/k/ - Weapons

>>510365

>>How long do firefights last?

Depends on scale as well as skill.

The less people involved, the less complex it is and the shorter the firefight. One on one firefights last seconds at best and minutes at most.

>>How lethal are they?

Guns in general? Not very. If there's a hospital nearby you have a very good chance of surviving unless your vitals are hit. You're much more likely to be incapacitated, if not fallen unconscious.

Pistols are incredibly unreliable for killing, barring specific (un)lucky circumstances.

>>What are the most important components to winning a firefight?

Depends.

Either quick reaction times or just overwhelming the enemy with sheer force(numbers and/or firepower).

>>When is full auto used?

Suppressing fire to keep the enemy from peeking out. For serious usage it's uncontrollable and inaccurate.

>>510365

>How long do firefights last?

Depends, are we talking police or military? Police a few seconds to a few minutes, military IIRC the standard combat load (210 rounds) for a soldier carries enough for somewhere between a 15 and 30min firefight, but "in contact" situations last hours, sometimes days if both sides have the ammo and the manpower, because soldiers mostly play hide and seek.

>How lethal are they?

Depends. Far less than people thinks is a good rule of thought though.

>What are the most important components to winning a firefight?

Depends again, police is gonna be quick reaction, military: maneuver and firepower.

>When is full auto used?

Never. It's useful for suppressing fire in or CQC but de facto it's never for professionally trained people, because having better control for doing both of those isn't really compensated by a higher rpm.

But then the world is full of dangerous amateurs.

>What are the most important components to winning a firefight?

1: Being armed

>>510474

>if the bradley is more heavily armed than the stryker and can carry infantry as well, what is the point of the stryker?

We've already got them, they still basically work, they're cheaper, we've already got huge numbers of men trained to use them, they're made in [name of Senator]'s State/he owes the company a favour/wants that company to contribute to his reelection fund, [name of Senior Officer] likes them/wants a job with the company in a few years.

Take your pick.

>>510477

>they still basically work, they're cheaper, we've already got huge numbers of men trained to use them

So it's purely a logistics consideration and not a functional one?

>>510478

Mostly Logistics, purchasing, political and cost reasons, but there's a functional issues as well. If a Stryker costs $1.42 million and the Bradley costs $3.16 million then for tasks or missions where you don't need the extra armaments of the Bradley it's a better use of the budget to use the Stryker. The Stryker can also carry more men (9 instead of 6/7). Even if you've got a military budget twice the size of the USA it's not infinite and there's always someone else who wants every penny spent on your unit.

>>510474

There is no point to the Stryker.

In theory they're cheaper (to buy but mostly to maintain, maintenance costs is the big problem in military acquisition, acquisition itself isn't no matter the price tag as long it's not completely ridiculous) lighter (easier to move around, guzzle less fuel while still having good off road capabilities), can fit in to planes, etc…

In practice since they're none of those things, there is no point to them, but that's because Strykers are terrible APCs, not because of what APCs are meant to be in general.

>>510492

>Just how different are rifle platoons/sections organized between countries?

Very different. In fact it often varies inside an army.

For example in France a section (platoon equivalent) is 3x combat groups (section equivalent) but de facto in ops it's beefed up to 4x (because France at the end of the cold war included ATGM teams inside regular platoons so as a result there is a shortage of hands 'in the fight" when not fighting tanks/ifvs).

Also Cold war a french platoon was much closer to a Soviet platoon than the US equivalent.

>How much doctrinal variance do you get between the regional/world power(s)?

A lot, unless they're going for a full brainless c/c of US/Soviet with vehicles and everything, the minute they start tailoring to their particulars (equipment, terrains, etc…) and actual operational needs the articulation tends to change. Which is why it can change within an army itself depending circumstances, it's not necessarily rigid.

Though it never really change number wise (what changes are soldiers roles and how they work together) the lowest echelon is always 1+1 then always (((1+1)+(1+1))+((1+1)+(1+1))) you can add people but never subtract from that. Which is why a platoon/company are almost always a multiple of 8, no matter how they're organized.

