SKS - Yes or No

I was saying it years ago the SKS is a steal of a deal like all milsurps were given the quality of steel, wood and workmanship compared to modern firearms. Few if any modern rifles under $1000 or even $1500+ quality pieces would endure the abuse or regular use like a milsurp rifle will. Also add the history and fact that many milsurps are a hoot to shoot they are still a good deal in firearms for many models. SKS's may no longer be the buy 5, sell 2 later type of purchase....it may be a situation of adding a rifle to a new collection or one that previously did not include a SKS. I am happy to say that the SKS is one of my favorites.

Even SKS can have personalities....one rifle I own is a complete A-hole jerk, approximately 2-3/5 rounds spent casings will launch on an actual predictable parabolic arch to the right landing roughly 3 shootings bench lanes over onto the head of that shooter in the given spacing of my range. I have to be careful where I sit or I can make enemies with that SKS when the hot casings land of the persons head too many times lol. That particular Russian model does not shoot very accurately but the comedy of having a predictable joke rifle is just priceless.
 
Sir Plus said:
The US army could have leveled North Vietnam without nukes, they just weren’t allowed by the politicians
Click to expand...

Murray 3-D said:
That is true as well.
Click to expand...

lol... really? more than twice the bombs were dropped in the vietnam war than the all the bombs dropped in ww2. it had no effect.

the US air force suffered heavy losses. the russian sam missiles were deadly.

Murray 3-D said:
Ur on drugs if u honestly think a super power like the United States, Russia or China couldnt win a serious war against a Nation like Vietnam if they really wanted to. Most of the wars that have occurred since the World Wars have basically been political pet projects and humanitarian crusades. Wars that are easy to walk away from (relatively speaking) when the costs start to out weigh the benefits.
Click to expand...

i think you are. its a cold war, it wasnt just small vietnam against big USA, it was also russia and china against USA but russia and china didnt want to do the dirty work so both sides got nukes so why would the US risk using nukes and have the russian or chinese retaliate?

also during the china/vietnam border war. no, china couldnt risk use nukes on vietnam either cos russia was involved. russia amass troops to the china's northern border and sent battle ships to the coast of vietnam just incase china was thinking of attacking from the sea.

btw: china never used fighter or bombers aircraft against vietnam cos she knew about the sam missiles.
 
Last edited:
The Roman legions marched on sandals not unlike the soldier pictured above. And I imagine it's a heck of a lot easier to dry your feet out then boots and socks walking through swampy jungle. Less protection against venomous biting things, but their are tradeoffs with both footwear and firearms.
 
Murray 3-D said:
Ur on drugs if u honestly think a super power like the United States, Russia or China couldnt win a serious war against a Nation like Vietnam if they really wanted to. Most of the wars that have occurred since the World Wars have basically been political pet projects and humanitarian crusades. Wars that are easy to walk away from (relatively speaking) when the costs start to out weigh the benefits.
Click to expand...

The issue with that is, that if the US nuked North Vietnam, it would really be no big win, because they would kill millions of civilians which they claimed to be protecting from communism.

The radiation would also kill their allies and anyone else within the nuke's distance.
Another problem is that the enemy could not be clearly identified as they would blend with the rest of the population....so after a hit and run type of attack, the US soldierdls would chase after the attackers just to find couple of farmers in a rice fiels with no signs of weapons enywhere.
This is where all kinds of civilian massacres took place, but the effect on the NV guerilla was still minimal...this would only make them look bad in the international stage and eventually they were forced to withdraw.

I heard some analyst once explain this in a simple way:
I don't remember the exact quote, so I will paraphrase:

In the conventional war, you destroy the enemies infrastructure and the enemy will buckle under pressure...in places like Afghanistan or Vietnam, there is no infrastructure (or very little, usually confined to few bigger cities).
There are hardly any roads, hospitals, power grids, factories etc...there is nothing to destroy and unless the enemy is holding a rifle, you can't tell him apart from a civilian.

How do you fight a war like that?
 
Curtton said:
lol... really? more than twice the bombs were dropped in the vietnam war than the all the bombs dropped in ww2. it had no effect.

the US air force suffered heavy losses. the russian sam missiles were deadly.



i think you are. its a cold war, it wasnt just small vietnam against big USA, it was also russia and china against USA but russia and china didnt want to do the dirty work so both sides got nukes so why would the US risk using nukes and have the russian or chinese retaliate?

also during the china/vietnam border war. no, china couldnt risk use nukes on vietnam either cos russia was involved. russia amass troops to the china's northern border and sent battle ships to the coast of vietnam just incase china was thinking of attacking from the sea.

btw: china never used fighter or bombers aircraft against vietnam cos she knew about the sam missiles.
Click to expand...

