47s. The point is that its a heavily armed population of whom most likely a larger percentage would most likely have some form a military background was ineffective so why would America be any different?

How many Iraqis are fighting against us? Also some have argued that they have been successful if only because of family at home being notified that their loved ones have been killed or maimed. Also, its America who attacked the Iraqis and last time I checked their regular fighting forces were no match for our regular forces.

So you assume that a greater percentage of Americans would fight compared to Iraqs?

The majority of insurgents that are fighting our troops are foreign borne and not actual Iraqis. Besides that you have two different cultures, one of an oppressed people under a dictatorship and the other is full of relatively free individuals.

Lux_Lucis wrote:. You have to remember that the Chinese haven't fought anyone in a straight war since before the Revolution. They only have the rulebook to go by.

.

Two Wars with India..as well as operations against Vietnam and USSR

Huffy wrote:

Lux_Lucis wrote:. You have to remember that the Chinese haven't fought anyone in a straight war since before the Revolution. They only have the rulebook to go by.

.

Two Wars with India..as well as operations against Vietnam and USSR

Define "against Vietnam"

They were supplying the NVA and VC with weapons and equipment. I don't believe the chinese had any of their boys on the field. Maybe some advisers, but I wouldn't call that wartime experience., necessarily.

What operations against the USSR? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just not familiar with anything between the two.

1979.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

AustonT wrote:1979.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Oh. I see. Never mind then!

I've just remembered Korea actually... Feth. Anyway, well they haven't done much recently.

The Sino Vietnamese war was an absolute abortion, but China was able to stretch 10 years of border conflict, blooding at least some of thier forces and developing thier light infantry tactics and equipment. Not however a shining example of Chinese prowess on the battlefield.

halonachos wrote:
The majority of insurgents that are fighting our troops are foreign borne and not actual Iraqis.

That's debatable given how many Iraqis fled Saddam's regime, and the significantly more complicated type of national identity that exists in that part of the world.