There are some Ukrainian copies of the tavor (Fort 221) floating around, but they Are really rare. Saw some early war photos with them but I haven’t seen any in months .
The difference between their performances, if it exists, was probably not a significant contributor to the war's outcome. Not to mention that Ukraine still uses AK variants, mostly.
This, really. Rifles don't matter that much. The vast majority of casualties from today to 1914 has been artillery. It's turning out even more so today the use of artillery and drones is what really matters. Tanks, IFVs, and APCs are impactful when the right conditions have been found and set up to conduct an offensive like in Kherson but if they're just sitting around on the front line they get knocked out on a regular basis.
Fun fact, when Georgia was invaded in 2008 some of their troops had AKs, and some had M4s donated by the US. A postwar study found the guys with M4s had a much lower malfunction rate than the ones with AKs.
From what I've seen the front line regular troops get AKs, spec ops get AKs or M4s, and support troops get a mishmash of donated weapons. It's hard to know if what you see is representative though.
No.
no that's been proven since 1994
I personally think it is but this doesn't prove it. Small arms play a very small role here and both sides are mostly using AKs
Yes
I've seen more Brens than ARs on Ukraine's side throughout this entire thing.
No. Ukies mostly use AK. Marines & spetsnaz seem to use tavorz. Foreign volunteers don't seem to use that many ARs either.
I think what you've been seeing is actually a Malyuk. I haven't seen a single tavor in Ukraine
There are some Ukrainian copies of the tavor (Fort 221) floating around, but they Are really rare. Saw some early war photos with them but I haven’t seen any in months .
I have literally not seen a single AR during the war until this picture.
>M4 is superior to the AK
Rifle shoot bullet.
The difference between their performances, if it exists, was probably not a significant contributor to the war's outcome. Not to mention that Ukraine still uses AK variants, mostly.
This, really. Rifles don't matter that much. The vast majority of casualties from today to 1914 has been artillery. It's turning out even more so today the use of artillery and drones is what really matters. Tanks, IFVs, and APCs are impactful when the right conditions have been found and set up to conduct an offensive like in Kherson but if they're just sitting around on the front line they get knocked out on a regular basis.
M4 vs AK is irrelevant.
Kharkiv, not Kherson (though maybe soon.)
Aren't they primarily using AKs and a smattering of Bren 2s and Malyuks?
The better units, the less AKs are used. From videos of spec ops behind Russian lines they are armed only with NATO weapons and Malyuks
Fun fact, when Georgia was invaded in 2008 some of their troops had AKs, and some had M4s donated by the US. A postwar study found the guys with M4s had a much lower malfunction rate than the ones with AKs.
no lint or hair in the Velcro so its a gay photo shoot
>AK and AR intermixed
Must be a logistical nightmare.
except not, you can hand troops in a certain area one weapon and give it its own supply chain. Crazy I know.
From what I've seen the front line regular troops get AKs, spec ops get AKs or M4s, and support troops get a mishmash of donated weapons. It's hard to know if what you see is representative though.
nice
I’m amazed by the amount of gAyR fanbois who need constant validation that their precious rifle is somehow superior. It’s honestly sad lmao