At what cost would these super powers win? They've got much to lose and would be forced to sacrifice far more than the smaller country. The soldiers fighting a guerilla war in their own back yard have a tremendous advantage. Sure, the states or China or Russia could eventually assert their agendas, but they would resemble the nation they sought to invade upon the wars completion. They would also lose tremendous support back home if they are still pretending to be democracies.
 
Curtton said:
lol... really? more than twice the bombs were dropped in the vietnam war than the all the bombs dropped in ww2. it had no effect.

the US air force suffered heavy losses. the russian sam missiles were deadly.



i think you are. its a cold war, it wasnt just small vietnam against big USA, it was also russia and china against USA but russia and china didnt want to do the dirty work so both sides got nukes so why would the US risk using nukes and have the russian or chinese retaliate?

also during the china/vietnam border war. no, china couldnt risk use nukes on vietnam either cos russia was involved. russia amass troops to the china's northern border and sent battle ships to the coast of vietnam just incase china was thinking of attacking from the sea.

btw: china never used fighter or bombers aircraft against vietnam cos she knew about the sam missiles.
Click to expand...

Yah so it was basically a political pet project created by the United States government to stop the spread of Communism. Unmotivated drafted soldiers, no public support back home and the entire outside world watching and criticising while the US fights a desperate enemy that isnt playing by the rules of the world. The US was basically fighting with their hands tied. So to say that North Vietnam... aka " a bunch of rice farmers " can defeat a nation like America isnt a fair statement. And i personally find it disrespectful to the Veterans of that war.
 
Murray 3-D said:
Ur on drugs if u honestly think a super power like the United States, Russia or China couldnt win a serious war against a Nation like Vietnam if they really wanted to. Most of the wars that have occurred since the World Wars have basically been political pet projects and humanitarian crusades. Wars that are easy to walk away from (relatively speaking) when the costs start to out weigh the benefits.
Click to expand...


The highlighted above statement of yours is the very definition of why proxy wars in the end, are lost. Vietnam and to a lessor extent Afghanistan are notably different. In the formers case the US owned the local government, had the local government of South Vietnam troops in the field along with 550,000 US troops. In addition the US Airforce and Navy were engaged. They still lost. The nuclear option was not possible given and almost guaranteed exchange on the US homeland by China or more likely Russia.

Fast forward to Afghanistan. Not quite the same situation but the same result as the Russians had and the Brits before them. Read what you wrote and apply the highlighted sentence to the three nations involved.

What you might have referenced was Iraq where an overwhelming force in Iraq1 defeated an under armed force on the4 battlefield, The war ended and the US backed coalition won the day in about a day. Iraq 2 differed because Bush2 was off to nation building. The Iraq army such as it was lost to an overwhelming force, a new government was installed by "the people" and the rest is history.

In both Vietnam and in Afghanistan there never was a way to "win". Win what? The only thing both these wars accomplished was to wound and kill a large number of US and NATO young men for nothing. Absolutely nothing and if your generation and those younger have not learned this lesson by now then they certainly will repeat it and that my friend would be a tragedy.

Had Bush heeded history he might have bombed the bejeesus out of Afghanistan in retaliation to 911 and declared victory. Instead he carried on with land troops then declared victory a bit early and in the end the Taliban will return to their country.

BTW no, I am not on crack.

Take Care

Bob
ps It wasn't rice farmers who won the war it was some of the best Generals of their era who won the war. Unfortunately they were located in North Vietnam at the time. No one ever disrespects warriors who go to war for their countries. Win or lose.
 
Last edited:
Canuck44 said:
The highlighted above statement of yours is the very definition of why proxy wars in the end, are lost. Vietnam and to a lessor extent Afghanistan are notably different. In the formers case the US owned the local government, had the local government of South Vietnam troops in the field along with 550,000 US troops. In addition the US Airforce and Navy were engaged. They still lost. The nuclear option was not possible given and almost guaranteed exchange on the US homeland by China or more likely Russia.

Fast forward to Afghanistan. Not quite the same situation but the same result as the Russians had and the Brits before them. Read what you wrote and apply the highlighted sentence to the three nations involved.

What you might have referenced was Iraq where an overwhelming force in Iraq1 defeated an under armed force on the4 battlefield, The war ended and the US backed coalition won the day in about a day. Iraq 2 differed because Bush2 was off to nation building. The Iraq army such as it was lost to an overwhelming force, a new government was installed by "the people" and the rest is history.

In both Vietnam and in Afghanistan there never was a way to "win". Win what? The only thing both these wars accomplished was to wound and kill a large number of US and NATO young men for nothing. Absolutely nothing and if your generation and those younger have not learned this lesson by now then they certainly will repeat it and that my friend would be a tragedy.

