Well Bikaaz ir jus wuk Mon. Eh eena ah modern caliber Hav enuff stopping powa Likkle enuff recoil tuh bi controllable An de saps tuh maintain. Wah else duh yu needa outta an SMG?.
The MP5 is such a fricking heavy piece of shit I fricking hate that the mechanism is so refined that you cannot really replace it and the only argument to get rid of it is to get rid of the 9mm.
Why can't we have a nice polymer gun why the frick do I have to carry this stupid ass heavy as shit MP5 around with me, seriously my privately owned AR15 is lighter than my fricking service MP5.
>uncut, unkept hair >unkempt beard >low vis patch, camoflage uniform, carrier and gun, but high vis decorative patch and shiny, bright red torch
GWOT era SF expansion was a mistake. There are too many operators who have the professionalism and maturity of teenagers.
but anon if he shaves and washes he won't be able to blend in with the locals! what do you mean not knowing a single word of farsi is more of an issue?
1 year ago
Anonymous
>SAS go round in shepards wool coats with unkept beards >Tell US SOF to sort their shit out >??? >moronation!!!!
Because up until the 90's, the British still had colonies that needed defending. It was not issued after 1980, but 'defence forces' (like Hong Kong) used it and other organisations (such as police forces) used it. It was an extremely popular weapon, which is why dozens of nations used it.
>Why did the bongs use an archaic WW2 smg until 1994?
Having lots of cheap SMG's on hand paired well with their service rifle the FAL because you could hand them out like candy for urban / trench / bush fighting where a short length and full auto are a lot more useful. Besides that light, compact SMG's are the kind of weapon you give to people who aren't fighting, truck drivers, guards, weapons crew and so on, people who don't need a full FAL.
The British started getting their SA80 assault rifles in 85 they stuck around until the FAL change over was complete and stayed in rear units until the SA80 finished its production run in 94 and they had enough for everyone no matter the position.
A weapon that history has proven to have a role that can't be replaced by belt fed machine guns. Hence why the UK and US have both adopted and dropped belt fed guns in order to have 7.62 aimed suppressive fire.
Both have taken belt fed weapons (m249 SAW) out of regular squads and replaced them with 7.62 battle rifles / support weapons (L129A1 and M27 IAR) in order to take aimed suppressive fire out to around 800m where it's deemed more effective than laying down a wider beaten zone with far less ammunition consumed.
That same reason is why Bren stuck around so long, large accurate rounds through a heavy barrel keeps the enemies heads down just as much, if not more than far less accurate spray from a smaller calibre.
>That same reason is why Bren stuck around so long
Wrong
see
Actually they used the Bren because the FN MAG jammed in the ice eg Arctic and Falklands
[...]
It just works
>Both have taken belt fed weapons (m249 SAW) out of regular squads
Wrong
The US Army still uses M249s, only the USMC has bought the M27 IAR
The British Army still uses the L110 and L7
>The US Army still uses M249s, only the USMC has bought the M27 IAR >The British Army still uses the L110 and L7
LMG is traditionally a platoon support weapon; belt-fed HMG is not
1 year ago
Anonymous
>LMG is traditionally a platoon support weapon
it's called a SQUAD Automatic Weapon for a reason >belt-fed
The Squad Automatic Weapon is belt-fed >HMG is not
which is why it is called a General Purpose Machine Gun
TOEs aren't rigidly adhered to always, and the British Army had no problem swapping belt-fed L7s as patrol weapons instead of L110s when needed - or Brens for that matter.
>No one said they were withdrawn entirely
That makes this statement
A weapon that history has proven to have a role that can't be replaced by belt fed machine guns. Hence why the UK and US have both adopted and dropped belt fed guns in order to have 7.62 aimed suppressive fire.
>the UK and US have both adopted and dropped belt fed guns
pretty meaningless doesn't it?
