Yeah, but also absolutely not. Whether you have an accurate rifle with suppressors, electronics and good optics may well decide individual engagements. Now you might think at the macro level that a war is just a series of individual engagements, but the more you zoom out the bigger role other factors play and the rifle loses importance.

>>64011876 (OP)
More than is often stated. The retards who say infantry could still be armed with bolt actions are completely wrong. Weapons that enable fire and maneuver in conjunction with crew served weapons that provide fire superiority and suppression allow enemies to be fixed and destroyed on offensives. It matters less if its ak74 vs m4. Optics are absolutely force multipliers. Lights and lasers enable low light shooting. On the defensive you still want weapons that allow maneuver so you are able to adapt to various situations such as repositions, counter attacks, and retreats. Small arms and their accessories are so low cost it pays to outfit warriors with quality kit to give them any advantage. We saw how mobiks with mosins fared against better equipped adversaries. While small arms have probably never been the highest casualty inflicting tool on the battle field they are still the foundation of the kill chain. Think the food pyramid flipped upside down.

>>64011876 (OP)
Go to Trijicon, see the quote. That thing the USMC calls an RCO on am M16 is tits

+ IR laser /NODs combo

>>64011876 (OP)
Sometimes, but it's a marginal thing.

Good accessory choices can win you an engagement which could win you an engagement which could win a campaign which could win a war. However, we're now 4 Maybes deep so we might as well say "Once Upon a Time an individual weapon won a war."

A better way of thinking is to look at the availability of weapon mods and the expertise of how they're used. Are there night vision scopes available for night fighting? 2x scopes for open fields? Reflex sights for close combat? Does the infantry know when to use them and when not to?
>>64011876 (OP)
This, basically.
>>64011903
Isn't that more about entire production runs of weapons rather than individual weapons?

>>64012003
>This, basically.
was for>>64011885

>>64012003
> 2x scopes for open fields
Nigga this aint pubg, this board needs flags
> Does the infantry know when to use them and when not to
Yeah, its not that difficult. In the mountains of Afghanistan a 2-10 or 3-18 is alot better than a comp m4

>>64012003
>2x scopes for open fields
Anything less than 4x on a magnified optic is cope and yes this means standalone magnifiers too.

>>64012215
>>64012188
You really think Uncle Sam is going to pay for anything better than a 2x? I'm surprised we even had 1.5x ACOGs for GWOT.

>>64012967
What? Acogs are 4x, its standard. I dont think we even have 1.5x acogs.

Last time was 1866
And even before then it was a historical exception; it really hasn't mattered in most cases since the iron age

>>64012967
You are retarded. Ta44 was 4x. Machineguns sometimes got the 6x. Some weirdos in the airforce and some m249s got the ta11 which was 3.5x
>>64013006
Yeah there are 2 different 1.5x acogs, neither are very good

>>64011903
>The retards who say infantry could still be armed with bolt actions are completely wrong.
Do people actually think that? That idea should have died with Imperial Japan.

>>64012967
>more magnification equals more money
No it does not, the magnification options in a scope model are all usually the same price unless the company you’re buying from are shysters. You just need to move the lenses around a bit or use lenses with different focal lengths. It’s not like an 8x scope has twice the amount of shit in it as a 4x. If it did then variable optics wouldn’t work.

>>64013045
As disappointed as I am to be wrong, I'm satisfied that scopes are more common now. 20 years ago it was rare to see Any optic not in the hands of snipers.

>>64011876 (OP)
>Does a different individual weapons really make much differences in the war
if the leadership knows how to leverage what they have, so for example, Russia has historically failed at this again and again, they always find out they're horribly outdated or obsoleted, some ruler then eventually gets around to pushing massive upgrades and investments through.. few decades later everything is neglected and rusted to shit again and no one alive even knows how to properly use the gear in the field, the weapons become inherited technology from ancient civilization only known in legends

>>64013174
Again not really in atleast western militaries? Uk used the susat, canada mass issued elcans, usa issued acogs and aimpoints in 2005, and many euro countries issued m68s. Augs had the carry handle optics built in for the aussies and austrians that used those. Do you always talk about shit you have no idea what your talking about?

>>64013213
Mind, the US started to issue ACOGs in 2005 and those were the shitty 1.5x mentioned before.

>>64013225
No they fucking were not they were ta02s. I was there. You are dumb as fuck. No 1.5x acog was ever issued

>>64011903
>>64013059
I'd be willing to bet money on veteran WWI troops with bolt-actons, maxim guns and battleship shore bombardment support winning against arabs with drones and machine guns

>>64013225
You arnt dumb for not knowing, you are dumb for doubling down on being incorrect
https://www.trijicon.com/our-story/trijicon-acog-history
1.5x and 2x models were never adopted despite being made early on

It can make a splash if it gives you new capabilities, but I don't think the details matter that much in the grand scheme of things. Things like night vision let you pull off shit you couldn't without it and optics and suppressors would definitely be a force multiplier, but a push button or paddle mag release or a more or less ergonomic safety switch isn't going to make a very big wave either way.

>>64013235
Those same arabs would have suicide boats or ashms and would btfo the ww1 troops

>>64013235
>>64013059
This apples to oranges retard is saying it itt

>>64013293
can't launch suicide boats if your presence is not tolerated near the shore

>>64013262
>1995
>Special Forces Adoption
Do you really think that armies are made of special forces?

>>64013334
20 years ago is 2005 dumbass when over 100,000 were bought by the army. Holy fuck simple math and reading comprehension is hard

>>64013334
>>64013348
Even before then m68s were on every m4 going into combat.

>>64013362
Im even leaving out eotechs and m145 optics as well which were all in common use during the invasion of iraq on 2003