Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Economics Explained"
channel.
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
@ajohnymous5699 This is Leindybeige-tier reasoning. The 1200 RPM in itself is the waste. For a defensive position? Sure, there's something to be said about high RPM when you can hunker down and have cases of ammo stacked to the ceiling of your bunker. You're not gonna hit the "same place". A mass produced weapon firing mass produced ammo will rarely be accurate enough to do it - even in modern days the US armed forces has accepted batches of ammo that got 6 MOA. The weapon and ammo's own inherent mechanical inaccuracies combined with the shifting of the weapon on its pivot is enough to stop it from hitting the same spot. Unfortunately I can't find the link anymore but there was a big fuss in the mid-2000s where the US Army accepted a batch of M855 ammo that was outside the required parameters. The more accurate your weapon is, the more you can deal with inconsistencies in the ammunition, to a degree. This is important for wartime production.
"Its the same reason birdshot is effective, you point in a general area and something is bound to hit a target or, in the case with the MG 42" - birdshot is effective because you're trying to hit a small, fast moving target or even multiple targets in a flock. A machine gun isn't meant for the same purpose.
"Precision is the job of the rifle" - Unfortunately, the average conscript can't get precision out of a rifle. Which is fine, because if you test most milsurp rifles very rarely do you find a precise one. The machine gun, however, is a greater casualty producer than riflemen and needs to be accurate enough.
"If the MG34 and MG42 were precise weapons, then they wouldn't make use of the higher ROF and would just fire in 3-5 rd. bursts like the Czech and British LMG examples I used" - That's the difference between a machine gunner and an automatic rifleman. You can use longer bursts on crew-served, belt-fed weapons over individual mag-fed automatic rifles.
"Being able to spray bullets like that is also advantageous as you don't need to worry about windage since you're hitting a general area and being off by a bit won't affect the guns performance." - but that's the problem. You have the inconsistency between every single round of ammunition, the weapon's inherent accuracy, all the factors that deflect bullets from its trajectory, the weapon's own recoil shifting the point of aim after every single firing... All those things already give you a beaten zone. If you add inaccuracy to the mix you simply stop being able to use the machine gun effectively. Inaccuracy doesn't compensate for windage, it simply creates a less dense beaten zone further away from your point of aim. If you have windage issues, your assistant gunner or a forward observer will simply call for it and you adjust before letting off a new burst.
"The idea that weapons are only good if they're precise is a Western misconception, primarily American." - I'm sorry but that has to be a joke considering that even Asian and Middle Eastern fighters exploit a machine gun's ability to engage point targets out to greater ranges than a rifle. There have been machine gun vs machine gun battles across hills in Afghanistan where the relative precision of machine guns allowed both sides to engage each other in ways rifles wouldn't allow. There are a multitude of uses for a machine gun both as a casualty producer by being able to cut down point targets running for cover at a distance, or even being used as an indirect fire weapon where the beaten zone is large enough through sheer distance, normal weapon dispersion and its recoil within the tripod.
"You are arguing from a POV likely rooted in a Western perspective on how a gun should be in order to do their job, while I'm stating facts from a historical perspective." - No man, I am arguing from the POV of machine gun doctrine itself and the requirements of a weapon that will be used to engage targets much farther away than a rifleman can.
If you have an inaccurate weapon, you can't hit shit further away. Say, if you are trying to hit man sized targets with a 6 MOA weapon at 1000 yards, you're gonna have your shots land roughly in a 60 inch circle. That's close enough for government work. A couple of bursts and statistically you're probably gonna hit. Conversely, if you use the same weapon to fire at a target 200 yards away... the shots will land in a 12 inch circle. The bullets will all land all inside a target the size of a soldier's chest. That's not the "birdshot to mow down multiple people" effect you think matters.
If you really had a weapon that acted as a combat shotgun at 200-300 yards... you wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn at 1000 yards.
To describe the reality of combat and how important machine gun fire is to deal with point targets or to serve as indirect fire weapons at ranges as long as 2-3km as some kind of Western misconception makes no sense considering how effective the non-Western PK machine gun is at 1000 meters when manned by competent non-Western gunners.
