Sino-India conflict

@ arjun

**-Indeed Enfield 303 is better than any modern assault rifle in terms of range and accuracy . But a single shot weapon is no match to an automatic weapon with in a few hundred metres !!! Its known that most infantry soldiers combat with in the range of 300 m , the longer distance shootings are done by Snipers and MMG crews !! So in close combat 303 had little chance against AKs !!!
-**

It is true that in close combat the Enfield had the disadvantage but the terrian they were fighting on gave the soldiers sight of the enemy at a fair ditance.


End Note

This is my last post in this thread(i hope). i am quite well aware of the racial tensions between these on-line cultures so i wont go and respond in a never-ending slug-fest.

Hope both countries are properous in the future

Regards,

Chianwhite

It is true that in close combat the Enfield had the disadvantage but the terrian they were fighting on gave the soldiers sight of the enemy at a fair ditance.

Click to expand...

Well tough this is bit offtopic, but anywya...and this is not intended to anyone particulary, just a general tought

i've come agros these statements before, bolt-action riffle being more accurate than automatic rifles...and therefor more suitable to "these kind of terrains"... well ofcourse the rifle may be accurate, but is the guy using it? Shoot a person from even 300m using open sight is thing that propaply 1/100 of us could do. In my battery only one other guy besides me (and i've been doing sportshooting since i was 11) scored over 90 points from 100 in 150m...most of them didn't even get all the ten rounds to the target. talking to other guys in the brigade, their batteryes and companyes had pretty much similar results. If we would have go to the 300m range...none of us would have propaply hit the target...(150m target was pretty much same widht (the so called black area, from 7 onwards) as avrage person)

So automatic rifles pretty much beats boltaction rifles in every other aspects otherthan true sniperworks...

Any pictures of the Chinese side? lol.

"By wave style Indians mean the tactic of attacking an enemy post with a large number of men after initial bombardment ( if you look it from a distange , you feel that a large wave of men is going to engulf you )!!! Its an old WW1 tactic. The soviets utilised it very effectively against the Germans .
Chinese used this against the Japanese and forces loyal to Chian Kaishek .

If you see the movie 'Enemy at gates' wou can see a cruel form of it !!
Two soldiers with just one rifle and a single clip !!!"

What you see as the Soviets did to the Germans in WWII in open warfare during the later years is not "human wave" tactics. It is only assaulting the enemy with overwhelming numbers. Human wave tactics are more like Red Army at Stalingrad. And I can assure you Chinese don't do that. Instead, we "assault the enemy with overwhelming numbers". Human wave tactics is implying that the commander just simply throws thousands of men to their deaths, often ill equipped and ill trained, without giving consideration to casualty numbers. The Chinese never did that.

@Gollevainen

**-i've come agros these statements before, bolt-action riffle being more accurate than automatic rifles...and therefor more suitable to "these kind of terrains"...

So automatic rifles pretty much beats boltaction rifles in every other aspects otherthan true sniperworks...-**

Actually....

That figure of 200metres was for a Ak shooting only one round each time not on automatic mode. If that advantage is taken away and both rifles can only fire one round at a time.

The indian soldiers i presume were taught to fire with a En field , so i dont know why they would be any less than any other person.

PS: the figure of 300hundred metres for a AK is meant to be 200.


A assualt rifle is (like its name says) for assualt. I dont when the chinese fired their weapons but it was more of a bayonet fight first(?) Korean war and Vietnam 79 give you clues to how they fired them.

Regards,

Chinawhite

well I doupt that chinese soldiers were trained to always seek close range bayonet struggle against its enemyes...

but what do you mean whit those numbers cuold you be more spesific??

Numbers?

You mean those accuracy figures?

Well thats what i got off a NRA forum.

Update

I found this at a Ak-47 site.

The basic Kalashnikov rifle, the AK47 and variants, is the other common true assault rifle. It uses a minimalistic 30 caliber cartridge (7.62x39) and is meant to be easy to manufacture and maintain. Actually hitting anything with one much past 100 yards is problematical.

Click to expand...

The figures i posted before are cast in doubt now.

well I wouldnt say so...at least the finnish AK is accurate enough for me at least (I always wished to be a sniper, but they didnt train snipers in artillery )....have you ever fired whit any rifle?? If you have, then you know what its like. A trained and experienced shooter have no proplems whit hitting targets over 150m whit Ak, at least they convinced us in the army...

The only thing i fired is a .22
And that was only at birds.

I couldn't fire to 200 metres but anyway im not a soldier.

If the army tells you that then they might want to consevre ammunition(it waste a lot of ammo taking post shots 200metres out)

Regards,

Chinawhite

Well You dont need to be soldier to fire rifles...just seek out if there is any sportshooting activity in your hometown or if your relatives own hunting rifles...

but conserving ammunitions, my army denied the use of rabid fire in non-emercy situations.