Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Top Ten Armies of today

Discussion in 'Non-World War 2 History' started by Castelot, Nov 19, 2004.

  1. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    The war has not really ended officially either -- there is just a "cease-fire". :lol:

    However, North Korea invaded and were repelled with heavy losses... Sounds like defeat to me.
     
  2. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    As far as I know, the aim of the action was not to reunite Korea, but merely to stop the North Korean invasion. This was achieved, hence the war was won by the UN.
     
  3. corpcasselbury

    corpcasselbury New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High Point, North Carolina, USA
    via TanksinWW2
    True, although unification of the two Koreas was almost accomplished by the UN forces.
     
  4. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    When did that happen I really dont know much about that war.
     
  5. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
  6. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    true russia may use outdated weapons sometimes and its reserves may be less-trained than theur regulars, but the same goes for the USA.

    the simonov was after all only invented during the cold war, and just as the russians produced such obsolete weaponry, so did the USA... (e.g. M-14's and garands in vietnam = similar guns to siminov SKS)

    i highly doubt USA reserves are any better than russian reserves. USA still has m-60 tanks for its national guard.

    also its good to see some nominations for Australia :)
    you guys know how small our army is right? :p
     
  7. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Hmmm....

    But then Vietnam was 40-odd years ago, and the situation has rather changed since then. Does America still use any obsolete weaponry today?

    Well, IIRC National Guard units are currently deployed in Iraq/Afghanistan, so they can't be that bad... I grant you that they will never be quite as effective as full-time regulars, but (like the British TA) the National Guard seems eminently capable of standing in for the average regular unit.
    As for the equipment, while the National Guard is better off than it once was, it still has to wait for the good stuff to trickle down from the regular army, same as any reserve force. However, any M-60s still in service are so heavily modified that, while obsolete by the standard of the M1A2 (or any other contemporary MBT), they are a mile above their equivalent second-line MBT in the Russian units (mostly T-62s. T-72s if you are lucky, T-55s if you are very unlucky).

    lol - well, it all depends how you define 'best' - if you mean 'for its size', then yeah, why not. If you mean 'in an all-out war', then only if nobody bothers with Australia, and they can step up at the end of the war and take over. :grin:
     
  8. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Oh, by the way, welcome aboard smeghead, nice to see you! :D
     
  9. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The SKS is not really that similar at all. The M-14 and Garand fired a full power rifle cartridge whereas the SKS was a semi-auto only firing the same intermediate cartridge as the AK47/AKM. A similar weapon would have been a semi-auto only weapon in 5.56mm NATO.

    The AK is still widely used, the SKS is no where near as prolific and according to a post from Ricky a while back the M-14 is back in favour in Iraq so from the point of view of the blokes actually using it the M-14 doesn't seem to be regarded as obsolete around 40 years after Vietnam.
     
  10. Ricky

    Ricky Active Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I'd forgotten about that!

    Here is the post:

    http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3232
     
  11. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    i always thought (on paper at least) a t-55 was better than a stock m-60
    both with decent crews (and both cold-war era)

    does anyone know any armies who still use siminov SKS's? i didnt think it was such a bad gun (no worse than the M-14)
    its just that it was unfortunate enough to be superceded by the AK47 which it was designed to complement
     
  12. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    The SKS fired an intermediate cartridge, the M-14 fired a full power cartridge. Both were semi auto, the M-14 had a 20 shot detachable box, the SKS a 10 shot detachable box.

    Why do you think it was "no worse" when the rate of fire was no better, the magazine capacity half and the stopping power less? The only respects in which the SKS is better is that it is marginally shorter, empty weights are about even.

    The SKS might be considered equal to the M-1 carbine, but it is no way the equal to the M-14.
     
  13. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Lol Smeghead,if the Australian Army is small...then the Singapore Army must be tiny
     
  14. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
  15. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Where are you getting your information about the US military reserves?



    Your lack of knowledge about military rifles is equalled by the lack of knowledge about the US military. Reserve units have Abrams MBTs not M-60s. No Garands in Vietnam and the M-14 is held in high regard even today with elite units like the SEALS who can have any weapon they desire (including foreign) choosing it for some operations.
     
  16. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    Thought they use the M-21 because it is the same basic gun excpet more modernized.
     
  17. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Gunter:
    I've read stories about G.I.s in the Vietnam War that smashed the stocks of their M-16s against trees... in the hopes of being issued a replacement M-14. Firing a high-power .308 cal round, when you hit an enemy, he stayed where he laid when shot with an M-14 aka M1A.

    The same couldn't always be said of the 5.56 M-16 round. Some argued it was better suited to the shorter engagement distances in which the Vietnam War was fought. Others argued the round would deflect if it struck foliage on the way to the target. Such was never a critisism against the M-14. The only negative I can think of concerning firing an M-14 is when firing in fully-auto mode, the barrel will climb with each shot.

    If I was doing house-to-house fighting, I think I'd opt for a shotgun firing double-00 buckshot. Just because a weapon has been around for awhile doesn't mean it's any less lethal than when first introduced.

    Today, the Springfield Armory has brought the SOCOM II a "sporter-ized" M1A... or M-14 into production, with a shorter carbine-style barrel and a picatinny rail fore-end chambered in .308 caliber.

    Latest news is the US military and H&K are working to develop a replacement to the M-16. It is called the XM8. It can be configured by the soldier as a carbine, rifle or designated marksman/squad automatic weapon by simply switching-out various components. Look for a new cartridge as well, using a .30 cal Remington case in 6.8x43 or roughly similar to the .270 civilian chamberings. Yes, a replacement to the M-14/M4... which incidently has been in service for nearly 4 decades now.

    Tim
     
  18. Kaiser phpbb3

    Kaiser phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    We don't even know what's our MBT!
    And yeah,our infantry is finally starting to modernised.But sometimes,being in the service myself,i can get disillusioned at times about our fighting capability..but i'll fight all right
     
  19. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I though some (A very small number very early on) M1 Garand and M1 Carbines were used by US forces, but I cannot be sure of where I heard that or the reliability of the source so I stand ready to be corrected...
     
  20. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    I surely do hope that the M-16 gets replaced, I have heard that tests ahve been done on the XM-8 already which had good results but I think they claimed they werent good enough.

    It is true that the M16 round would deflect off foliage, it was poroven to em during a comparison on the discovery chanel when they compared the m16 to teh Ak47 and they said you cannot compare the two.

    It was 2, 2inch thick pieces of dense wood pine?
    The M-16 bearly made a mark while teh Ak went right thru both blocks of wood. Than it was two cinder blocks, I think the M16 did nothing or craxck the first block and the Ak obviously went thru both.

    I also think that the XM-8 is the only weapon being developed as a replacement for the agin M-16.

    If you go to http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm the source most of us use for weapons, who can find a couple like the HK416, but I am sure there are much more than trying to replace the M-16 than on this site. It is a really good source :cool:
     

Share This Page