"Russian" doctrine is more effective and makes perfect sense if you consider conscript army with a chosen few special troops mixed in. Add up to that SVD - the first DMR. It reminds me their way in ww2 tank warfare, batch of medium t34's, each - a perfect definition of tank(armor, maneuver and firepower) capable to fight heavy tanks at close to medium ranges, esp with APDS rounds(which were given in small numbers to battle proven crews). With a heavy fire power support from Is2's, Su85/122/152 and artillery. Its perfect.

Denis Neposeda I am not sure that it is more "effective"... It is easier to train for, sure, and it is effective when you are close... But you have to get close, and the time to get there can be costly.

bandholm Didnt i say about DMR role in all that and that the Soviets were the first to implement this

Denis Neposeda You did, but that doesn't change that it would be costly... Infantry at the time the DMR was introduced had good anti-tank weapons and quickly got even and more weapons... Also not every unit of the soviet infantry were equipped with DMR... So the DMR is nice, and makes a big difference, but losses would still be there

bandholm every Soviet platoon had SVD, RPK and RPG7 as general issue...unless its engineers ofc. And im talking about your "general infantry guys", "motostrelki", "motorised infantry".

That's not possible. This is an active match and it's a constant state of gunfire from beginning to end. ~Karl

Okay that makes sense

It's our way of tipping our hat towards "power factor". 308 is more powerful than 7.62x39, so theoretically, it should require less hits to neutralize a target. ~Karl

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qNhkgJlqxse9fYk.html

Well I mean those targets being super close was also a factor. This was more indicative of city combat (not room clearing, but fighting across streets or shooting down roads). if that range was scaled up to fighting in open country then all those peripheral hits the AK scored would have been complete misses. Also since this was more indicative of city combat, taking into account the better penetration of .308 through walls allowing you to more effectively shoot through cover would be a factor. the main difference between the two would probably be weight and ammo capacity. having shaky aim because your arms are a bit tired and less ammo for prolonged combat is .308s biggest disadvantage

I think it should depend on the cumulative mass of the bullets and not the caliber

I absolutely agree, and said something similar in the previous video: if you compare the data (Wikipedia; just goin' with that for the sake of this post) between 7.62x51, 7.62x39, and 5.56/5.45, they really are in 3 separate categories much more than 2, as *both* the West and Soviets went to the lighter cartridges at almost the exact same time ('64/65 and '74 respectively). Then again, they are focusing on post-WWII doctrine and weapons only, so ultimately that would be a different debate anyway. :)

Why must everything be about taking sides? I never felt any bias in their dealings. For example, AK lovers could just as well complain about their torture tests.

I think the points they make are valid and that the doctrine of using intermediate calibers vs full size cartridges (or whatever 7.62 real fuckin nato falls in to) for a general rifleman role is superior in shorter range infantry combat. That's why the us army adopted 5.56

I'll say it one last time, then never again. I wouldn't want to be the logistics officer for any Russian unit if they're going to use hundreds or thousands of extra rounds per man per day to accomplish only about the same as a NATO equivalent unit. That's why they teach fire discipline in basic training, so you don't waste all your ammo suppressing the enemy, then you have to spend a while waiting for resupply while the enemy makes a move on you. The adage of don't spend it all in one place comes to mind. Armies don't have an unlimited amount of ammunition, and even if they did it still takes time to get it forward to the advance units, time you might not have.

Well, it seems as though I can't have an intelligent conversation anywhere with anyone about anything. I need to stop listening to people online, they're all usually uninformed, liars, or simply looking for a fight. It's a shame really that there's so much of a pro-Russian bias everywhere even from non-Russians. We'll probably have to fight them at some point in the future, and I fear for the future of democracy and freedom if we lose. There's one universal truth that has existed for over a hundred years now, and continues to exist. Never trust Russians. I apologize for wasting your time.

Well in that case, why does Karl keep calling it the Russian doctrine instead of the German doctrine? I'd have no problem with and would actually support anything German, since they were ahead of the world in small-unit tactics towards the end. What's a problem is when people say that anything Russian must be superior to the west because it's Russian, without explaining why. I'll concede that it's a German concept. Please support an ongoing petition to make everyone else on the planet admit that fact as well, instead of giving false credit to the Russians. By the way, copying ideas from its enemies and claiming they invented it in the first place is something very much a Russian trait.