6
-
@xXWorldgamefunXx "Vietnam has a socialist economy and they are thriving nowadays." - "Although Vietnam remains officially committed to socialism as its defining creed, its economic policies have grown increasingly capitalist,[215][216]"
"With the decline in economic aid from its main trading partner, the Soviet Union, following the erosion of the Eastern bloc in the late 1980s, and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, as well as the negative impacts of the post-war trade embargo imposed by the United States,[256][257] Vietnam began to liberalise its trade by devaluing its exchange rate to increase exports and embarked on a policy of economic development.[258]
In 1986, the Sixth National Congress of the CPV introduced socialist-oriented market economic reforms as part of the Đổi Mới reform program. Private ownership began to be encouraged in industry, commerce and agriculture and state enterprises were restructured to operate under market constraints.[259][260]"
Vietnam is literally an example of "no real socialism". It's socialist on paper, but accepted privatization.
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
@ajohnymous5699 "automatic rifles dont come with a standard bi-pod" - Depends entirely on the model.
"Pinning enemy personnel down was also a viable tactic" - Which needs accurate fire. There's estimated distances by caliber of how close you need to hit to make people afraid and get to cover. You'd be surprised how close you need to hit.
"When you say you're "citing machinegun doctrine" that is more or less true of the modern machinegun" - the basis of machine gun doctrine is still mostly based on WWI gunnery.
"You're talking about Afghanistan and duels between machinegunners using fairly modern machineguns with smaller army groups" - Makes no difference.
"The technology was different, the combat scenarios were different, these nations lacked the experience with these weapons on a modern battlefield at this time outside of WW1 and the only things cemented in what a machinegun should do is support infantry with automatic fire" - and the way you achieve that support is by delivering more killing potential than rifles and accurate suppressive fire that actually makes people go to cover and stay there. Not with "birdshot" logic. No changes in technology or combat scenarios really make a difference on what you need to ask from a machine gun.
"If machinegun doctrine was standardized as you had implied by "knowing machinegun doctrine",you wouldn't have these fundamentally different designs working in tandem" - the US armed forces have the 240, 249 SAW and M27 IAR - USMC - working in tandem. They're not breaking machine gun doctrine by doing it so I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here.
"several hundred to a thousand for modern assault rifles in box mags" - I wanna meet the absolute madlad running with a thousand rounds on his back. A thousand rounds divided by 30 round mags is a little over 33 magazines. Even assuming half is carried in mags and another half in belts, that would be still 16 mags and 500 rounds in belts which in terms of bulk isn't even feasible. That's over TWELVE KILOS in cartridges alone, not counting actual magazines and links.
"you say that MGs are better suited than rifles at long range engagements. For the sake of people reading our exchanges and for my own sake, could you elaborate on this?" - Because MGs are crew served weapons. First of all, the weight alone makes the weapon gain less velocity from recoil so there's less of a jerk to spoil accuracy. Second, the machine gunner will mostly be using the bipod which is a much more stable firing position than the average rifleman can get from the prone or even barricade position. Third, bursts from a stable firing gun increase hit rates on point targets. Fourth, you get a better situational awareness because your assistant gunner can act as a spotter. There's a reason why assault rifles exist, the average rifleman can't score good hits at distance, so we gave them 5.56/5.45/5.8 weapons. The machine gun gets full rifle calibers because it can actually smack people at the range where rifle calibers have the energy advantage over intermediate ones.
"Because I'm sure some people may read this and think "well if thats the case, why didn't we slap sniper scopes on MGs instead of rifles?"" - Well, the Americans did. The M2 was used with scopes in Korea and Carlos Hathcock famously used one in Vietnam to score the longest sniper kill until 2002. The MG42 Laffette tripod also had an optics mount and the Austrian armed forces used a modernized MG42 in a tripod mount with a periscope. Obviously the point wasn't using the MG42 as a sniping weapon, but it reinforces the idea that long range performance is expected from machine gunners.
"Their effective ranges should be similar if theyre using the same cartridges in a ballistic sense" - in a strictly ballistic sense? A full caliber rifle should have the same ballistic range as a machine gun firing the same cartridge. The issue is that using a rifle in combat at long range is extremely difficult. Thus effective range from a rifle is hampered, especially since higher recoil negatively impacts marksmanship. You can expect killing potential out of a machine gun at ranges where riflemen have a hard time scoring hits.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cageybee7221 >"production, it's the profits" - okay I'm not a native English speaker so to me "productivity" inherently implies that what you're doing is "productive". If you're producing something that doesn't generate profit, you're not being productive. I was not considering that it could be different in English.
>"physical resource production and goods manufacturing of their economy in non-financial terms" - but that's a non-starter because you don't know how "productive" aka how "profitable" your production is.
"it is the number the state used to plan it's economy" - yeah and it was a terrible system.
>"yes i am asking for a source for that, you still haven't provided any" - my dude you're asking me to go back and track down a historical event I know from the top of my head, that is widely known, that I don't exactly remember where I read and I can't link to anything affiliated with the US.
I wasted 30 min of my life and I found it on "Origins of North Korea's Juche: Colonialism, War, and Development" by Chae-jŏng Sŏ, Jae-Jung Suh, Page 141. It describes the overuse of fertilizers and lack of crop rotation that lead to the soils degrading.
And you're gonna tell me they're US/South Korean pawns anyway.
>"by truck (really obvious and totally out of the question)" - so no trucks ever cross the China/Korean border?
>"they are too heavy for cargo planes" - the wonderful thing about mechanical objects is that they're often able to be dismantled. Also, you don't need the whole rocket to reverse engineer it.
>"ukraine could not have given them to north korea if they wanted to." - and the Koreans couldn't have made such progress in such short time if they wanted to.
1
-
@cageybee7221 you corrected me, and now you're correcting me for correcting myself. Bah!
"not even know what production is" - I wasn't talking about production but PRODUCTIVITY. Production can be unproductive.
"you can easily measure productivity without profit. how much goods are being produced, what is the rate they are being produced, and how much is wasted" - not really. The Soviet Gosplan had no fucking idea what they were doing because they couldn't accurately gauge what was being wasted, because the recipients of resources could not waste time going back and forth and simply traded goods with each other. Another issue is that without profit or loss, you cannot even tell what is being wasted. Production can be "unproductive" and you don't actually know it because everything looks right in the chart.
"it was not a terrible system" - it was, it lead to constant shortages, they were hindered by ideological bias, and pressure to comply with projections lead to reports using falsified data which further caused more problems down the line as the central planning was more and more detached from reality.
"it took russia from a feudal agricultural backwater centuries behind the rest of the world" - but it didn't. This is the same shit as Nazi Germany, everyone thinks Hitler saved Germany from the economic recession and whatnot. The fact is that he created an economic bubble that would plunge Germany into a worse crisis and forced him to go to war. When you control a government, and there's no way to go but up, you can use the force and violence of the state to "do things". So the argument that the Soviets "did things" doesn't actually prove that the Gosplan was working right because it wasn't.
"it took most capitalist nations over 100 years to do the same" - because others had to actually develop the technology over time, the Soviets imported foreign technology and put it to work so they could make their own. Weird analogy, but for example Beretta had been in the firearms business since the 1500s. What you're saying is like claiming that Beretta took almost 500 years to come up with the Beretta 92 (the former United States service pistol and famous for all the 1980's police movies like Lethal Weapon) and Gaston Glock only took a year to make his Glock 17. Same as the human dream of "heavier than air" flight requiring hundreds of years until the Wright brothers came along, and then a couple of decades later there were teams of engineers who could design, prototype and test a new airplane in a matter of months.
"that is by definition not terrible" - because you're talking about different things. If you have control of the state, you can use your budget to buy technology and put your educated people through college to make more of that technology on your own. That's not the same thing as trying to plan an economy without profit signals.
Point the guns, collect money, spend that money = easy.
Figure out where resources need to go when you're not sure you're making a profit or a loss = complete clusterfuck.
Can't conflate the two.
