Top Ten Armies of today

I assure you that the M-16 will kill or wound a man quite nicely. Trust me on this one because it happens every day.
Did you miss the part of the ak-47 versus M-16 tests where they were comparing accuracy and the AK was so inaccurate they were unable to get the AK to even hit the target so they could measure how far it was hitting from the bullseye whereas the M-16 was very accurate?
I didn't see the same tests as you though if yo think that a 5.56 mm ball round will barely scratch 2 inches of pine. If you take cover behind 2 inches of pine and you are being fired at with an M-16 you will be very dead.

 

Guys,i wonder why most of you hate the M-16,i have handled the M-16 and find it to be accurate and rather reliable(though i am using the singapore version).The M-16 can penetrate small trees and even sheets of thin metal.I don't think that anyone can stand up and fire at after a bullet hits them considering how a bullet functions..and being a medic myself..i highly doubt those reports of people shooting back after being hit by a bullet

 

yeah i love the M-16 too. i've held it but never fired.

the AK-47 is not 'innacurate' so to speak... it just kicks so high that aiming straight is very hard. in single shot fire the AK is actually more accurate than the M-16 as its heavier round loses momentum slower

Also, the sight on the AK is not designed for long range shooting, so overall it is less accurate than the M-16 even though the mechanism itself is better suited to long ranges

 

If I may interject, comparing the SKS as being equal to an M-14 when it clearly isn't shows your lack of knowledge of military rifles, Grieg has also told you that what you believe regarding the tanks of US Reserve formations is wrong.

A very quick Google search comes up with the website for the US National Guard, and a quick browse of that site provides the following:

http://www.arng.army.mil/about_us/equip ... gory_id=56

Guess what tank the National Guard use, and it isn't the M-60...

The only M-60s still in use are modified engineering vehicles (Bridgelayers), they are not in use as tanks and in any case recycling old AFVs for Engineering Vehicles is commonplace, the Royal Engineers were still using Centurion AVREs well into the late 1990s, they may well still be using some now.

 

Please correct false information or supply new information where it is lacking, instead of judging a poster by the contents of his post. A simple correctional post by your hand with some sources provided will surely imply that the person you reacted to was in the wrong, so you do not need to point this out explicitly.

 

OK, lets see... my statement word for word was "USA still has m-60 tanks for its national guard." You said...

So i guess you could say i was right
if i said the M-60 was the US reserve MBT, then i guess you should've corrected me... but i didnt: perhaps you should pay a little more attention in future

As for the simionov and the M-14... eh, matter of opinion i guess...
i prefer the SKS because it is 2kg lighter, very cheap, and very durable.
it is essentially a semi-automatic AK-47
the M-14 is heavier, fragile and harder to maintain, and its full-auto capability is next to useless because it becomes uncontrollable and prone to jamming

 

Your statement does not clarify that the M60s in use are highly specialized armoured vehicles that are not used for tank combat. One cannot gather from your words that you mean to say only that the National Guard still uses the chassis of an obsolete tank for specific purposes; instead, it is most easily interpreted in the way Grieg and Simon did. If you meant otherwise, you should have made that more clear.

 

No Smeghead, I would not say you are right at all because these M-60s are not in use as tanks as you stated in your original post, your words, my emphasis:

They are not tanks they are engineering vehicles, you could use the same faulty logic to show that front line British regular units were still using Centurion tanks in the late 1990s. The tank in use with the National Guard is the Abrams, better than that available to Russian reservists, equally the standard of training to US regulars is higher than that of Russian regulars, so it follows that the standard of training of US Reservists is probably higher than that of Russian Reservists.

Prefering a weapon doesn't make it equal, I have not read of any particular problems with the reliability of the M-14 and in any case the two weapons are very different in capabilities, it's very different from the AK47/M as well being longer, lighter and having only 1/3rd magazine capacity.

Comparing the two.
M-14
Round : 7.62x51mm
Length : 44 inches
Empty Weight : 3.88kg
Magazine : 20
RoF : 750 rpm

SKS
Round : 7.62x39mm
Length : 40.2 inches
Empty Weight : 3.86kg
Magazine : 10
RoF : Semi Auto Only

So the M-14 is more powerful, has a better rate of fire (I admit here I made an error originally suggesting that the M-14 was semi-auto only, it is in fact selective fire), twice the magazine capacity but is slightly longer and slightly heavier (Empty weight loaded weight will be greater due to a larger magazine and larger more powerful rounds), it is overall a much more potent battle rifle.

