Ships are still horrible cold war era tech and the the ships themselves aren't to the standards of the west

the aircrafts aren't close

Guns defo go to the west, the AK is not as good as the M

Variety isn't always a good thing

as in it doesn't mean its good

I wanna post nsfw

@AwilAn no

Only gay nigger Jews don't like nsfw okay liberal @Doctor Anon

@sɪᴅɪsɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀᴇ#1456 I mean looking at soviet era and thinking modenr russian tanks are the same thing is just not true. Also the AK system is IMo better, because of what war demands mass prduction and ease of use. The variety im talking about is extra systems such as infantry support guns, or stationary guns the russians have some absurdly overpowered designs that just dwarf the US varients. Thing is they are meant to be defensive.

It generally depends the more I read, posts from vets of wars they describe the guns essentially as equal but very different. They make you fall in love with them but for different reasons.

f. Many cases of a stuck or jammed selector lever were
reported.
It was not possible to correlate the kind of lubricant or method of
lubrication with malfunctions, not was such correlation possible
with ammunition of a particular type or make.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953110.pdf

military report of the m14

also so why did AR's ue to jam why do they outpreform AK's now

because the older versions were not wha they are today, the tolerances were constantly tightened for example it explains both vietnam and afghanistan jams

they have various complex structures such as gas valves and all

this is vietnam war era

he was arguing that m14 was surperiour to ak

currently an AR only has to worry about duse getting into the trigger assembly. And dust getting into th gun as it cycles and in dusty enviorments this will happen. Hence why using heavy lube is recommended now

in teh vietnam era I would disagree, the idea was simply not developed enough at the time to be superior it took the AR some 30 years to essentially catch up, but the catching up it did built so much momentum that currently it supercedes the AK

but that is the old designs we have yet to see russias new design

ALSO turns out, the 5.56 is effective, and will cause MORE damage than the 7.62. HOWEVER this is dependant on barell length that the M platform originally had

when it became a carbine it simply became too weak, the reduced stoppage power was noted

Also fun fact in vietnam the AK's actually had more stoppage power and volume of fire than the Ar platform rifles,

so which rifle preformed better in the beggining as far as war and combatants -> AK,

After time? -> AR

Currently both rifles are apples to oranges this post literally sums it up

https://southfront.org/military-analysis-ar-vs-ak/

It's kinda a given though the M-16 used a 5.56 while the AK platforms used the larger 7.62

Personally I have experience with both platforms they are both pretty good but I prefer the AK platform because of how easy it is to use.

@ritasuma I said the M16

and the M16 is miles ahead

" Also the AK system is IMo better, because of what war demands mass prduction and ease of use. "

not really if the weapons are better

"The variety im talking about is extra systems such as infantry support guns, or stationary guns the russians have some absurdly overpowered designs that just dwarf the US varients. Thing is they are meant to be defensive. "
how so?

literally guns like 50 cal are from the usa

tank are find behind the west tho

i do agree
m16 is a lot better than the ak
but the AK is a lot easier to mass produce

HMGs can be used offensively as well. A German infantry squad during world war 2 practically revolved around the HMG.

depends the guys article demonstrates why vietnam era m16's werent up to par with the AK, basically it was a gun in its adolescents vs a gun i adulthood

caliber and generally minor issues tha tneeded fixing and tha tonly war could adress

yeah ak is easier to mass produced

these resulted in a superior weapon by the end of the conflict

AK