The weakness of NATO was summarized in the Aurora 17 exercise. US marines...

Finland can fight NATO and Russia at the same time and win

Yes, which is why 7.62x51/5.45x39 are used instead, though 5.56 is something of a weakish round nowadays. I think we're going to see a comeback of 6.8 or something like it in the near future.

stop using our weapons pekka

This. r*ssians and w*stcucks are powerless to the might of our million man conscript army and ten thousand piece artillery

Attached: PEVIESTOS-Ampuma-ja-harjoitusalueet-564x328-Oscar-Lindell-20160418.jpg (564x328, 187K)

Swedes and Norvegians are NATO? Pff... It means they will make you NATO too

>easily shot down by Finnish AA
what AA are you talking about pikka?
all you have is mid and short range shit from either sweden or soviet union
best thing you have is probably the buk

BUK, patriot, crotale, Umkhonto-IR

NATO and R*ssians fear the Finnish Bull

> NATO
> low energy
sounds right

*nukes Finland*

NATOIDS BTFO

You need more BMP's and some s300 SAM batteries
add to that some more ammunition depos and more underground tunnel and bunker networks and there is nobody on the planet that can do anything to you, or will even try to.

sounds familiar from somewhere

Attached: svenska flottan.png (845x686, 1016K)

redpilled
based

You know, we can't wait for a war to fight for our neutrality

The public opinion is almost unanimously against Nato, but politicians are for it. If Finland ever formally joins the coalition, it can be considered to be a sure sign of a coming war. It's not that in a sense that Finns would attack, but that US troops will be brought to our soil in full gear and with full owner's mandate. The question of Finland joining Nato is a question whether or not our politicians sell - or admit it publicly - the people and the land to their bloodthirsty masters.

karjalan kaikkivoipa varjelemus..

Attached: kieli.jpg (360x360, 32K)

based Finland

The most efficient method of killing Finns is to shut off all their internet access and then simply wait while they commit mass suicide.

Do you have literally any sources? I'll take just one.

youtube.com/watch?v=UsKuvY6hUDU

Attached: shed_a_tear.jpg (776x528, 84K)

Norway has literally been a NATO member since its founding in 1949.

Are we entering another norse century + finland

>and American rifles are restricted from firing full-auto
How is this a detriment? Nobody uses full auto anyway, save for crew support weapons. Also, it's not true, M16 and M4 have giggle switches.

maavoimat.fi/en/arrow18-en
blog.vantagepointnorth.net/2018/05/joint-drills-in-north.html?spref=tw (details)

No official details are ever public ofc. Americans employed the same tactics they use against 3rd world countries. Which ofc didn't end well. However, Norwegians were allegedly somewhat competent opponents.

TLDR: Americans used their "standard" communication procedures, i.e. no emissions control, because sandniggers don't have the apparatus to locate radios. And absolutely stupid lethal driver tactics because they are used to absolute air superiority and to sandniggers that don't have sophisticated intelligence and anti-armour capabilities.

Attached: 61a24e5477325b914426221b9fedf901.png (1667x207, 85K)

CQC and suppressive fire

>CQB
No
>Suppressive fire
Accomplished with semi-auto and support weapons like SAW. Full auto with service rifles is counter-productive.

I welcome our new Finnish overlords

NATO will never be effective. Europe needs a pan EU army.

I'm pretty sure they don't use real bullets during exercices, how do we know which one won?

Automatic rifle fire is most often used sometimes in urban fighting, ambushes and when breaking contact. In situations when you need lots fire downrange as fast as possible, rare. Suppression is often not such situation. Soveltaen.

But OP is a turbo virgin neet who belongs to signals, logistics or to a corresponding unit and doesn't need to know such.

siggies are the patrician unit

Not OP but me and my buddy have served in FDF. I wouldn't be surprised if OP's story was true as my friend told me this story:

>Be my friend in 2017 summer I think the mission was Arrow 17 or something like that.
>Americanos come here to train with AT-jaegers
>American armor + inf VS Finnish armor + inf
>No planes and I think there wasn't arty either, both sides are equal in strenght
>Americans defend from the Finnish invasion
>Friend sees when American APC get's destroyed by APILAS
>Turret keeps firing even when vehicle is destroyed
>Fast forward some time
>My friend's platoon/company fights other American infantry
>One of the American officers has a "revive gun"
Bear in mind, everyone wore the same kind of wests as seen in the video. The revive gun brought you back to life.
>No revives are granted to Finns
>Americans wreck the Finns with their unlimited lives untill everyone is dead.
Americans had to cheat in order to push back the attacking Finnish infantry.
If OPFOR had the same strenght as the Nato had in Aurora 17, it's very possible to be annihilated by Finns. Usually Opfor has less numbers that Blufor.