Lastly I would appreciate it before making sarcastic little comments in future if you paid a little more attention to wording of your own posts. Engineering vehicles are not Tanks.

 

I'm sorry Simonr i didnt mean to be sarcastic... but understand i am defensive from getting the "your lack of knowlegde" lecture simply for having a different opinion...

if my wording, or preference for the SKS really bothers you we can talk about somethign else

i'm sure everyone will be happy to hear that Russian reserves still use many T-62's, though remember the CIS doesnt really have much use for a reserve force and so it is smaller than the US's

 

I don't mind you having a different opinion (Afterall, it'd be a dull forum if we all agreed with each other all the time), I just don't believe it is bourne out by the facts at hand, certainly not regarding the capabilities and equipment of the US Reservists. Personally I do not believe the SKS is even comparable to the M-14 since they are different weapons from slightly different eras.

The SKS was the first weapon to use the Soviet intermediate M1943 round, it was really more comparable to the M-1 Carbine and was closer (I believe) in terms of introduction (Timescale) to the M-1 carbine than the M-14.

Compared to the M-1 Carbine it shows up quite favourably, a more potent round probably about comparable or slightly superior in accuracy/range but a bit heavier, so that's personally how I regard the SKS, a Carbine somewhere between a Battle Rifle and an Assault Rifle but neither one nor the other.

The M-14 on the other hand is a proper Battle Rifle, full power cartridge meaning greater range, power and accuracy, selective fire, larger magazine.

Different weapons designed with different aims in mind, so it's a bit Apples and Oranges to be comparing the two. If I had to go to war as an infantryman, I'd rather have an M-14 than an SKS for the reasons above, again though that's personal choice.

 

off-topic, but it's nice to see you back Grieg.

 

It is not really that off topic because evan in the 70s+ the Simonov SKS was handed down to the 2nd line troops, ie. transport units.

 

1.USA (Most military expirances of any country out there with an Army & most state of the art weapons in its arsenal.)
2.England
3.France
4.China
5.Germany
6.Russia
7.Canada
8.India
9.Italy
10.Pakistan


(numbers 5 - 10 I cant really put for sure so....)

 

I can tell you the Canadian aresenal is much of the same as the American.

C7, C8, C9 = M16, M4, Saw 249
The main sidearm is the Browning HI-power 9mm


Incase yuo were interested I am putting link to the Canadian Department of Defence site. Already on the page to browse weapons.
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_2.asp


By the way what is the standard rifle of the Italian army?

 

[/quote]


They use Beretta AR70/90

http://www.berettadefence.com/INGLESE/default_fucili_militari70_90.htm

 

Thank you Ricky. I never really left it was just that for awhile my work computer network was blocking this site( for some unknown reason).
I missed the banter here.

 

thats why I wasnt sure about 5-10 thank you

 

TD it is very ahrd to try to arrange things in the way you have since many armies ahve similaior exuipment or equipment of the same standard and performace.

Ie. Australia, USA, Canada share have basically the same weapons for their soldiers.

 

But equipment is only a small fraction of the effectiveness of an army. Morale, training, numbers, leadership and command structure are important things we can judge as well. If we count only equipment then it is very hard to imagine Indian fighter pilots in planes from the 50s and 60s defeating the US air force in thier state-of-the-art fighters, yet they did in a training duel a few years ago. Similarly, in a pre-event simulation/estimate of the Iraq war, the "Iraqi" commander used such controversial and surprising tactics that he actually managed to defeat the US Navy in the Gulf.

Taking all other factors into consideration, the US still comes out on top because it is the largest, best equipped, most extensively supported and most experienced fighting force in existence today, as far as I know. As a second I would rank the Israeli army.

 

Interesting that everybody hails the US as the 'most experienced' fighting force in the world.

I'm not sure I agree, though I'm also not exactly sure of my 'facts', so hey.

In the last 5 years, America has been to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has participated in a wide number of UN peacekeeping actions.

But so has England, and Spain, and Denmark, and a few others.

Most nations in the UN have performed peacekeeping duties, (admittedly not the same as true combat experience) and there are several nations out there (Israel being the most obvious example) where the army still plays a big part in keeping order, not unlike Britain & Northern Ireland 20 years ago.

America has committed more troops to war in the last 5 years, but she has more troops to commit. I wonder what proportion of American soldiers have been in combat, compared to the proportion of Dutch soldiers, for example.