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

I'd still take the AK, if you measure the amount of dirt you put in action on both rifles the AR will jam up much sooner. Also the AR will stop running after less rounds in a battle where sustained fire in needed for 1000's of rounds without cleaning or service to keep yourself alive.

If your gun stops firing in a firefight, you better be able to retreat via cover or your position will be overrun and your dead.
 
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...

My maternal grandfather told me they always gave them navy rum before they went over the top in WWI, I guess that helped to deaden the horror of it. He ended up getting gassed and then was bombed while recovering in a field hospital, however even though he was badly wounded he still lived until 95
 
Brian46 said:
AR will stop running after less rounds in a battle where sustained fire in needed for 1000's of rounds without cleaning or service to keep yourself alive.
Click to expand...

Moot point. You need a gun with a quick change barrel if you're doing that. The AK will combust and the gas tube on an AR will eventually fail if you're firing thousands of rounds of "sustained fire" by which I assume would be automatic. Never mind the fact that soldiers don't carry much more than 300 rounds of ammo (yes, 10 mags). If the point wasn't moot enough, doesn't ballistic radio have an SR-15 with 20,000+ rounds without lube/cleaning through it still chugging along? Any well built AR can shoot more rounds without cleaning and still function than you can afford to buy in the first place so I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

That Vietnam era myth just won't die.
 
I'll see your quick change barrel and raise you a water jacket. :)

Your point is a good one though. Trying to imply that any rifle is capable of sustained fire is erroneous.

The fact is both the AR and the AK are solid, dependable designs. However the AK is not near as impervious to harm and abuse that the Internet "experts" say, nor is the AR as fragile.
 
yohann160 said:
Moot point. You need a gun with a quick change barrel if you're doing that. The AK will combust and the gas tube on an AR will eventually fail if you're firing thousands of rounds of "sustained fire" by which I assume would be automatic. Never mind the fact that soldiers don't carry much more than 300 rounds of ammo (yes, 10 mags). If the point wasn't moot enough, doesn't ballistic radio have an SR-15 with 20,000+ rounds without lube/cleaning through it still chugging along? Any well built AR can shoot more rounds without cleaning and still function than you can afford to buy in the first place so I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

That Vietnam era myth just won't die.
Click to expand...
vietnam? I am talking first hand accounts from people who survived the war in Bosnia. Just everyday people forced to survive not soldiers
 
Juster said:
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.
Click to expand...

For the most part the Germans had the best technology in every way with ICBM's, Cruise missiles, smart bombs, superior armour, stealth airplanes, Jets and Rocket planes with swept wings, airplanes with forward swept wings, the fastest prop planes, the best armed planes, submarines, superior pre-Dreadnaughts and Dreadnaught warships, RPGs and shaped charges, Optics on their fighting vehicles and small arms, weapons with the highest rate of fire, assault rifles, cannons with the highest velocity and range.

Yes no A bomb, but that would have come very shortly. Dam they even had rifles that could shoot around corners.
 
Last edited:
Brian46 said:
vietnam? I am talking first hand accounts from people who survived the war in Bosnia. Just everyday people forced to survive not soldiers
Click to expand...

The point being, although a firefight may consume more ammo than one typically carries, I'd venture it wouldn't be thousands of rounds often. Am I to understand you know someone who was an everyday person often involved in firefights consuming 1000 +/- rounds of ammo in Bosnia? Just curious, I'd have thought a an armed civilian would be squirting off a mag as they dashed across the street and that's about it. If your standing and fighting your more or less a soldier. I would also suggest it's not too often you would have to fire 1k rounds and not have had some opportunity to do some maint.

As for the "Test", I'd put money on it that the "mud" had just the right properties to disable the AK so easily. Would it be correct to assume the AK is more susceptible to certain types of debris, while the AR is more likely to fail from propellant issues, i.e. ammunition that uses "dirty" powder.
 
rhino62 said:
My maternal grandfather told me they always gave them navy rum before they went over the top in WWI, I guess that helped to deaden the horror of it. He ended up getting gassed and then was bombed while recovering in a field hospital, however even though he was badly wounded he still lived until 95
Click to expand...

I can't image the difficulty to run that 300m - the ground would be essentially a giant mud pit, littered with water filled craters , dead bodies and pieces and pieces of obstacles.

Good thing we have tanks and IFVs, we will never have to fight this way again.
 
Sqr said:
For the most part the Germans had the best technology in every way with ICBM's, Cruise missiles, smart bombs, superior armour, stealth airplanes, Jets and Rocket planes with swept wings, airplanes with forward swept wings, the fastest prop planes, the best armed planes, submarines, superior pre-Dreadnaughts and Dreadnaught warships, RPGs and shaped charges, Optics on their fighting vehicles and small arms, weapons with the highest rate of fire, assault rifles, cannons with the highest velocity and range.

Yes no A bomb, but that would have come very shortly. Dam they even had rifles that could shoot around corners.
Click to expand...
The allies had all the tech the Germans had, and the sense not to rely on it, or use it at all. The Mig-9 copied a German engine, and it wasn't great. The Mig 15 engines were copied from Rolls Royce, and were hugely successful.
 
Juster said:
The allies had all the tech the Germans had, and the sense not to rely on it, or use it at all. The Mig-9 copied a German engine, and it wasn't great. The Mig 15 engines were copied from Rolls Royce, and were hugely successful.
Click to expand...


Not really as they where usually in catchup mode through out the conflict. The allies shear numbers overwhelmed the Axis military, having said that the U. S. Did have some good technologies compared to the Stone Age Russians and wooden ship Brits.
 
greentips said:
I can't image the difficulty to run that 300m - the ground would be essentially a giant mud pit, littered with water filled craters , dead bodies and pieces and pieces of obstacles.

Good thing we have tanks and IFVs, we will never have to fight this way again.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't have to worry about running it. :p They walked it and got cut down by the thousands. What a waste of a generation.
 
redshooter said:
The point being, although a firefight may consume more ammo than one typically carries, I'd venture it wouldn't be thousands of rounds often. Am I to understand you know someone who was an everyday person often involved in firefights consuming 1000 +/- rounds of ammo in Bosnia? Just curious, I'd have thought a an armed civilian would be squirting off a mag as they dashed across the street and that's about it. If your standing and fighting your more or less a soldier. I would also suggest it's not too often you would have to fire 1k rounds and not have had some opportunity to do some maint.
Click to expand...
people stayed and fought for their lives/what was theirs unlike what we see today in Syria. Did they have military training and weapons, yes, in that part of the world when they grew up it was mandatory. Were they fighting as part of any organised military during the war, No they fought to survive and keep their families safe. People were rounded up and slaughtered, if you did not fight you were dead.

It was an ethnic war with multiple factions exterminating people town after town
 
Doesn't matter if the German has tactical advantage here and there with a few more advanced weapons.

The allies broke their code long time ago. More advanced tactical weapons have no use in the big picture if the enemies know your movements, locations and other good intel of your force.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom