Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "The Armourer's Bench" channel.

  1. They act as deterent against an ampibious landing towards Odessa. And for 1.5 years have they succefully scared away russia from Odessa's shores. Indeed they have been so succesful that the nazi-russian navy is now too scared to even operate in the western and central black sea and now sits and hide in the eastern black sea and hoping they are out of range and safe from Ukrainian attacks. Russia seems to lose a naval against a country with no navy.
    4
  2. This rifle would have been excellent in world war 2 for killing people at long distances with "1 shot - 1 kill". But in Vietnam it did not do so well because fighting was done at closer ranges where you could not exactly see your enemy or have a second available to aim at him. Like other assualt rifles it could fire bursts in the direction of the enemy, but because of the big bullet rifle ammunition it used it did create a large recoil that did push the gun off target when you gave automatic firing bursts - so it was an inferior gun compared to other assault rifles in that regard. And that was also the reason why it later on was replaced by the better M16 rifle which was lighter and fired a smaller bullet that did not create so much recoil, and therefore was the M16 much more accurate when you were firing automatic. This gun was also made out of plastic and not from wood like M14, and this also meant that the stock of the gun would not swell if it got wet. M14 is perhaps better for fighting at longer ranges than M16, but most fighting in modern wars are done at closer ranges where M16 has an advantage. And much of the firing is also done not with the intent of killing the enemy, but rather to supress him and force him to stick his head down and take cover instead of aiming and firing at your guys. At the M16 is probably better for that job as well.
    1
  3.  @johnking1463  Do you disagree with me only because I'm black?
    1