"never heard of this soil issue" - "Regular application of large amounts of fertilizer, combined with the lack of crop rotation or incorporation of crop residue into the soil, greatly degraded the soil’s fertility." "Decades of over-fertilization have rendered the soil acidic and with low organic matter." - https://www.38north.org/2010/05/why-north-korea-could-feed-itself/
"In a 1991 "advisory note" addressing the North Korean economy for the years 1992-96, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the only international agency resident in P'yongyang, warned that the practice of intensive chemicalization has led to land degradation--that is, declining soil fertility, falling organic matter content, erosion and soil acidification, and water pollution, with resulting environmental damage." - http://countrystudies.us/north-korea/49.htm
"Soil fertility in many areas was trashed by decades of overuse of chemical fertilisers, up to the late 1980s. Yields still suffer." - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/15/north-korea-farmers-pressure-feed-nation-kim-jong-un
"In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), soil fertility decline is a major factor that prevents the national grain production goal from being realised. The strategic use of legume-based pasture leys as rotations in intensive single and double cropping systems has proven to be a sound, low-cost means to boost soil fertility in other parts of northeast Asia. However, using pasture species in this way is a new technology in DPRK and there is some reluctance by cooperative farm managers to devote any of their cropland to ley pastures, irrespective of soil condition, because of a fear of failure to meet grain production targets set by the Government." - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223561605_Strategies_to_improve_cropland_soils_in_North_Korea_using_pasture_leys
"During the 1970s and 1980s, North Korea experienced
great success in agriculture as a result of high-density planting
and extensive use of fertilizers. These methods however, proved
to be detrimental to the natural soil balance and subsequently
brought on such negative side effects as soil fertility deterioration.
International organizations have urged North Korea to decrease its
planting density and use less fertilizer to restore soil balance. " - https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/288201/files/6.pdf
"But by 1987, food production started to decline as the
country’s soils began to collapse after decades of industrial agriculture on often marginal lands." - https://foodfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PB11-Famine-in-North-Korea-Christine-Ahn.pdf
"The area under cereals covers over 80 percent of Korea's arable land. The limited availability of arable land and the government policy of food grain self - sufficiency has led DPR Korea to opt for high intensity agriculture. Soils are poor (pH 5 to 7, with organic matter only at 0.5 to 1.5 percent) - and the risk of erosion is high in uplands." - http://www.fao.org/3/ac623e/ac623e0e.htm
"North Korea stresses that this is essential to avoid further soil acidification caused by the excessive application of chemical fertilizers."
"The prevailing system, in which a single crop of rice is grown in paddy fields and a single crop of maize in the uplands, is now being revised, and double cropping is recommended. Crop rotation has the advantage of improved fertility for soils depleted by monoculture, as well as higher total yields per unit of land."
"Third, North Korean authorities ordered farmers to cut down perennial plants such as pine trees on mountain slopes, and plant corn in their place. This method was successful at first, but corn production required a great deal of fertilizer. The rugged terrain also meant that a large labor input was needed to harvest the corn and transport it to towns. The really damaging result was that as trees were cut, there were landslides which destroyed not only the upland terraces but covered fertile lowlands in sand and rock. Forest clearance and the construction of terraces were the main cause of the floods in 1995 and 1996." - http://www.fftc.agnet.org/library.php?func=view&id=20110726131553
I'm a complete layman and I know about the North Korean soil issue.
"STILL haven't provided an actual source for it" - I DID YOU ABSOLUTE LIAR. READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT AGAIN. "Origins of North Korea's Juche: Colonialism, War, and Development" by Chae-jŏng Sŏ, Jae-Jung Suh, Page 141
"you mentioned you couldn't find a single non-US backed source" - NO I SAID THAT ACCORDING TO YOUR RULES I CAN'T LINK ANYTHING RELATED TO THE US SO I'M POINTING HOW THE DIFFICULTY IN TRYING TO REMEMBER IF A SOURCE I DON'T REMEMBER IS IN ANY WAY AFFILIATED WITH THE US
GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE SERIOUSLY DIFFICULT TO TALK TO WHEN YOU'RE ALL WILLING TO PULL AT ANY THREAD TO SEE IF IT UNRAVELS
"that truck would have to go through russia and be put on a train to north korea, meaning it would have to cross hundreds of miles through one of the most corrupt nations in the world and somehow not be stolen." - lol so you went from "it couldn't be done because it's illegal" to "those places are so used to illegal shit it would be stolen". I couldn't give less of a shit where it came from but there's one good side to corruption - you know you can pay people off to make shit go through. The fact is that they're using a design that isn't theirs.
"clearly, north korea did make such progress in such a short time because they have the bomb now. you are just denying reality at this point." - again, you're unable to argue so you'll strawman everything I say to make it seem like I said something else.
Here's a good explanation of the NK rocketry design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UieXfhcmkpQ
Either way, you accused me of not providing a source. Either you're not paying attention, or lying. It's not like I have a scoreboard for arguments or anything, but even you need to recognize that if you need to lie about my comments and strawman me it means you're losing. I expect better, no strawman arguments from now on, please.
1