Quote:
Originally Posted by copeab
Let me note that I think post-nuke reinforcements will be of significantly lower quality than the soldiers that started the war and by 2000 their quality and training will be extremely poor. In such a situation, the "crude" AK series would be quite useful, as it requires less training to use or maintain than an M16.If you are going to stick a rifle in a fat 50-year old accountant's hands and shove him towards the front, better an AK 74 than an M16A2. Yes, this does ignore Warsaw Pact forces getting NATO weapons ...
|
Honestly, I don't see many pact soldier willingly switch weapons. I mean you know weapons works functionally. You have been told that the enemy weapons are unreliable, and you would believe so. Once ammo becomes an issue with re-supplying, then you will see them doing the same thing.
Now on the other hand, any units that have work behind the front lines. They will grab up anything NATO they can lay their greedy hands on.
Besides during the Great War the Soviet would send units into combat with one soldier with weapon and the next one with a clip(s) of ammo who was suppose to grab the weapon from someone who wasn't in need of the weapon anymore. If they were lucky enough find one to use the ammo before they ended up without being able to use the ammo themselves.
One of the interesting things is, if one looks at what the standard Infantry Platoon from WWII was equipped with. Compare it to what the modern Infantry Platoon, we are closer to having a Standardization of weapons and ammo since before WWI. Even then a Regiment/Battalion would have standardized, but Rifle/Carbines would be different in many cases. It is one of those elusive things, one never has as many arm of single weapon than they need for the next war, but have tried to secure what they believe would be needed within reason based on the previous war.