Why Would I Take an AR Rather than an AK into WWI

Melnibonean

Melnibonean

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
177   0   0
Location
The Orion Arm
From Ian, over at Forgotten Weapons.

Interesting


[youtube]jn17MwQT8DI[/youtube]




AK Mud Test

[youtube]DX73uXs3xGU[/youtube]



AR Mud Test

[youtube]YAneTFiz5WU[/youtube]
 
Quality vs Quantity, expensive AR vs Cheap AK, another argument for spending more and getting more
 
desporterizer said:
Didn't work out to well for the Germans in WW2. There is a point where quantity overwhelms quality.
Click to expand...

When it's most of the world vs you, it's a tough battle. There is no doubt Germany had the vastly superior technology, we had more resources and untouched factories churning out the low end junk.

Local.
 
Local said:
When it's most of the world vs you, it's a tough battle. There is no doubt Germany had the vastly superior technology, we had more resources and untouched factories churning out the low end junk.

Local.
Click to expand...

The Soviet had some cruder but better equipment than the German. For exemple the SVT40 was better than both G41(W) and G41(M) (and arguably the G/K 43), to the point of German official issuing "user manual" for captured SVT40. Also the T34 which had superior armor and gun when they first encounter the Nazi. The German upped their game to match the T34. The Soviet did the same and toward the end of the war the German didn't have the chance to keep their standard because of scarce ressources. More complex doesn't mean better is something the German learned the hard way (have you ever seen an STG44 fire control group?).
 
Ive always thought the ARs are more reliable in mud cause its so sealed. Would like to see some extreme cold testing AR vs AK , let snow melt into the bolts and then re freeze again , i think the AK will win that one .
 
It doesn't really matter, mostly like you would have got mowed down by MGs in that 300m from your trench to their trench. If you ever get there, a 9mm SMG, a bag of grenades and a machete would do the job in that trench.

Even if everyone was armed with an AR15 or AK in WW1, the war would still be fought in pretty much the same way. The difference between WW1 and WW2 is armour. The war we know today is possible because of mobility and communication.
 
greentips said:
It doesn't really matter, mostly like you would have got mowed down by MGs in that 300m from your trench to their trench. If you ever get there, a 9mm SMG, a bag of grenades and a machete would do the job in that trench.

Even if everyone was armed with an AR15 or AK in WW1, the war would still be fought in pretty much the same way. The difference between WW1 and WW2 is armour. The war we know today is possible because of mobility and communication.
Click to expand...

yep better body armor, better battlefield medicine and better comms would be the reason we are more efficient at not dying. Better tactics play a large role there as well.
 
It looks like the gas impingement system of the AR tends to blow the receiver clean of mud on the rearward stroke whereas the AK doesn't and so the bolt lugs jam on the forward stroke and lockup.

I'd say the AR would be better in snow and ice too, provided the cover is closed. It's a nice feature and has a purpose... to keep crud out.
 
greentips said:
It doesn't really matter, mostly like you would have got mowed down by MGs in that 300m from your trench to their trench. If you ever get there, a 9mm SMG, a bag of grenades and a machete would do the job in that trench.

Even if everyone was armed with an AR15 or AK in WW1, the war would still be fought in pretty much the same way. The difference between WW1 and WW2 is armour. The war we know today is possible because of mobility and communication.
Click to expand...

armor, cas, focus on mobility, i.e. if youre not moving move, and leading by tasks as opposed to orders letting the officers in close contact to the ennemy issue the battle orders and leaving hq deal with overall strategy.
 
Local said:
When it's most of the world vs you, it's a tough battle. There is no doubt Germany had the vastly superior technology, we had more resources and untouched factories churning out the low end junk.

Local.
Click to expand...
The Allies had superior technology, such as the atom bomb. Germany made the mistake of implementing its high end technology toward the end of the war. The Soviets, Brits and Americans had all sorts of prototypes they chose not to put into production. A lot of the heavy German armoured vehicles had junk drivetrains, leaving half of them disabled on any given day.
Otto Carius' 10 Jagdtigers of 2nd Company, Panzerjagerabteilung 512 destroyed one American tank for one Jagdtiger lost to combat, one lost to friendly fire, and eight others lost to breakdown or destroyed by their crews. Carius was not a fan of the Jagdtiger at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom