Units with stupid weapon choices

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Burnsaber

But that's -5 to attack! How could they hit anything?

With practice!

As for original topic, I think about the most stupid unit in the game to be Avyssians with paired morningstars! Of course, you may argue that they wear heavy armor which neutralizes worst...

[Gregstrom]

...and of course various bodies still consider large rocks to be a potential major threat to continued human existence. Now that's obsolescence!

[Agema]

Originally Posted by Wrana

I meant needle ones - such as Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle had. I don't remember any "sword" bayonets except French ones - and these were used in trench warfare quite handily - without affixing them to rifles!
An offtopic question:
Agema, how well current M-16/M-4 plastic details withstand rough handling and/or using them in hand-to-hand? And another one - what are you supposed to do in case when dirt/dust gets into the barrel of any of these? (these appeared in recent off-line discussion with friends)

Sword bayonets were also standard for the British forces in WWI. They were designed to work as a short sword (or long knife) separate from the gun, they were about 45-60cm (18-24 inches) in length with point and blade. I don't much about needle bayonets to be honest, I assume they were sword bayonets without the blade.

It seems inconceivable to me that the plastic details of assault rifles can't manage rough handling. I don't know about the M4/16, but the British SA-80 can be used fine in melee and bayonet charges and the plastic bits don't fall off. I don't own a gun so I'm not well up on cleaning barrels, but there will be plenty of Googleable sites telling you all about it.

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Agema

Sword bayonets were also standard for the British forces in WWI. They were designed to work as a short sword (or long knife) separate from the gun, they were about 45-60cm (18-24 inches) in length with point and blade. I don't much about needle bayonets to be honest, I assume they were sword bayonets without the blade.

Thanks, didn't remember this. Needle-types were standart in earlier era but retained their deadliness, of course. Their business part looks like stiletto or epee blade flowing into "neck" joining it with a ring around the barrell:

==========#=
+-------------
(I don't have picture on hand, so you can look it up - plenty of Russian troops photos at both world wars will show these). Ii was forbidden at Hague convention iirc, but main reason, I think, was that they were less useful at trenches than in open field

Originally Posted by Agema

It seems inconceivable to me that the plastic details of assault rifles can't manage rough handling. I don't know about the M4/16, but the British SA-80 can be used fine in melee and bayonet charges and the plastic bits don't fall off. I don't own a gun so I'm not well up on cleaning barrels, but there will be plenty of Googleable sites telling you all about it.

I wanted info from actual user, not from plenty of sites!
As for plastic butts - there were some grumbling on this at least for early M-16s. Still, plastics got better in the interim, so maybe modern ones are all right... (as for inconceivable - one guy who served in Israeli army got his rifle's (M-16) butt break in pieces when it was dropped on the floor! Of course, the rifle wasn't any new so probably it won't matter often.)

[Humakty]

Well, I didn't knew the USA army was well known for it's assault rifle. Rather giant bombers/cannons/missiles. M16 is rather obsolete nowadays, but weren't there a new rifle for USA army on the works ?

[Agema]

Basic gun designs are usually good for decades with small upgrades. The current US one is better than the still-capable AK-47 (although much more expensive). I think often nations chuck money at new weapon designs not because they're obsolete per se, but as backdoor subsidising for home industry now that it's mostly illegal under world trade rules to just give companies money.

[Humakty]

The AK 47 is impending replacement in the russian army at least (by the AKR 74 I think), and it seemed to me the USA had similar plans regarding their good ol' gun. And it would be usefull indeed, as having a gun with less recoil, more precision, more power, more fiability is always good for the inevitable infantry clash that tend to happen during wars. (I mean serious ones, not police operations in already crushed territories)

Not that it won't make some money to various people, but I think those guys do make more money producing their one shot missiles (which have a limited 'lifetime', how practical).

[Agema]

AK-74s have been standard issue since the 1970s, although they are adaptations of the AK-47 and most people would probably assume they are AK-47s. There's a new one coming out soon from Russia I believe, but it's another adaptation of the current gun rather than a whole new design.

[P3D]

The biggest problem with current service rifles is that armies have some reluctance to switch from 5.56/5.45 to a slightly heavier bullet that'd give some punch against body armor. Although against unarmored insurgents that do not know the concept of cover it won't matter much.

[Wrana]

Yes, AK-47 was already replaced in Soviet times. Actually, twice. And yes, the problem of caliber is an interesting one. It's not only an armor penetration problem - small calibers are somewhat lacking in stopping power and lighter bullet is easier affected by atmospheric conditions. On the other hand, less weight and more flat traectory... I'm not sure, but the actual solution may be some intermediate caliber. Of course, there are many reasons to not changing it!