BF2S Forums Wow our poor troops have to put up with this

They are Norwegian troops, i saw the flag on one of their arms.  I guess its time to replace the L85 then.

Maybe it was the A1 version??  I know the A1 was renowned for that and they ironed out a lot of the problems with the A2.

Last edited by KILLSWITCH (2007-05-16 18:05:39)

KILLSWITCH wrote:

They are Norwegian troops, i saw the flag on one of their arms.  I guess its time to replace the L85 then.

Maybe it was the A1 version??  I know the A1 was renowned for that and they ironed out a lot of the problems with the A2.

Yeah I'm pretty sure of that too, but did the A2 sort out the problem witht he magazine? Problem is theres so much bullshit it will take ages to sort out.

S.Lythberg wrote:

thats a l85a2, just like in SF, and they do have problems with jamming, but the AK-47 is a legend among legends for misfiring and jamming, especially in desert climates, so the insurgents are probably dealing with the same problem

Its the L85A1 in special forces.

wah1188 wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

thats a l85a2, just like in SF, and they do have problems with jamming, but the AK-47 is a legend among legends for misfiring and jamming, especially in desert climates, so the insurgents are probably dealing with the same problem

The AK-47 was a legend among ledgends for its reliability and hardiness.

Indeed but I've read its not very accurate over 300 yards/metres compared to the new rifles.

Then again, in modern times, battle's mostly focused on CQB, so I don't really think inaccuracy over longer ranges is an issue here.

Of course, my American mind can't comprehend a distance of 300 meters. I like how only America (not even England!) uses the English measurement system.

deadmonkiefart wrote:

The AK-47 was a legend among ledgends for its reliability and hardiness.

maybe in 1947, but the m1 and Kar98 that other armies were using at the time were almost 50 years old at the time.

Compared to modern weapons, the AK-47 is unreliable, inaccurate, and unwieldly.  (it's really heavy compared to US guns)

S.Lythberg wrote:

deadmonkiefart wrote:

The AK-47 was a legend among ledgends for its reliability and hardiness.

maybe in 1947, but the m1 and Kar98 that other armies were using at the time were almost 50 years old at the time.

Compared to modern weapons, the AK-47 is unreliable, inaccurate, and unwieldly.  (it's really heavy compared to US guns)

It may be considered inaccurate and unwieldly, but even by today's standards, it is very reliable.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

deadmonkiefart wrote:

The AK-47 was a legend among ledgends for its reliability and hardiness.

maybe in 1947, but the m1 and Kar98 that other armies were using at the time were almost 50 years old at the time.

Compared to modern weapons, the AK-47 is unreliable, inaccurate, and unwieldly.  (it's really heavy compared to US guns)

It may be considered inaccurate and unwieldly, but even by today's standards, it is very reliable.

as much as id hate to admit it.  the kalashnikov is known for eats reliablity.  but more importantly, for its ease of use.  its an inaccurate peice of shit that a 5 year old can maintain.  not a soldiers weapon.

i guess the fact that the ak-47 has been in more battles and has killed more ppl than any gun ever has no baring here..
sure the newer guns are lighter and more accurate than the sloppy mechanism of the ak.  but this sloppy mech is what allows the ak to shoot underwater.. and or in dusty dirty wet invironments.. if I had ak and a m4a1 infront of me in a hostile situation and both were caked with mud and dirt,  id surly pick the ak over the m4.  the m4 has to be spotless in order to insure it to fire everytime because of its close tolerences. thus is why the military is so big on having clean well oiled weapons.

S.Lythberg wrote:

Its extremely easy to clear if it jams, which may make it reliable, but it jams far more often than the m16, and that means the terrorist gets to see what his brains look like.

Nope, it can be filled with sand, and fired without jamming after just shaking it off. Soviet divers used to carry them for defense on land, and were able to fire them after merely emptying the saltwater out the reviever and barrel.
The M16, on the other hand, is a touchy weapon. Very accurate in the right hands, but has to be cleaned religiously many times a day whether it's fired or not. The slightest bit of sand can foul up the mechanism.

Terrorists lose firefights because they are pretty much untrained. Point, spray, and pray, quite literally. On the other side, the Americans are highly trained, using accurate weaponry, and are actually aiming before they fire.
And taking cover.
And actually care whether they survive the firefight.
And have handy heavy machineguns mounted on pretty much everything just in case they're needed. (and because having a big gun around does wonders for morale)

The AK can take much more punishmen than the M-16 and still operate, and It requires much much much less maintenance than m-16.

Skorpy-chan wrote:

wah1188 wrote:

The m16 and m4 jam because of the firing mechanism right so how much different is their firing mechanism from the ak?

Extremely. The AK has a piston with loose tolerances. The M16 has a system where the gases from the firing move the parts directly, and thus they accumulate grime. The tight tolerance to ensure accuracy doesen't help.

What do you mean by tolerance? As in care and maintenance?

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

wah1188 wrote:

Skorpy-chan wrote:

Extremely. The AK has a piston with loose tolerances. The M16 has a system where the gases from the firing move the parts directly, and thus they accumulate grime. The tight tolerance to ensure accuracy doesen't help.

What do you mean by tolerance? As in care and maintenance?

What did I say something dumb?