Attached: 130k54.jpg (3888x2592, 1.57M)

youtube.com/watch?v=rRohQ6rwxvc

Attached: kelaperse.png (1000x786, 38K)

>war games
>"""playing""" war
lmao

I actually agree on the ambush scenario benefiting from full auto, because then you don't have a clear idea on where the enemy is shooting from, and need to haul ass away from the killzone until you can figure out a better approach. For planned and systematic suppression though, sustainability is important, and service rifles just don't have the ammo capacity to sustain cyclic rate for more than a couple of seconds. You'll also risk ruining the weapon by overheating the barrel, since closed bolt and non-replaceable barrel don't lend themselves well to automatic fire.

For urban combat I'd still say that accurate and controlled fire > volume of fire, especially since you're still responsible for every round you fire and collateral damage is a thing. The latter point might be more applicable to LE rather than mil though.

Also you can still put up nice volume of fire with semi-auto only, webm related. And my splits aren't even anything impressive

Attached: magdump_slo.webm (1280x720, 2.9M)

a pan european army will take the worst attributes from each country and mix it together in an army that would lose against some middle eastern shithole.

But it would pave the way for us to take all of their colonies with our warfleet

Attached: 974700.jpg (820x316, 31K)

>Umkhonto-IR

Based South African imports

Attached: ORD_SAM_Umkhonto-IR_Missile_Blurb_Denel_lg.jpg (770x717, 91K)

I meant when conducting an ambush. Full auto is crucial in full out urban war situations where every fraction of a second counts, controlled volumes of fire.

>I meant when conducting an ambush
I disagree. If you're trying to kill people, you need to actually hit, and full auto is far less likely to do so. You do need to pin the enemy in place, but lmg and accurate semi-auto will do that just fine. If you need to keep them pinned for indirect fire, you need sustainability, and semi-auto is the solution to that as well.
>Full auto is crucial in full out urban war situations where every fraction of a second counts, controlled volumes of fire.
I disagree there as well, you gain fractions of seconds by being controlled and hitting where you are supposed to rather than putting your rifle on funswitch and hoping for the best.

>I disagree. If you're trying to kill people, you need to actually hit, and full auto is far less likely to do so. You do need to pin the enemy in place, but lmg and accurate semi-auto will do that just fine. If you need to keep them pinned for indirect fire, you need sustainability, and semi-auto is the solution to that as well.
By bracing the RK95 while firing bursts/automatic, you can make every bullet hit on a man-sized target at least to a 150m. If I'm with a fireteam against a superior enemy and the objective is to cause casualties and immediately break contact, I might not be nitpicking. Different story with a squad, but again, soveltaen.
>I disagree there as well, you gain fractions of seconds by being controlled and hitting where you are supposed to rather than putting your rifle on funswitch and hoping for the best.
See above. You have a small timespan to hit. Accuracy does not significantly decrease but the volume of fire significantly increases.

These are the few cases where full auto might be beneficial.

Was this before or after Finnish-Korean hyperwar?

>One of the American officers has a "revive gun"

Topkek
I really hope you are making rhis

Attached: BF2_Defibrillator.png (800x600, 751K)

If they are NATO member, why they fear of "Russian occupation"?

Just wait until the HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL Dutch troops arrive.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ui21vvZfmpc

youtube.com/watch?v=GA6FtDw44XM

>By bracing the RK95 while firing bursts/automatic, you can make every bullet hit on a man-sized target at least to a 150m.
I sincerely doubt that, even in optimal conditions. Besides, you performance still improves with semi-auto, and you'll make better hits at smaller targets with greater consistency.
>If I'm with a fireteam against a superior enemy and the objective is to cause casualties and immediately break contact, I might not be nitpicking.
You're still hoping for the best with the funswitch rather than calling your shots with semi-auto. If you want hits, it isn't even a contest. Mentally pick your targets, place 5 controlled shots on each and get out once your mag is out and I'm betting you'll have better results than magdumping with full auto.
>See above. You have a small timespan to hit. Accuracy does not significantly decrease but the volume of fire significantly increases.
Accuracy does significantly decrease though, especially with subsequent rounds. If you're reacting to contact and just want to gain fire superiority, I'm with you on using full auto, but if you want to kill/incapacitate people, semi is the way to go.

*laughs in military police*
youtube.com/watch?v=qpizA-CeGSM

Attached: 1528114447753.jpg (655x851, 218K)

>Netherlands, defend this Muslim enclave from angry Serbs
Say no more senpai.

>0 Dutch losses
>all Muslims dead

Attached: dobbs_116.jpg (625x400, 74K)

The wests determine if somebody shoot's you. You can be crippled or killed if you're hit in a vital part. Once you're killed, your own gun doesn't shoot laserbeams anymore (and thus cannot kill anybody)
The "revive" gun works with the same principle. It shoots a beam and the west detects it. Instead of killing you, it resets your west and you can fight again.

In Indonesia we killed 30 Indonesians for each Dutch loss.

Half of them were civilians though.

Was that NATO or peacekeeping?

According to the Netherlands it were police actions to maintain order.

According to Indonesia their independence war.

Oh, you're asserting constant mag dumping. I meant only tulenavaus if it was not extremely obvious.
Due to short timespans, they made this for urban combat youtu.be/JD4u_e2xjE4

naiice

I get it, but why such guns exists in those joint exercises? There are no revive guns IRL.

Attached: 1524493482212.jpg (552x577, 85K)

I'm sorry, but I still don't see the benefit. In my experience, full auto fire has only ever contributed to missed shots, and whatever job I did with it I could have done with semi only with cleaner and more consistent hits with less wasted ammo in more or less the same amount of time.

I understand the idea behind that double barreled system, but it looks like it sacrifices mechanical simplicity (greater risk of malfunction), weight (slower to point and transition), recoil (time lost to get back on target) and price. Whether the downsides outweigh the pro of greater volume with similar controllability, I can't say without seeing studies and/or having the chance to try one out for myself.

We are developing multicalibre assault rifle. Uses 7.62 and 6.5

So you can recycle troops and simulate reinforcements?

>In my experience
And those who have been in such combat situations have their opinions. This is the general consensus and not completely my opinion.

And of course. But the point was that larger volumes of fire are beneficial in such situations.

>And those who have been in such combat situations have their opinions.
Yes, they do, and they generally agree with me, as the focus is indeed on semi rather than cyclic. Although you may raise the point that since the common conscript is an awful shot, it is better to have him just bullethose the enemy and hope for hits, rather than expect competence.
>But the point was larger volumes of fire.
I dispute the benefit of volume of fire when it comes with the expense of accuracy.

>Yes, they do, and they generally agree with me
They say that greater volumes of fire are beneficial in ambushes and urban combat and you disagree.

Mmm okay but doesn't convince me, I guess the economical factor is the key, saving money vs a full joint exercise; reinforcements doesn't "respawn" IRL, but hey, what can I say? We don't have a proper force after all, not air, land nor sea.

Attached: 1522254930036.jpg (300x250, 12K)

Why would you waste the exercise time for dead troops though? Someone has to die first, say from an artillery strike, are they just supposed to sit around for two weeks after that? It makes much more sense to "revive" them for reinforcements and so they get more experience.

Based

Attached: IMG_4578.png (722x800, 30K)

I'm pretty sure they would fuck you up if the exercise was in the middle East where their troops are specialized to operate in. You're already used and established in your own country when it comes to training.

>They say that greater volumes of fire are beneficial in ambushes and urban combat and you disagree.
Greater volume of fire is always a benefit, but it's not a benefit when it comes with downsides that outweigh it.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but the general consensus is semi always, except when you aren't even trying to hit and just need to momentarily win fire superiority so you can haul ass or do something more useful. I'm not talking about finns here, but people with actual experience by the way.

There are rare exceptions, but generally semi all the way.

If you have not realized, we are trying to find these rare exceptions. As indicates, there have been situations where more fire from the rifles available have been proven to be more lethal over the short timespan than carefully placed shots.
>There are rare exceptions, but generally semi all the way.
No one has claimed the opposite.

No, I did understand, I just don't agree that full auto would be useful in the situations you described.

I wouldn't place that much trust in what a company representative says, as he's trying to sell a product and foreign military mystique helps sell products. As far as kikes themselves go, I think I read somewhere that some of the Tavors they issue don't even have a funswitch since it sees so little use and when it gets used it's most likely a detriment.

I'll try to find you a source if I can, but since I'm phoneposting it might be too big of a pain

>you described.
They described*

Keep on track.

No reason to fear anything

It's not. It's Czech RM-70.

You have to go back

The RM-70 is a GRAD with an armored chasis

So the problem is buying bigger guns?

>They
Allegedly.

No. What the EU needs is to die and roll over like a fucking cockroach.

Nothing new
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
>dump 250 million $ to test your new technologies
>get BTFO by WWII tier tactics and technology
>lose whole fucking navy on day 1
>restart the game to make use of the remaining days, but put ridiculous restrictions on the enemy to US ensure win
USA is paper tiger backed by nukes. The moment reliable anti-nuclear technology will be found, USA loses all its power

>Implying USA wouldn't preemptively nuke any country close to developing that

But again, these kinds of tweaks to increase hit probability are not unheard of, see M16A2 and AN94. And cease asserting bullet hosing, when obviously braced bursts of automatic fire is spoken of.

>American rifles are restricted from firing full-auto.
Lol