I have one and theyre just based anon. the Brits recognized this. But for what it is its somewhat awkward, theres no way to comfortably sling it (not that it had a sling) over anything due it having pokey bits everywhere
>9mm has been obsolete since the 50s.
moron. I'd also like to add >muh body armor
When there are (now) projos for 9mm that can practically ignore conventional soft body armor, which is what you're most likely going to face compared to plates if you're in a situation that requires a 9mm subgun on the streets. Keep in mind that even up until the 2000s many armies and terror groups (and those fighting them) weren't wearing body armor to begin with
Small arms haven't changed much, but where it improved, it only made them deadlier: there's been improvement to powder and primers which made some calibers better than they used to be, while some once good calibers became obsolete because they were now overengineered, there's been improvement in technique, training, and optics, which led people to hitting their target more accurately than ever before, there's obviously general improvements in terms of reliability, capacity, rifling, weight, ergonomics... so yes technically an old rifle is deadlier today than it used to be.
9mm is still good to go and no one is wearing full body armor, whether on a battlefield, or in your fricking neighborhood.
are you wearing armor right now? do you just wear armor around on a daily basis? no? then shut the frick up idiot. >inb4 b-but I'm actually a supercool commando who wears armo-
shut the frick up.
>sterling >archaic
it was far better designed than any other tube gun made then and is still used today because of that. I'm actually more curious why during Vietnam we didn't use the Sterling as opposed to the Carl Gustaf and later the S&W Model 76
>I'm actually more curious why during Vietnam we didn't use the Sterling as opposed to the Carl Gustaf and later the S&W Model 76
plausible deniability, by the time we were in the war proper the sf liked the gustaf so SW made their own version
As goofy as it kinda looks, the E11 Carbine in universe fills its role very well. A lightweight compact carbine perfect for confined CQB, as well as a non-lethal stun function both make for a fine weapon for both elite door-kicking space commandos and city peacekeeping forces alike
Good point. I dunno, let's take it case by case.
The classic repeating blaster is the E-Web. Most other repeating weapons are like it, big, bulky, needing heavy power generators / power packs.
>vidya
They let players hold down the fire button but the RPM isn't matched by movie / TV depictions.
1 year ago
Anonymous
DLT-19 is the first thing that comes to mind when I think star wars automatic blasters, even more so then the EWEB. There's also the Z-6 the clones use, though you could say there's a power back embedded in the back, it's not visible.
And I'm not denying that lots of star wars heavy weapons need external power packs - they absolutely do - but that always ends up being second to whatever story or cool action shot they're trying to make. I think the E-22 might have been automatic as well but it might just have been 2-shot bursts. And the E-11D that deathtroopers use might be automatic too? wookiepedia (yuck) implies that and its been a while since i've seen any films or episodes that had death troopers in action.
1 year ago
Anonymous
>DLT-19
As I said, in vidya you can hold down the fire key. Hell, you can do that with the E-11, the DC-15, even the A-295. But the RPM hardly looks like a true automatic weapon - look at Chewie wielding the DLT in ANH. Or even better, the Death Trooper DLT in Rogue One.
This compilation shows off the Rebels' weapons as well as Baze's. His weapon definitely has the highest RPM of the lot.
You can see that nobody's shooting faster than a Garand rifleman with a fast finger. It's just how Star Wars battles are conceived, IMHO.
1 year ago
Anonymous
the DLT-19 is pretty clearly firing bursts, at least to my ears, and that one seems to be modded into some sort of DMR. i absolutely agree that star wars battles are concieved with slower firing weapons, though, otherwise they'd be over much faster given how all sides love fighting in the open.
grease gun was still in US service at the time, it was a effective weapon, and wasnt issued often, the SF units had mostly switched to MP5
if it works and there is no urgent need to replace it a weapon can stay in service for decades, the potential replacements were significantly more expensive without providing a massive increase in performance
This pic... Why do Indians/Pakis always, always, ALWAYS have to make themselves look stupid whenever do anything? It's like they enjoy being the laughing stocks of the world.
