Imagine you have two great powers. One has a notably higher technological and scientific base than the other and a much better economy. Now, you would expect that the society with the higher tech base and better economy would produce better standard issue weapons than the lower tech, economically disadvantaged power, wouldn't you?

Well, this it usually a good assumption, but it's not always right. America was obviously better both in tecnhical and economic terms than the soviet union in the late 60's and early 70's, and yet, despite this, America's army had what may have been the worst standard issue infantry weapons ever made while the soviet military had one of the best.

The m-16A1 in generally regarded by all unbiased reviewers as probably the worst assault rifle ever made. It jammed frequently due to a complex and delicate firing mechanism and a poor choice for propellant, it's sights were very hard to adjust and it was a fairly fragile gun with a hollow plastic stock that easily shattered if used as a melee weapon. The M-16A1 was such a poor weapon that viet cong fighters refused to take it off the corpses of dead americans, many of whom died because the gun had failed. (One must remember that the VC were norotious scavengers, and even they turned up their noses at the original M-16.)

Later versions of the M-16 did redress some flaws, but even the current version of the M-16 is regarded as a poor relation to most assault rifles, like the FAL.

The soviets produced what is generally regarded as the best assault rifle ever made, the AK 47. It's simple, spacious firing mechanism makes jamming virtually unknown, it fires a heavier, deadlier round, it rarely needs cleaning and in close combat is deadly whether the bayonet or steel reinforced wood stock is used to strike with.

In fact, when the soves needed to upgrade their weapon after the M-16 was introduced, they simply produced the AK-74, a slight modification of the AK 47 that fired a smaller round allowing the soldier to carry more ammo.

Nations all over the world have imitated the AK. China uses a near identical model, and Israel reworked the design slightly and called it the Galil. Copies of the simple, rugged AK are made in many places, even those with third world tech and industry bases.

No one emulates the M-16...

America got stuck with the M-16 due to politics, incompetence and egos in the military plus a fair amount of corruption combined with some people just not being able to admit their nice idea on paper didn't work in reality.

So, when designing a world setting you can make things a little unusual, or even strange yet still realistic by having a high tech culture having weapons that are inferior to a lower tech, but more competent, less ego and bribery driven, one. It can make for some interesting situations, possibly involving the players trying to convinve 'TPTB" that the new weapon they've adopted sucks and needs to be replaced. (GOOD LUCK!!!)

Oh, the M-16 myth again. Yawn.

Worse, it´s the Ak-47 myth too!

Any mass-produced design has had problems when it first hit market and McNamara's decision to ship the M16A1 without cleaning kits, with inferior powder for the ammunition and without the chrome-lined bore and chamber and the forward-assist plunger that the Army itself requested (!) just made things worse.  The doctrinal decision to go with a caliber more suited to shooting squirrels than human beings (5.56 mm ~= .22) didn't make things any better

Less than a year after it reached active service in Vietnam, most of the faults had been rectified (apart from the choice of ammunition size which Western armed forces are still suffering with nearly fifty years later), which is pretty damn fast

However, if you put any assault rifle (not just the M-16) up against the absolute design classic that is the AK-47, it's going to come off second best in a number of categories, particularly ease of maintenance and reliability.  But it's precisely because it's a lower tech weapon with lower manufacturing tolerances and an older design that makes them more reliable and easier for an illiterate peasant to use and maintain

It's a trade-off.  The AK-47 is less accurate than a modern assault rifle (it's less accurate than the M16A1) and the round won't penetrate body armour

There's also the concept of doctrine.  The Soviet method was "a few million illiterate mujiks and Central Asian bumpkins mass firing in close infantry assault battles".  What the Ruskies experienced during the Great Patriotic War and the lessons learned from the Winter War with Finland; the latter experience was what introduced them to the advantages of handheld automatic fire during the assault when they encountered Finns using the Suomi submachinegun.

    The M-16 was designed with the US Army brass in mind who thought that their men would, you know, aim.  The direct gas impingement design of the M16 makes it very accurate...something that is not neccessarily irrelevant in combat.   I've read analyses of MOUT fighting in Iraq where the superior accuracy of the M16 and the marksmanship of American forces make them very deadly opponents when attacked by poorly-trained Iraqi guerrillas armed with the "better" AK.

     Personally, I prefer the AR-18.  As do many weapons designers--despite the AR-18's market failure, the combination of the Stoner bolt with a short-stroke piston system has had a marked effect on other weapons designers.  A lot of post M-16 design work incorporated these features.  Everything from the less than optimal SA80 to the successful H&K G36.

As I suspected, this thread is really a gun-fetishists discussion very thinly veiled as an RPG discussion.

If you boys want to compare the sizes of your respective Soldier of Fortune collection, you could have just done that in off-topic, you know...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I suspected, this thread is really a gun-fetishists discussion very thinly veiled as an RPG discussion.

If you boys want to compare the sizes of your respective Soldier of Fortune collection, you could have just done that in off-topic, you know...

RPGPundit

Yeah, but as long as we're jerking off to pictures of guns, put me down for a G36.

Well, to apply the OP's point to roleplaying (or geek stuff, at least)...

On Star Trek, the Federation's  phaser has always seemed to be a pretty poorly thought-out weapon. It's touted as grotesquely powerful (supposed to be able to vaporize huge quantities of rock; 650 meters cubed at 'setting 16'), but shootouts on the show always seem to involve people blasting away at one another from behind packing crates and boulders with no fear of taking a hit. Terrible ergonomics, no sights, trigger on top (with no guard), and about as menacing-looking as a DVD remote. But the Federation is one of the most technologically advanced powers in the setting.

The Bajorans, on the other hand, are presented as a much more primitive society. But they have guns which are shown just as effective as Starfleet's stuff, with much better design. The sidearm and rifle version both have trigger guards, they're 'pointable' like a conventional firearm, and the longarm actually has a stock.

So maybe Dominus Nox's point could be applied to this scenario. The Federation has a self-image as a force for peace, not conflict; explorers, not warriors. Maybe their weaponry design was a compromise, or even an afterthought. The Bajorans, on the other hand, have spent years fighting the Cardassians (who also have more ergonomic guns than Starfleet), so maybe their armament has evolved to be more functional under combat conditions.

Anyway, now that I've spent time debating Star Trek on the Internet, I'm gonna go punch myself in the nuts for about an hour, to normal back up.

Oh, and the Colt M1911A1 rules, fools! :cool:

I don't really see a big amount of discussion the very subject of this thread. Yes, societies with superior technology generally wouldn't neccesarily have developed better weapons. Yup. Sure. Nobody would say anything different. They probably would be able to make something better, but because of resource scarcity, one-sided reasearch or sheer pacifism they didn't.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I suspected, this thread is really a gun-fetishists discussion very thinly veiled as an RPG discussion.

Well this is what "mastercrafted weapons" and the like are about.  The average infantryman has an average weapon.  It's only Special Forces, Elites and other people who get to choose/customise/fine tune their own weapons who get the good stuff

As usual, pundy misses the point in his mindless rush to flame on me. From a gaming perspective the idea of a technically superior culture having inferior weapons could make for some interewsting game elements, as in "Why the hell are we losing to these primitive resistance fighters and their inferior weapons?" and the players are sent to find out, make a report and recommend changes to the 'advanced' military in order to improve preformance.

Of course when thety attack the weapons design they find themselves being smeared by the people who designed the weapon, the people who OKed it';s purchase, etc.


Oh, as to the "AK 47 myth" check out a new book called "AK-47: The gun that changed the face of war".

You may now resume your petty sniping despite the fact you have no ammo.

Quote from: Dominus NoxYou may now resume your petty sniping despite the fact you have no ammo.

Nox, Have you actually fired either weapon you so casually speak of with such authority....borrowed though it may be?


The Kalishnakov series rifles are superior only in the facts that they are easier to mass produce and will fire even after horrific abuse. These are good things for an infantry weapon, no doubt.   The bastards kick like mules and are horrifically inaccurate, facts to which I can attest from personal experience, while someone else pointed out they lack penetration with their larger ammo.  

The M16's flaws, as a series rather than a specific production model, are relatively minor. It is a maintanence hog, certainly. That isn't a minor issue for a 'feild weapon' to be sure.  The 5.56mm NATO standard ball round is hardly an intimidating round, particularly when backed by a crap load.  Any physics major could tell you that velocity is more important than mass when determining energy, but ballistics isn't just physics.   Thus the 5.56 is merely adequate.  That, however, IS only minor.  Most people stop fighting after they've been shot, fatally or not.  And if Vietnam taught us nothing, its that you can't win a war by killing all the enemy soldiers, there are always more.


As always the issue is more complex than your simple, semi-literate diatribe.  The AK series weapons are fine if you want million man armies swarming the enemy, the M16's are better for smaller, more highly trained armies. Guess which one the US likes to think it has?  



As a matter of intrest, both weapons are decades old, and neither is viewed as being in 'top form' right now.  There is only so much makeup and plastic surgery to keep these two MILF's of the gun world going.... making the catfighting sadly tragic.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I suspected, this thread is really a gun-fetishists discussion very thinly veiled as an RPG discussion.

If you boys want to compare the sizes of your respective Soldier of Fortune collection, you could have just done that in off-topic, you know...

RPGPundit

Yeah. I thought this thread was going be about alien races who relied too much on their superior tech but were wiped out by some some low tech barbarians.

Or strange fantastic magic like time/dream practised by enigmatic cults which had brought down their more flashy magic using brethren in some fantasy settings.

Regards,
David R

Well, what _is_ a superior weapon after all? Some technologically simpler weapons are probably better than more modern ones when the circumstances are right. The premise that better technology leads to an superior weapon by itself is rather ridiculous. And no society has a very straight "tech level" after all.

IIRC, the Germanic tribes had better swords than the Romans (they had better ore).

A spear is much simpler todo than a pattern-welded sword. But when stirrups come into play...

Don't bring a mono-knife to a rail-gunfight.

Quote from: David RYeah. I thought this thread was going be about alien races who relied too much on their superior tech but were wiped out by some some low tech barbarians.

Or strange fantastic magic like time/dream practised by enigmatic cults which had brought down their more flashy magic using brethren in some fantasy settings.

Regards,
David R

Yeah - I was thinking of High Crusade by Poul Anderson.

-clash