Thread 64212540

What are the criteria for determining that a weapon is obsolete?
Literally any assault rifle from the 1960s still generates the same damage as a current one. For example, the FN FAL is still a reliable and powerful rifle. Why should an army replace it? I think it's just a scam by the military industry.

>>64212540 (OP)
If something does its niche better.

>>64212540 (OP)
It doesn't have good optics mounting solutions. That alone is enough to make it obsolete

>>64212540 (OP)
Maybe try looking up the definition first. Obsolete does not mean useless, it generally means that something has been replaced with something else. Not even necessarily something better, just replaced. There's no reason for governments, with their practically infinite money to not push for more advanced equipment whenever possible. The "we could do better, but let's not" mindset is how you get into the mess that the Russians are in. "Why issue rifles with picatinny and optics? Iron sights still work!"

>>64212540 (OP)
>What are the criteria for determining that a weapon is obsolete?
not used outside of a recreational context

VHS is, from a home video persepctive, obsolete
no one will ever use it to watch movies unless its because they pefer low-quality video quality
the FN FAL is not obsolete but it is obsolescent, every former adopter of the FAL has switched to a intermediate caliber weapon and very few active duty personnel use it for reasons other than "we have no choice", but it does still exist on the books as something that could be used if the need arises

the musket is truly obsolete, no army would ever use it even in desperation, none are left in armory stocks except for ceremonial use, and there is no situation where one would have a use case

>>64212579
>no army would ever use it even in desperation
Give the Russians some time

>>64212569
The Ukrainian war demonstrated that World War I weapons are still lethal, and infantry warfare is the least sophisticated part of warfare.

>>64212586
As another anon has said, the musket is obsolete, but you're still not getting up from a .75 caliber hole in your chest

>>64212540 (OP)
The Swedes have done a very nice job updating their G3 clone the HK3 and 4 into a more modern battle rifle

>>64212593
It's the best version of the G3, a very nice G3, but at the end of the day it's still a G3 and this was only done because of cost.

>>64212575
Drone warfare has rendered infantry warfare useless. Ukraine still practices trench assaults where stupid optical sights are unnecessary.

>>64212586
getting run through with a sword is lethal, but no one would seriously say a katana is anything but ceremonnial

there are situations where the gap between a WW1 vickers gun and a modern M240 is small, like firing from a tripod
but the M240 is better in just about every single situation except for prolonged fire, which is why the vickers gun is considered obsolete

>>64212540 (OP)
FAL/G3/SLR were replaced because they were very large rifles which was a problem as the conflicts of the era tended to take place in jungles or urban environments where the range wasn't needed and the size was a liability + armored vehicles and helicopters of the time had tiny crew compartments making the size a liability a second time + soldiers were themselves a bit short making the size a liability a third time (Australia produced a cutdown SLR precisely for this)

>>64212599
>Drone warfare has rendered infantry warfare useless
despite the fact that huge numbers of infantry are still deployed?
or that the drones are a supporting element for the infantry in its deplopyment?

>>64212598
> but at the end of the day it's still a G3 and this was only done because of cost.

>>64212599
My point is, that the Russians applied that logic to literally everything. "Why update our MBT? Its cannon still makes people dead!" You should always be updating everything at all times, because you never know what is going to be the deciding factor in the future. If two men are shooting at each other at 300 yards, my money is on the guy with the optic. You don't know when that optic will matter, but you know it will eventually. Imagine how many ragheads got smoked in Afghanistan just because of optics.

>>64212616
They do not have the capacity

>>64212616
There were concerns that Marines were executing surrendered combatants in Fallujah due to the amount that were found dead with bullet wounds to the head after they started being issued ACOGs

>>64212540 (OP)
>What are the criteria for determining that a weapon is obsolete?
Incapable of performing its function. When discussing 'assault rifle', following functions are essential to modern warfare. Lack of them calls for immediate replacement. Modernization efforts are undertaken only if funds are minimal, and they're always a half-measure that greatly increases weight.

Functions are:
>Ability to mount night fighting equipment: IR sight, IR laser and flashlight, NV-compatible red dot.
>Ability to mount daytime optics
>Ability to adjust the stock to shoot while wearing an assault vest
>Ability to hold zero on all precision devices <- Many modernization efforts fail here.
>Ability to mount all these devices without turning cheekwield into neckwield <- Another point of failure for modernization.
>QD sling attachment points
>Attachment of QD sound suppressor
>Compact enough to fit in the cab of a Civilian SUV without preventing disembarking

>>64212616
>My point is, that the Russians applied that logic to literally everything.
It's even funnier when you remember that Russia replaced their main rifle for a modern one.

>>64212540 (OP)
Damage is not the criteria for almost anything; a stick can do sufficient damage to a man to kill him. It doesn't even need the pointiness upgrade! A SCHV round has a 50% larger mag capacity and less recoil, specifically, enough less recoil to enable rapid aimed fire instead of picking one or the other. That is a gunfight winning advantage as demonstrated in Vietnam where Americans with M14s repeatedly lost firefights against NVA and VC with AK47s.

>>64212623
But I DID eat breakfast this morning.

>>64212599
>Ukraine still practices trench assaults where stupid optical sights are unnecessary
Optics are actually better than iron sights in literally all use cases, and you're outing yourself as noguns.

>>64212540 (OP)
>What are the criteria for determining that a weapon is obsolete?
"will it serve the role?"
>>64212599
>Drone warfare has rendered infantry warfare useless.
to date drones have never decided the outcome of a war

>>64212678
Reading Ukrainian telegram has pushed my disdain for larpers to an all-time peak. Larpers will say:
- infantry are obsolete
- training for infantry doesn't matter because they're cannon fodder
- nobody needs optics
- drones are the ultimate weapon
- artillery is overrated
and justify this with the Ukrainian war.

Meanwhile the actual fucking Ukrainians with combat experience in this war are saying the absolute opposite! Artillery is the god. Artillery is superior to drones. Drones are slow and weak and inaccurate and unreliable. Optics are the minimum standard. Infantry are always needed and training them is key.

It's tiresome, guys.

>>64212599
>Drone warfare has rendered infantry warfare useless
What does this even mean? Infantry warfare useless?

>Pike and shot armies rendered pike armies useless because people stopped using them
>Musket armies rendered pike and and shot armies useless because people stopped using them
>Rifled muskets armies rendered smoothbore musket armies useless because people stopped using them
>Bolt action rifles armies rendered rifled musket armies useless because people stopped using them
>Automatic rifle armies rendered bolt action armies useless because people stopped using them.

All these examples are clear evolution or even revolution in warfare. Have anyone stopped using infantry because of drones? Is there a drone revolution that has made infantry useless? Every single military, insurgent or rebel group use infantry as the core of their fighting force.

>>64212635
I believe it. Just from adding a chinksun dot to my AR, I increased my hits on a steel silhouette at 200 yards from 30% to 80%. God, I hate AR iron sights.

>>64212710
I think most people don't realize combat footage biases towards drone strikes since, you know, artillery shells don't normally come with cameras strapped to them.

>>64212599
Iron sights are basically useless unless you're literally 10 feet from what you're trying to shoot.

>>64212731
Simo Häyhä famously killed +500 soviets with a bolt-action rifle using ironsights with additional +200 kills using SMG with ironsights

>>64212731
I wouldn't say that, but they are significantly worse than a red dot.

>>64212540 (OP)
The FN FAL is not very reliable, and its heavy and not compatible with modern accessories.

>>64212739
Simo Hayha was famously the only one dude out of the entire finnish force that could do it.

>>64212575
Presumably it is better since you replaced it. If the thing you replaced is worse than the thing it replaces then the old thing is not obsolete

>>64212755
do you need an ambulance or something?

>>64212599
>Drone warfare has rendered infantry warfare useless

You’re an idiot.

>>64212540 (OP)
>generates the same damage

>>64212757
It could just mean more suited to current circumstances thoughever
If the sun disappeared, then sunscreen would become obsolete

>>64212739
Its more accurate further if its on a rifle for sure but its completely useless on a shorter barrel or if the target starts moving.

Simo killed most of them while they were eating/sleeping.

>>64212758
No, but you could use one after that sick own I dropped on your pseud ass.

>>64212705
2022 Armenian-Azeribaijan border conflict in which Azeris used Turkish drones to decimate Armenian tanks.
>to date drones haven't decided the outcome of a war
this is like saying "jets didn't decide the outcome of WW2", it's completely fucking irrelevant when you consider thats the direction technological development was going and only five years later it DID decide a conflict (in the air)

>>64212540 (OP)
>>64212540 (OP)
Ask yourself why all the armies who used the FAL replaced it smoothbrain. These guns are obsolete.

>>64212739
What's more believable, that Simo killed call of duty amounts of people with a bolt action rifle and a fucking SMG (Really, 200 people with an SMG in close quarters without getting killed?), or that the Finns are lying because, why wouldn't they lie? The fact that people believe this is fucking mindblowing.

>>64212739
Simo was a literal rifle savant and the optics of the time were fixed magnification scopes. Ask any shooter today if they'd take irons over optics. I'm sure Simo would have liked a red dot for his SMG.

>>64212569
Any Picatinny dust cover? It holds zero fine, I mean there were several optics mounting solutions for it before the pic rail existed, and all of them were just custom dust covers and shit that mounted directly onto them

>What are the criteria for determining that a weapon is obsolete?
it's used in ukraine
>>64212586
>The Ukrainian war demonstrated that World War I weapons are still lethal
so is a kitchen knife you brain dead retard

>>64212586
>The Ukrainian war demonstrated that World War I weapons are still lethal
that means we should still use WW1 tanks you fucking retard?

>>64212591
>>64212579
The comparison with the musket isn't fair. They should compare rifles from the 1960s with those of today.
Don't forget that even with the latest technology, they have been defeated on the battlefield against irregular troops with AKS from the 1960s.

>>64213058
>>64213050
Why do you insult, are you a niggs who can't dialogue?

>>64213141
>They should compare rifles from the 1960s with those of today.
you are a retard
guns didn't become obsolete you fucking retard, they just got replaced by better versions
>>64213146
you are a retard

>>64212599
This just isn’t true at all. It’s greatly augmented infantry combat, and will continue to augment infantry combat, much in the same way planes and tanks did, but it’ll never render them useless as infantry has near endless use cases

>>64213141
>The comparison with the musket isn't fair.
The musket is an example of an obsolete weapon, literally no country uses it even as a reserve weapon

The FN FAL is an example of an obsolescent weapon
It isnt so old that it cant be used, but its been largely relegated to reserves and has been replaced by intermediate weapons in first-rate units
Use case is essentially "we can't afford something better"

Obsolete means literally no use outside of recreation
Obsolescent means still used but already being phased out

>>64213170
>Obsolete means literally no use
No, it means replaced. Not useless. Dictionaries are free online, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to look this up.

>>64212981
Still susceptible to shifts even if they're not as bad as the AK ones
>KWARS

>>64212540 (OP)
Id imagine replacing them would be cheaper than to keep replacing worn out barrels/bolts/recievers/ect. The ability to mount optics, night fighting equipment like lasers and thermals that hold zero is also good too. Fals are also heavy and not very accurate compared to more modern rifles.

>>64212599
>Drone warfare has rendered infantry warfare useless

Retard that browses Ukraine generals and reddit providing his expert assesment of modern warfare thanks to gore videos. Thank you for your insightful post!

>>64212540 (OP)
the FAL follows the doctrine of larger calibers, which is not as well suited for the engagements that actually happen in real life as smaller calibers. It's also lacking in modularity, which deprives the soldier of enablers that help him perform better and in more situations.

>>64212540 (OP)
>the FN FAL is still a reliable and powerful rifle. Why should an army replace it?
Weight, no one's arguing that tree-ol-hate is a bad round but if you can carry twice as many 5.56 mags then outside of niche roles more is generally better. Also the rifle itself is heavier too especially in the front.

Also this >>64212569
Ukraine is taking whatever they can get including M551 Sheridan's which are great ATV's but are basically aluminum coffins by today's standards. Also the photo in your OP pic is likely the territorial defense force rather than one of the more elite units who get first dibs on whatever the fuck the rest of Eastern Europe dumps there.

>>64212981
If you can afford new dust covers but more importantly optics that are grunt proof you might as well just upgrade to 1964 era tech and slowly shift your FAL's to less intense but still important roles that don't need the latest and greatest.

>>64213689
>Ukraine is taking whatever they can get including M551 Sheridan's which are great ATV
what? Do meant m1117? There is no way ukraine has any sheridans lmao

>>64213297
It really isn't. The cover (that would be the original dust cover, pic rail covers typically have some sort of tensioning system or are otherwise tight as fuck like the ARMS cover) moves a fraction of an inch back and forth, there's no play up or down. I have never seen any failures to repeat zero.

In trench warfare a FAL is perfectly fine. The lighter weapon and ammo stuff matters more for high mobility tactics.

>>64212739
>>64212755
>>64212844
Simo had a target rich environment of retarded soviet troops pushed forwards in an environment they couldn't operate in and died in their thousands to the elements alone.

>>64214379
close combat was where full-sized rifle rounds were at their worst
greater recoil meant less full-auto control, and full-auto is what decides close combat
all-AK armed Egyptians were constantly achieving fire superiority over the FAL and uzi equipped israelis, and was a major factor in the israeli decision to develop the galil

the only time full-sized rifles were at an advantage over intermediate rifles was in the desert where 500-600m sightlines were common
and they were fighting against an enemy that focused on harassment who would simply hang back and take potshots rather than actually attempt to close in

>>64214379
It's actually a bit shit for trenches because of the limited magazine capacity, sheer bulk and utterly overkill round
Of course you can get 30 round L4A1 mags with the lugs filed down for metric guns (or just use the originals if applicable), I own one mag like that

>>64212739
Yeah and he's famous due to the fact that's incredibly difficult to do with iron sights. If iron sights were effective at those ranges than it wouldn't be notable that he used them.

>>64213146
>he says while speaking broken english

>>64214392
>>64214393
Majority of trench warfare is shooting out of your trench at an enemy. A FAL works perfect for shooting across no mans land. If your theories were correct then we wouldn't have seen the 9x39 rifles abandoned almost immediately.

>>64212540 (OP)
The old school FAL is just overly long and heavy. DSA has made 16" carbine versions with shortened gas systems and titanium parts (including receivers) to reduce weight.

https://youtu.be/u0fK9Hi5SA4

>>64212540 (OP)
>For example, the FN FAL is still a reliable and powerful rifle. Why should an army replace it?
40-50 old clapped out rifles need replacing, and if the tooling is no longer around you may as well get something newer

>>64214414
The 9x39 is a really piddly round because it's intended for suppressed secret squirrel work instead of infantry combat.
Plus I doubt they had a shit ton of ammo for them, so not really comparable

>>64214414
>If your theories were correct then we wouldn't have seen the 9x39 rifles abandoned almost immediately.
the FAL was dropped for the galil and M16 right after they met enemy AKs in close combat
the M14 was dropped for the M16 after meeting the AK in the jungle
full-sized rifles were absolutely destroyed by intermediate rifles in every situation that wasnt long range shooting
the M16 itself was proving too long for close combat, with the M4 mostly taking over