General / Off-Topic Demands for Germany to increase Military spending to 2%

[beelbeebub]

You really don't know much about firearms do you, so it's not a M4 platform, it's a totally new invention MKAY, alrighty then.
To everyone else, it's a redesign and a good one, but not something unique.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5HY_TRov2c

Whilst the M16/M4 series and the HK416 and derivatives look very similar (and share many internal similarities) the HK uses a very different operating principle.

The M16/4 series use a distinctive gas system often incorrectly called "direct impingement" (it's more like a short stroke.system using the bolt as the piston) whilst the HK uses a more traditional short stroke piston mounted on top.of the barrel.


The differences.are quite pronounced.from.an.engineering point of view. I believe the bolt, carrier, barrel, upper receiver and gas system are all.different.

The controls and ergonomics are the same as the M16/4 because it makes.training much easier.

 

[Patrick_68000]

In any case these weapons have all a common point, they are made to kill

 

[lysan]

Whilst the M16/M4 series and the HK416 and derivatives look very similar (and share many internal similarities) the HK uses a very different operating principle.

The M16/4 series use a distinctive gas system often incorrectly called "direct impingement" (it's more like a short stroke.system using the bolt as the piston) whilst the HK uses a more traditional short stroke piston mounted on top.of the barrel.


The differences.are quite pronounced.from.an.engineering point of view. I believe the bolt, carrier, barrel, upper receiver and gas system are all.different.

The controls and ergonomics are the same as the M16/4 because it makes.training much easier.

The HK416 system is a cleaner way to operated the rifle, however the foundation it was build on is a combination of two rifles, where the M4 is the main part.

To illustrate the difference I've added two videos.
This is almost how HK416 works.
In this system you do not get all the gasses into the bolt area, hence a much cleaner operation.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;a1gBnGOiSeo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1gBnGOiSeo[/video]

This is how the M4 system works.
In this system the gasses are directly operating the bolt, hence polluting the bolt during operation.

Spoiler

[video=youtube;3ShwUfi4CIY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ShwUfi4CIY[/video]

The HK416 in action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gHIJQoQP3A

 

[beelbeebub]

The HK416 system is a cleaner way to operated the rifle, however the foundation it was build on is a combination of two rifles, where the M4 is the main part.

To illustrate the difference I've added two videos.
This is almost how HK416 works.
In this system you do not get all the gasses into the bolt area, hence a much cleaner operation.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1gBnGOiSeo

This is how the M4 system works.
In this system the gasses are directly operating the bolt, hence polluting the bolt during operation.

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ShwUfi4CIY

The HK416 in action
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gHIJQoQP3A

Exactly - so the two rifles have different operating systems.

The HK is derived from the M16/4 in the sense it uses many of the same basic design principles - the multi lug rotating bolt, the in stock inline buffer etc, and the lower receiver is almost identical to the M16/4 (primarily for familiarity reasons) but it is a different rifle.

All rifles are descended from somewhere, the m16 used the bolt design from the Johnson rifle of WW2 which used short recoil.

The gas system of the HK is i believe derived from the work on the G36/SA85 which in turn used the (IIRC ) STV system from WW2.

The point is that though they look very similar, to the point of being indistinguishable to all but the keenest of eyes, they are different under the skin.

 

[Moonax IRL]

They didn't even say it was "based on the M4", they said "developed a rifle like the M4".
'german' assault rifles are usually "full size". The little closer combat versions were never specifically interesting, since we had/have the MP5.

"Old school" german G3 and G3 tactics are more like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpis7feWUJk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqu8IRNFip4

"it's a bit difficult to use" .. yea, no recoil compensation - so you better not use "spray&pray" autofire. Seen that thing disjoint a soldier's shoulder.

I always favoured the FN FAL myself, on auto it kicks like a mule and is just wasteful, but in single shot it`s an extremely accurate weapon. Stick a scope on it and its a pretty lethal combination at long range with the 7.62 round, plenty of bite for its bark. Given the choice I`d opt for the large calibre round.

 

[starman]

There was some misunderstanding . When the reply was 'Nein' . Nine? No we are only asking for two..

 

[Becks]

There was some misunderstanding . When the reply was 'Nein' . Nine? No we are only asking for two..

Nice joke, but it doesn't stick to the facts.

 

[shreddog]

"it's a bit difficult to use" .. yea, no recoil compensation - so you better not use "spray&pray" autofire. Seen that thing disjoint a soldier's shoulder.

That would have to be one frail guy.. lol Never heard of that happening before.
It does have recoil but it's not really that hard. The whole reloading mechanism eliminates most of the punch.
But yeah it is absolutely useless in auto mode.

 

[Boomer Kay]

That would have to be one frail guy.. lol Never heard of that happening before.

Or some rotor cuff issues. Conscript army back in the days. Took everyone.

It does have recoil but it's not really that hard. The whole reloading mechanism eliminates most of the punch.
But yeah it is absolutely useless in auto mode.

There was a bipod and ground mount tripod available back in the days.
Never seen it in the flesh or used it, but was supposed to turn it into a semi machine gun.
I guess the mandate of a territorial army is simply different. We practiced a lot of trench defense and retreat combat.

 

[shadragon]

It's not unreasonable to ask for NATO countries to pick up more of the common defence tab. However, the German people do have a sensitivity to militarization which must be respected. I lived in Germany (near the France - Swiss border) for three years and my neighbours left me in no doubt of their feelings on the subject.

The answer would be to invest in defensive technologies. Anti-tank missiles instead of tanks, anti-air systems instead of fighters, that sort of thing. A Jeep with a TOW missile rack costing 20,000 can take out a multi-million T-90 tank. Buy things that can be used to defend Germany, but would be hard or impractical to use offensively. That's what NATO is, a defensive pact.

Ten squadrons of A-10's would put the fear of god into any invading armoured division.

I have nothing but respect for the men and women of the German Bundeswehr I served with. Equip them properly and no one will get through their lines without paying a serious price.

 

[Minonian]

We have troubled times ahead so yes.

 

[Strangepork]

I would like to know your opinion on this.
Do you think Germany should Run a Military for 2% of igs GDP.

2% of the German GDP would be about 70 Billion Dollar.
Which would put Germanies Defense Budget at an Size where it would Equal that of Russia (which currently spends 70 Billion on defense as well. Albeit for Russia thats 5% of their GDP)

So.
It would mean that Germany would nearly Double its Military compared to right now.

Whats your take on that?
You think this would be a Good Idea?

They sure have the xp... based on the two attempts at world domination they enacted in the century past.