At least in armies of European descent/inspiration (which is most of them) since the 2nd century BC…

>>510484

they protect against IEDs.

>>510538

Stryker is more vulnerable to IED than Bradley.

>>510548

I wonder, isn't this new Russian family of vehicles a good evolution of the APC concept? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_%28AFV_family%29 After all, APCs evolved to replace trucks with armoured vehicles, and these are armoured trucks. So they seem to be ideal to haul lots of people close to the first line.

>>510538

No they don't. It's preferred that they're not used for route clearance specifically because an IED that wouldn't do too much harm to an RG or a Husky could potentially kill several soldiers in a Stryker, or at the very least fuck it up to the point it's completely unusable.

>>510556

Russians are spreading very wide, I think theyre trying to cover all their bases and complete as many prototypes as possible before they run out of money. The theory is being poor wont matter in a total war scenario, they can enter serial production of any prototype as long as they can use the technicians who made it as a production core to build their workforce around.

The truck thing is probably for "wilder" areas where mud and cold and that medicine you left 700km behind you is waaaaaaay more of a threat than an enemy bullet, so sloping or fitting in a helicopter isnt a goal.

>>510583

Nah it's a priority thing, they can't outfit enough units in time for WWIII.

So units in West and North command will get T-14 tanks, T-15 BMPs ans K-16/K-17 BTRs (but in the meantime they get T-90A, BMP-3, BTR-82A/90) units in South command get Typhoons for their BTRs and have to do with modernized BMP-2 and T-72 for a while.

Which is why Typhoons is a family (Kamaz typhoon and Ural typhoons) they ordered several hundreds from both already, because they need to massively issue stuff before WWIII and try and replace most of the BTR-60/70 that are still in active units and are seriously obsolete.

Russia doesn't really have money issues, they have production issues.

>>510702

Agree, that fits in with what I said esp production. They lack the funding to retain manpower, which leads to factories shutting down, and entire mil-industrial complex grinding.

But ignoring money/production issues, theyre probably the most ready country for WWIII in the world, I dont think thats their concern.

Right now Russia is more concerned with surviving until WWIII, with a NON-NUCLEAR power having a capability to invade. Currently Japan in the kurils, Turkey in black sea. Or even with Israel throwing a wrench into Russian pipeline plans.

>>510365

>How long do firefights last?

Usually? Seconds. It's pretty rare that both sides are aware of each other before the shooting starts and are using cover. There are exceptions, but not a ton.

>How lethal are they?

Considering that very small pieces of metal are flying around at speeds that tear through the human body, pretty lethal.

>What are the most important components to winning a firefight?

Overwhelming your enemy via surprise, aggression, and volume of accurate fire.

>When is full auto used?

Do some reading. There are a lot of ways to employ automatic fire, with submachine guns, machine guns, automatic rifles, automatic grenade launchers, etc. The short answer is when a concentrated volume of fire is more important than the accuracy of individual shots.

If you want to learn about guns, make sure it's something you not only can afford to purchase, but something you can afford to shoot, even if it's a .22. Kill and clean some small game and you'll start to understand what bullets do to meat.

>>510365

One thing I hate about fiction is their misunderstanding of scale.

It seems rifle fights in media description always happen at insanely close ranges (100 yards) when in reality the average engagement range with WWII iron sights is 350 yards, and with Modern optics 700 yards.

Basically imagine sitting on a hill, and a bunch of guys on the next hill start shooting at you.

I guess you cant see their faces at that range so hollywood hates.

>>510365

Answer me this Strelok, how can /tg/ regulary come to based /k/ and play as humans on warfuckinghamer series and still be a bunch of center-left redditors?

>>514805

Not OP, but my first imageboard experience was 4/tg/ back in 2009. /tg/ is a far-reaching hobby with (as much as I hate to use the word) a very diverse fanbase, more so than any other niche, nerdy hobby. My current DM is a navy vet who took his 2e D&D books to Afghanistan and ran games for his buddies.

>>510365

Can you expand on what you're doing? Are you looking at a squad wargame? RPG? Are you homebrewing, or spicing up a premade system?