>Why did the bongs use an archaic WW2 smg until 1994?
They did not. The sterling in its final form had relatively little in common with the original sten, either in design or purpose. It seems you need to learn more about guns OP.
Huge chip on their shoulder like the Americans and refuse to use anything that they didnt make personally. But unlike the Us which has dozens of rich nations looking ti please it and perfecting Merican designs, the bongs had a bunch of thirdie orbiters instead.
Anon please, I argued for the MP7 as a replacement, it's the agencies unwillingness to replace the 9mm cartridge because of budgeting and logistics.
Hell what they did was slap new furniture on the MP5 and call it a day. Here's your flashlight, here's a foregrip, here's a EOtech and now frick off. Oh we also made the gun EVEN HEAVIER as a side effect.
Because for some moronic reason some fricking moron decided that NATO needed an "intermediate cartridge" that was exactly the same as a full power rifle cartridge, leaving a big hole that needed to be filled with 9mm.
Also that's not a WW2 STEN, it's a Cold War Sterling. Sterlings are excellent SMGs.
It was cheap.
Simple as.
The sterling is a great gun it's still used now in India
Because everyone knows India uses only the best of the best equipment.
That’s not a statement of quality.
Was going to get a pic of Indian street shitters then realized I don’t want that saved on my hd
Because it was a good gun anon.
Well Bikaaz ir jus wuk Mon. Eh eena ah modern caliber Hav enuff stopping powa Likkle enuff recoil tuh bi controllable An de saps tuh maintain. Wah else duh yu needa outta an SMG?.
Make a vocaroo doing this accent in your homosexual high pitched mutt voice
But say the words Beto shultzheimerbergstein
Please thanks
Well Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blahhhhh.
Blah caliber Blah Blah Blah.
Blah stopping Blahhhh, Blah Blah Bla.
Recoil Blah Blah Blah?
Blah Blah controllable Blahhhhh!
Blah Bla Blah maintain Bla Bla Blaaah.
Bla Blah Blah Blah, Bla Blaahhh SMG Bla NIGER Bla.... BLAH!
holy frick how schizo do you have to be to think like this?
It's only 22 years older than the gun that replaced it.
Sterling: 50 at retirement
MP5: 57 now
The MP5 is such a fricking heavy piece of shit I fricking hate that the mechanism is so refined that you cannot really replace it and the only argument to get rid of it is to get rid of the 9mm.
Why can't we have a nice polymer gun why the frick do I have to carry this stupid ass heavy as shit MP5 around with me, seriously my privately owned AR15 is lighter than my fricking service MP5.
The MP5 has been replaced. Since 300BLK has been around, PCCs have been dead and buried.
Price of round aside there's no reason to consider PCCs anymore, and if we consider the price-performance ratio, PCCs are even less worth it.
Anon pls. MP7 is the replacement for it.
>uncut, unkept hair
>unkempt beard
>low vis patch, camoflage uniform, carrier and gun, but high vis decorative patch and shiny, bright red torch
GWOT era SF expansion was a mistake. There are too many operators who have the professionalism and maturity of teenagers.
but anon if he shaves and washes he won't be able to blend in with the locals! what do you mean not knowing a single word of farsi is more of an issue?
>SAS go round in shepards wool coats with unkept beards
>Tell US SOF to sort their shit out
>???
>moronation!!!!
>What you're given vs what you bought yourself from wish.com
This bong shouldn't get you this worked up anon what happened.
>service MP5
>heavy
christ anon, hit the gym dude holy frick
Agreed, the mp5 is just a smaller g3 still in the .30 cal range.
>heavy
Post forearms.
taking the bait, most pccs are +5lb (mp5 is 5.6).
sounds like you want a masterpiece mac-11/9 at 54oz (3.4) (no stock)
>heavy
homie i just held a bunch the other day and I don't even lift at all.
YOU WILL CARRY ZE GERMAN DOGSHIT, AND YOU WILL BE HAPPY
Bang tube go bang when trigger is pulled.
Let me guess, you need more?
Because up until the 90's, the British still had colonies that needed defending. It was not issued after 1980, but 'defence forces' (like Hong Kong) used it and other organisations (such as police forces) used it. It was an extremely popular weapon, which is why dozens of nations used it.
I'm not offended? I have a deep manly voice and I can't say Beto shultzheimerbergstein like a foreigner with a extremely shit British accent
Say Beto shultzheimerbergstein
For my amusement
>Why did the bongs use an archaic WW2 smg until 1994?
Having lots of cheap SMG's on hand paired well with their service rifle the FAL because you could hand them out like candy for urban / trench / bush fighting where a short length and full auto are a lot more useful. Besides that light, compact SMG's are the kind of weapon you give to people who aren't fighting, truck drivers, guards, weapons crew and so on, people who don't need a full FAL.
The British started getting their SA80 assault rifles in 85 they stuck around until the FAL change over was complete and stayed in rear units until the SA80 finished its production run in 94 and they had enough for everyone no matter the position.
For the same reason they were using an interwar gun in the 1980s.
A weapon that history has proven to have a role that can't be replaced by belt fed machine guns. Hence why the UK and US have both adopted and dropped belt fed guns in order to have 7.62 aimed suppressive fire.
Wrong.
>The UK and US have both dropped belt fed guns
Uhh....no they didn't?
Both have taken belt fed weapons (m249 SAW) out of regular squads and replaced them with 7.62 battle rifles / support weapons (L129A1 and M27 IAR) in order to take aimed suppressive fire out to around 800m where it's deemed more effective than laying down a wider beaten zone with far less ammunition consumed.
That same reason is why Bren stuck around so long, large accurate rounds through a heavy barrel keeps the enemies heads down just as much, if not more than far less accurate spray from a smaller calibre.
>That same reason is why Bren stuck around so long
Wrong
see
>Both have taken belt fed weapons (m249 SAW) out of regular squads
Wrong
The US Army still uses M249s, only the USMC has bought the M27 IAR
The British Army still uses the L110 and L7
>The US Army still uses M249s, only the USMC has bought the M27 IAR
>The British Army still uses the L110 and L7
LMG is traditionally a platoon support weapon; belt-fed HMG is not
>LMG is traditionally a platoon support weapon
it's called a SQUAD Automatic Weapon for a reason
>belt-fed
The Squad Automatic Weapon is belt-fed
>HMG is not
which is why it is called a General Purpose Machine Gun
TOEs aren't rigidly adhered to always, and the British Army had no problem swapping belt-fed L7s as patrol weapons instead of L110s when needed - or Brens for that matter.
No one said they were withdrawn entirely idiot.
>No one said they were withdrawn entirely
That makes this statement
>the UK and US have both adopted and dropped belt fed guns
pretty meaningless doesn't it?
Not even close to correct, US still uses M249 and M240B/L for every almost every squad (MTOW dependent) from grunt to cooks
Actually they used the Bren because the FN MAG jammed in the ice eg Arctic and Falklands
It just works
They were using the Bren because they were broke.
>sprays bullets at short range
Let me guess, you need more?
>Let me guess, you need more?
A cupholder and heated grips, it's the least they could do....
6 CD changer and I would buy it
I have one and theyre just based anon. the Brits recognized this. But for what it is its somewhat awkward, theres no way to comfortably sling it (not that it had a sling) over anything due it having pokey bits everywhere
Does 9mm kill you less in 1994?
With body armor at the time? Yes. That is why PDWs are even a thing.
9mm has been obsolete since the 50s.