Had Bush heeded history he might have bombed the bejeesus out of Afghanistan in retaliation to 911 and declared victory. Instead he carried on with land troops then declared victory a bit early and in the end the Taliban will return to their country.

BTW no, I am not on crack.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

You and others keep messing my point. Which is that over and over again u hear people say that these countres can defeat these super powers simply because they won one of these "proxy wars" in the past. And what im saying is that ultimately, in a total war sense, like WW2 were the loser literally loses everything, where there is no pulling out..... a situation were history has kindov proven that rules of war go out the window; a super power like Russia, China or America would win. IMO You are on crack to think otherwise regarding this ^ haha.

And plus its disrespectful. People are implying that the US military was no better then a "bunch of rice farmers"....
 
Murray 3-D said:
You and others keep messing my point. Which is that over and over again u hear people say that these countres can defeat these super powers simply because they won one of these "proxy wars" in the past. And what im saying is that ultimately, in a total war sense, like WW2 were the loser literally loses everything, where there is no pulling out..... a situation were history has kindov proven that rules of war go out the window; a super power like Russia, China or America would win. IMO You are on crack to think otherwise regarding this ^ haha.

And plus its disrespectful. People are implying that the US military was no better then a "bunch of rice farmers"....
Click to expand...


Rice farmers with an end game they were willing to die for. Easily very underestimated.

The biggest mistake the US made in Viet Nam was that they went on the defensive, just the same as they did in Afghanistan. The original game plan for their armed forces is all about being an aggressive attacker. Example Kuwait.

When Trump turned the tables on the ISIL fighters and put them into defence mode, they crumbled.

What is it you have against rice farmers? They feed half the world.
 
Murray 3-D said:
Yah so it was basically a political pet project created by the United States government to stop the spread of Communism. Unmotivated drafted soldiers, no public support back home and the entire outside world watching and criticising while the US fights a desperate enemy that isnt playing by the rules of the world. The US was basically fighting with their hands tied. So to say that North Vietnam... aka " a bunch of rice farmers " can defeat a nation like America isnt a fair statement. And i personally find it disrespectful to the Veterans of that war.
Click to expand...

"rules of the world"? in war? lol. where is that written? must be the same place where it says you can use nuke but cant use guerrilla warfare.

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING, its not just vietnam against USA if it were then the outcome would be very different. hello??? its a proxy war. its a war the US couldnt win no matter how much bomb they drop or how much US lives were loss.

dont drag the veterans into this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Curtton said:
"rules of the world"? in war? lol. where is that written? must be the same place where it says you can nuke but cant use guerrilla warfare.

you are not listening, its not just vietnam against USA if it were then the outcome would be very different. hello??? its a proxy war. its a war the US couldnt win no matter how much bomb they drop or how much lives were loss.

dont drag the veterans into this discussion.
Click to expand...

Seriously off topic territory

Vietnam war would have been over immediately if rules of engagement were removed. Vietcong still required supplies to fight. Russian and Chinese ships were "offlimits" from attack in north vietnamese harbours. The US Navy finally mined the entrances to the harbours to stop arms getting in and were ordered by the US government to send in minesweepers to clear the routes.

The US army didn't lose one battle during the Vietnam war, yet still lost the war. 100% unwinnable with the rules of engagement.

It was an incredibly stupid war.

These ewok vs stormtrooper fables are always a good laugh :)
 
Thorsbear said:
Seriously off topic territory

Vietnam war would have been over immediately if rules of engagement were removed. Vietcong still required supplies to fight. Russian and Chinese ships were "offlimits" from attack in north vietnamese harbours. The US Navy finally mined the entrances to the harbours to stop arms getting in and were ordered by the US government to send in minesweepers to clear the routes.

The US army didn't lose one battle during the Vietnam war, yet still lost the war. 100% unwinnable with the rules of engagement.

It was an incredibly stupid war.

These ewok vs stormtrooper fables are always a good laugh :)
Click to expand...

even if they were not supplied by ships, supplies will still come by trucks from the chinese border down thru ho chi minh trail.
 
Curtton said:
"rules of the world"? in war? lol. where is that written?.
Click to expand...

Theres a reason why America dropped 7 million tons of explosive rather then 7 millions tons of Mustard gas onto the Vietcong. We all know that there are rules laid out for war, and many countries have the decency or at least try their hardest to conform to them...
 
Murray 3-D said:
Theres a reason why America dropped 7 million tons of explosive rather then 7 millions tons of Mustard gas onto the Vietcong. We all know that there are rules laid out for war, and many countries have the decency or at least try their hardest to conform to them...
Click to expand...

you dont know what you are talking about? why i even bother?

hello??? vietcong are south Vietnamese operating in the south against their own government. if the US used mustard gas it will also kill the general population, essentially gas the very people they came to save from communism.

also north vietnam, russia and china got mustard gas too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom