Weapons and Warfare

[Lighthawk]

Modern match results

Spetsnaz Kills IRA Kills
Close Range-----------Makarov Pistol 20-------------Webley Revolver ---------8
Mid Range-------------Saiga Shotgun 92--------------LPO-50 Flamethrower---11
Long Range -----------AK74 Carbine --472-------------AR-15 ArmaLite--------175
Dragonov Rifle-120-------------HK G3 Sniper Rifle------47
Special Weapons------Ballistic Knife-----6--------------Slingshot-----------------3
Explosive Weapons---RGD-5 Grenade---7--------------Nail Bomb 20
Totals----------------------------717--------------------------------264


For long range automatic rifles, the footage of season one reviewed the AR-15 Armlite and AK-74 Carbine. It was agreed that the Armlite was the more accurate weapon, but the AK-74 was the more durable weapon; hence, the result was a draw.
For mid range weaponry, footage for season one reviewed the IRA's LPO-50 Flamethrower against the Spetsnaz's Saiga Shotgun. While the Saiga was quick and deadly, the LPO-50 Flamethrower brought a psychological advantage. Additionally, burn injuries were deemed to be far worse than gun shot wounds, giving the IRA the edge.
For long range sniper rifles, the IRA's the HK G3 was paired against the Dragonov. While both weapons had high kill ratios, the Dragonov was deemed faster and more accurate in terms of execution and given the edge.
For special weapons, season one footage reviewed the IRA's sling shot and Spetsnaz's ballistic knife. The ballistic knife was determined as having the advantage due to the weapon's killing power.
For explosives, the nail bomb and RGD-5 Grenade were reviewed from the season one footage. While the RGD-5 was powerful at a wide range, the Nail Bomb (despite being an improvised weapon) was given the advantage due to the high killing power of its shrapnel.
For short range weapons, the Makarov was pitted against the IRA's side arm, the Webley Revolver. Despite the Webley being a more powerful pistol, the Makarov was given the advantage due to the pistol carrying more ammo than the six bullets in the Webley.

I love how they gave the flamethrower the edge over the shotgun, and then it barely got a 1/10th of the kills compared to the shotgun in the simulation.

[Sionnach Glic]

Where on Earth are they getting their weapons from? I've never heard of the IRA using flamethrowers, let alone slingshots.

Personaly I think it would have been more interestin if they'd pitted the original 1920's IRA against a law enforcement group from the same period. I'd be interested in seeing how the Flying Columns would match up against 1920's SWAT, or other such groups.

[Lighthawk]

Where on Earth are they getting their weapons from? I've never heard of the IRA using flamethrowers, let alone slingshots.

Well they had an IRA "expert" who I believe was also a decentant of IRA memebrs. So I assume he brought the weapons.

Personaly I think it would have been more interestin if they'd pitted the original 1920's IRA against a law enforcement group from the same period. I'd be interested in seeing how the Flying Columns would match up against 1920's SWAT, or other such groups.

They seem to be against that kind of pair up. The more unlikely it ever happening in real life, the better they seem to like it.

[Sionnach Glic]

Well they had an IRA "expert" who I believe was also a decentant of IRA memebrs. So I assume he brought the weapons.

I can sort of see them using improvised flamethrowers as weapons, but a slingshot?

They seem to be against that kind of pair up. The more unlikely it ever happening in real life, the better they seem to like it.

1920's IRA fighting 1920's US police is just as unlikely (if not more so) than the modern IRA fighting against the modern day Spetznatz.

[Captain Seafort]

1920's IRA fighting 1920's US police is just as unlikely (if not more so) than the modern IRA fighting against the modern day Spetznatz.

It would also, I suspect, be somewhat one-sided. This is the bunch that gave veterans of the 1918 British Army a bloody nose.

[Mark]

SWAT didn't exist till the late 60's

[Sionnach Glic]

Good point, Reliant.

Prohibition was in place around that time, right? How about the Mafia of the prohibition era (which was, AFAIK, their high point) against the IRA of the same period?

1920's IRA fighting 1920's US police is just as unlikely (if not more so) than the modern IRA fighting against the modern day Spetznatz.

It would also, I suspect, be somewhat one-sided. This is the bunch that gave veterans of the 1918 British Army a bloody nose.

While I certainly won't argue with you there ( ), I doubt armies of that era were really organised or trained with dealing with an insurgency in mind.

[Mikey]

Prohibition was in place around that time, right? How about the Mafia of the prohibition era (which was, AFAIK, their high point) against the IRA of the same period?

(standard New Jersey answer to follow)
There is no such thing as the Mafia. What you have heard are fables from the Old Country/myths created by people prejudiced against Italian-Americans/stories concocted by the government to shake down honest construction and waste-management contractors.

*ahem* That would be interesting. The, um, Chicago businessmen would have a greater degree of organization and probably a healthier supply chain, while the IRA would (aside from Dutch Schultz) be a bit more ruthless and less concerned about casualties among bystanders.

[Reliant121]

Good point, Reliant

While I love a good ego boost, and am quite happy to take credit, I think it's due to big Bro Mark

[Mikey]

Damned Cardie avatars!

[Captain Seafort]

While I certainly won't argue with you there ( ), I doubt armies of that era were really organised or trained with dealing with an insurgency in mind.

There was one army that had ample experience of dealing with insurgencies - us, on the north-west frontier. Unfortunately the experience wasn't very useful in Ireland, because it was aimed at containing the insurgency rather than eliminating it. SOP was to respond to serious drama by marching in, slapping the offenders about a bit, and then getting out. Trying to actually hold territory against an insurgency is quite another matter.

[Sonic Glitch]

While I certainly won't argue with you there ( ), I doubt armies of that era were really organised or trained with dealing with an insurgency in mind.

There was one army that had ample experience of dealing with insurgencies - us, on the north-west frontier. Unfortunately the experience wasn't very useful in Ireland, because it was aimed at containing the insurgency rather than eliminating it. SOP was to respond to serious drama by marching in, slapping the offenders about a bit, and then getting out. Trying to actually hold territory against an insurgency is quite another matter.

Seems the U.S. is learning that now... *cough* Did I say that? I really shouldn't say such things.. [/sarcasm]

[Captain Seafort]

Seems the U.S. is learning that now... *cough* Did I say that? I really shouldn't say such things.. [/sarcasm]

Learned. The US Army finally managed to get a grip on counterinsurgency around 2007, once they finally managed to get it through their collective skull that you essentially need two things - local support and a lot of people.

[Sonic Glitch]

Seems the U.S. is learning that now... *cough* Did I say that? I really shouldn't say such things.. [/sarcasm]

Learned. The US Army finally managed to get a grip on counterinsurgency around 2007, once they finally managed to get it through their collective skull that you essentially need two things - local support and a lot of people.

And how're we doing with those?

[Captain Seafort]

And how're we doing with those?

How often do you hear of Iraq these days? The place isn't fixed, and won't be for years to come, but compared with a few years ago it's remarkably calm. Afghanistan is another matter, partially because of the sheer numbers that would be required to secure the country properly, partially because the insurgents are even more effective (both in terms of equipment and ability) than Iraq (unsurprising, given that they've been in a near-constant state of war for thirty years). Nonetheless, the basic principles remain the same, and if the numpty you elected doesn't do something stupid (such as withdrawing before the ANA is in a position to take over), the campaign is winnable.