The people you're shooting with 9mm don't have access to body armour. It was kept around for boarding ships etc
>9mm has been obsolete since the 50s.
moron. I'd also like to add
>muh body armor
When there are (now) projos for 9mm that can practically ignore conventional soft body armor, which is what you're most likely going to face compared to plates if you're in a situation that requires a 9mm subgun on the streets. Keep in mind that even up until the 2000s many armies and terror groups (and those fighting them) weren't wearing body armor to begin with
Guns have improved, people haven't, black powder guns kill just as much as they did a century ago.
"Armor" is a meme, it only protects your upper torso, you'll still die.
What a moronic take. This is like saying that sending T-55s to Ukraine makes sense.
What a moronic analogy.
Small arms haven't changed much, but where it improved, it only made them deadlier: there's been improvement to powder and primers which made some calibers better than they used to be, while some once good calibers became obsolete because they were now overengineered, there's been improvement in technique, training, and optics, which led people to hitting their target more accurately than ever before, there's obviously general improvements in terms of reliability, capacity, rifling, weight, ergonomics... so yes technically an old rifle is deadlier today than it used to be.
9mm is still good to go and no one is wearing full body armor, whether on a battlefield, or in your fricking neighborhood.
Can you Black folk go 5 fricking mintues without spewing some annoying bullshit about 2nd world shitholes?
are you wearing armor right now? do you just wear armor around on a daily basis? no? then shut the frick up idiot.
>inb4 b-but I'm actually a supercool commando who wears armo-
shut the frick up.
>sterling
>archaic
it was far better designed than any other tube gun made then and is still used today because of that. I'm actually more curious why during Vietnam we didn't use the Sterling as opposed to the Carl Gustaf and later the S&W Model 76
>I'm actually more curious why during Vietnam we didn't use the Sterling as opposed to the Carl Gustaf and later the S&W Model 76
plausible deniability, by the time we were in the war proper the sf liked the gustaf so SW made their own version
>Why are you so offended?
Blaaaah Bla... Blah Blah in
Blah Blah pre Bla Bla Blahhh Ebonics.
If it was good enough for the Rebel Alliance it was good enough for the bongs.
M3 Grease Guns were used in the Gulf War
>have spaceships that can travel in hyperspace
>use semi auto sterlings
As goofy as it kinda looks, the E11 Carbine in universe fills its role very well. A lightweight compact carbine perfect for confined CQB, as well as a non-lethal stun function both make for a fine weapon for both elite door-kicking space commandos and city peacekeeping forces alike
>semi auto
In Star Wars you need a massive power pack for full auto blasters
no? where'd you get that from.
So post full auto Star Wars blasters then
what source? legends, canon? counting video games or not?
Good point. I dunno, let's take it case by case.
The classic repeating blaster is the E-Web. Most other repeating weapons are like it, big, bulky, needing heavy power generators / power packs.
>vidya
They let players hold down the fire button but the RPM isn't matched by movie / TV depictions.
DLT-19 is the first thing that comes to mind when I think star wars automatic blasters, even more so then the EWEB. There's also the Z-6 the clones use, though you could say there's a power back embedded in the back, it's not visible.
And I'm not denying that lots of star wars heavy weapons need external power packs - they absolutely do - but that always ends up being second to whatever story or cool action shot they're trying to make. I think the E-22 might have been automatic as well but it might just have been 2-shot bursts. And the E-11D that deathtroopers use might be automatic too? wookiepedia (yuck) implies that and its been a while since i've seen any films or episodes that had death troopers in action.
>DLT-19
As I said, in vidya you can hold down the fire key. Hell, you can do that with the E-11, the DC-15, even the A-295. But the RPM hardly looks like a true automatic weapon - look at Chewie wielding the DLT in ANH. Or even better, the Death Trooper DLT in Rogue One.
This compilation shows off the Rebels' weapons as well as Baze's. His weapon definitely has the highest RPM of the lot.
You can see that nobody's shooting faster than a Garand rifleman with a fast finger. It's just how Star Wars battles are conceived, IMHO.
the DLT-19 is pretty clearly firing bursts, at least to my ears, and that one seems to be modded into some sort of DMR. i absolutely agree that star wars battles are concieved with slower firing weapons, though, otherwise they'd be over much faster given how all sides love fighting in the open.
There's only so much you can improve in a cheap open bolt blowback SMG firing 9mm and most of it isn't worth doing over just using stocks of old guns.
black ops 1
uh was it in there? I remember seeing stens but not sterlings.
shiet i think I'm a smg generation off
Because they knew that anything newer wouldn't turn out any better if British engineers were to be in charge of it.
Because it worked, the piece of that that replaced it wasn't great.
grease gun was still in US service at the time, it was a effective weapon, and wasnt issued often, the SF units had mostly switched to MP5
if it works and there is no urgent need to replace it a weapon can stay in service for decades, the potential replacements were significantly more expensive without providing a massive increase in performance
money
but also because a bullpup rifle that would replace the SMG and rifle was always just a few years away
This pic... Why do Indians/Pakis always, always, ALWAYS have to make themselves look stupid whenever do anything? It's like they enjoy being the laughing stocks of the world.
Yanks kept the grease gun until the early 90s too.
SOVL
Because that thing won't melt like a H&K
>archaic WW2 smg
outdated?
Yeah... but it was reliable and got the job done.
>replaced by the L85A1
What an upgrade
Because they actually fought against other countries in wars and won
Unlike everybody else
SMASHING
Throw it away when it's broken and cant be fixed, not when it's old
USA used the M3 grease gun in tanks for just as long. SMGs are useless and carbines do it better.
>USA used the M3 grease gun in tanks for just as long.
Unimportant role except for anheroing if the tank brews up. Some jobs don't need good guns, just any guns.
>Sterling
>archaic
>Brits were Broke
>Many Sterlings already in stock at the end of WW2
The Sterling's design wasn't finalized until 1946, and wasn't adopted until 1953.
>Why did the bongs use an archaic WW2 smg until 1994?
They did not. The sterling in its final form had relatively little in common with the original sten, either in design or purpose. It seems you need to learn more about guns OP.
The Sterling is a WW2 gun. It was first used at Arnhem.
Stamped, simple blowback, open bolt etc. SMGs were pretty common from post war all the way through to the 80-90s.
Given that the bongs won wars post ww2 a better question would be
>Why didn't we use it?
Huge chip on their shoulder like the Americans and refuse to use anything that they didnt make personally. But unlike the Us which has dozens of rich nations looking ti please it and perfecting Merican designs, the bongs had a bunch of thirdie orbiters instead.
because it worked fine for shooting Micks
The US was still issuing grease guns to NG tank crews into the 90s. It's a low priority to replace an SMG.
ww2 was not that long ago
>can't replace MP5 by 300blk ARs
>can replace it with MP7
Anon please. 300blk has already seen much combat, and I didn't post a SIG Rattler randomly, because it is by far the most common platform.
Anon please, I argued for the MP7 as a replacement, it's the agencies unwillingness to replace the 9mm cartridge because of budgeting and logistics.
Hell what they did was slap new furniture on the MP5 and call it a day. Here's your flashlight, here's a foregrip, here's a EOtech and now frick off. Oh we also made the gun EVEN HEAVIER as a side effect.
F U C K Y O U
The MP7 was so much smoother.
Because for some moronic reason some fricking moron decided that NATO needed an "intermediate cartridge" that was exactly the same as a full power rifle cartridge, leaving a big hole that needed to be filled with 9mm.
Also that's not a WW2 STEN, it's a Cold War Sterling. Sterlings are excellent SMGs.
>it's a Cold War Sterling
The Sterling was first used at Arnhem.
No, it wasn't.
Yes, it was.
No, it wasn't. That was the Patchett carbine.
aka the Sterling
No, aka the Patchett carbine that wasn't adopted but was reworked into the Sterling L2.
No Sterling mags, no L2A1.