The economy of war. How much does a machine cost?


Perhaps the most interesting recent event in the world of small arms weapons may become american NGSW program to create a new generation automatic rifle and light machine gun. In comments and comments on articles in the media on the topic of this program and similar previous programs for the creation of promising small arms, one can often see a negative attitude to the spending of financial resources in this direction. The main message is that small arms are not so important as to focus on it, and it is much more important to invest in high-tech models of military equipment: Tanks, rockets, planes.



Samples of small arms developed under the NGSW program

At the same time, as can be seen from the data given in the article “Battle suit. Statistics of wounds, bullets and splinters ", small arms account for between 30 and 60 percent or more of the enemy’s manpower destroyed. Moreover, apparently, since the Second World War, this figure has only increased. While fighting vehicles are busy killing their own kind, infantry still wins the war.

It can be assumed that an increase in the share of high-tech weapons should contribute to the fact that more and more enemy soldiers will be destroyed by high-tech combat vehicles, but practice puts this assumption into question. In fact, if opponents of comparable strength are fighting, combat vehicles are primarily engaged in the destruction of similar combat vehicles available to the enemy. If one enemy is obviously stronger than the other, then the hostilities go into the irregular phase - partisan war, in which the role of heavy equipment is obviously lower than in classic full-scale wars, which is confirmed by statistics of local conflicts in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

No, definitely aviation and the fleet is quite capable of driving a medium-sized country into the Stone Age even without the use of nuclear weapons, but only infantry, the main weapon of which is small arms, can completely capture and secure the territory of the enemy.


Carpet bombing could not defeat either Nazi Germany or communist Vietnam, it would hardly have been possible with precision weapons

Another message is that small arms have almost reached the pinnacle of their development, no breakthroughs in this regard are foreseen in the foreseeable future until the appearance of “blasters” and “disintegrators”. In the best case, it is said about the need to improve sights, which, of course, is extremely important in itself.

At the same time, the technologies discussed in the article “Armor of God: technologies for promising means of individual armor protection”, which will be used to create promising means of individual armor protection (NIB), can make most of the existing models of small arms ineffective.

It turns out that in fact there is a need to develop a new generation of small arms, and the importance of small arms on the battlefield is quite high? Let us try to consider how expensive the programs for creating and purchasing small arms are compared to other types of weapons.

Since information about the cost of developing domestic weapons is most often classified, we will focus on American programs and purchases; most likely, they will somehow correlate with similar Russian ones.

Rifle m14


The M14 rifle, the predecessor of the famous M16 rifle, was developed to replace the M1 Garand rifle. Preliminary work to create a new rifle was started back in 1944, and in 1957 the prototype M14 rifle was adopted by the US armed forces.

The economy of war. How much does a machine cost?

Rifle m14

Four American companies were engaged in the production of the M14 rifle. Springfield Armory Inc produced 1959 M1963 rifles from July 167 to October 173. From 14 to 1959, 1963 537 M512 rifles were manufactured by Harrington & Richardson Arms Co. The third company to receive a contract for the production of M14 rifles was Winchester, which produced 14 units between 356 and 510. The last manufacturer of the M1959 rifle was Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge Inc, which produced 1963 rifles between 14 and 319.

Thus, the total number of issued M14 rifles amounted to 1 pieces (according to other sources, 380 M358 rifles were produced). The cost of one rifle was originally $ 1, but then increased to $ 376.

Accordingly, the purchase price of all M14 rifles amounted to about $ 131 million at prices in the early 60s of the XX century, or about 1 billion 133 million at current prices. The cost of one M14 rifle at current prices (under an army contract) should be approximately $ 822.

SPIV Program


The SPIV (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) program was supposed to be implemented by the US armed forces from 1959 to 1965 (in fact, the program lasted until the mid-70s). Initially, the SPIV program grew out of the SALVO research program, which was conducted approximately from 1951-1952. According to the results of the SALVO program, an opinion was formed that small arms with a high rate of fire would be significantly more deadly than a less rapid-fire weapon, albeit with significantly more powerful ammunition.

Based on the results of the SALVO program, the creation of a weapon with an increased probability of hitting targets was considered under the SPIV program. An increase in the probability of defeat was to be ensured by firing with small-caliber cartridges with a high rate of 2000-2500 rounds per minute. As ammunition, both classic small-caliber ammunition of 5,6 mm and cartridges with sub-caliber feathered ammunition were considered. Requirements for weapons also included stores of increased capacity by 60 rounds and a three-shot grenade launcher, with a weapon weight of less than five kilograms.

In October 1962, 42 companies were introduced to the SPIW project. By December, ten companies had submitted official offers. After a two-month study, four companies were selected: AAI, Springfield Armory, Winchester Arms and Harrington & Richardson.


Prototypes of weapons developed under the SPIW program, and cartridges for it in comparison with a 5,56x45 mm cartridge

It was estimated that the cost of the SPIV program would be $ 21 million at 60s prices or $ 180 million at current prices. In fact, the costs were exceeded several times, that is, they could well have amounted to about 300-350 million dollars at current prices.

It should be borne in mind that the SPIV program was very advanced for its time, and its successful implementation could give the US army a significant advantage over the enemy. Unfortunately (and fortunately for us), the technological level of that time did not allow the successful completion of the SPIV program.

Rifle m16


Due to delays and technical difficulties in implementing the SPIW program in 1957, the U.S. Army decided to develop a temporary solution - an automatic rifle chambered for 5,56 mm caliber. Already in 1962, the first Armalite rifles, designated AR-15, were handed over for testing to the US armed forces, and in 1963 Colt received a contract for the production of 104 M000 rifles. It was believed that the purchase of rifles would be one-time and is a temporary measure before adopting a rifle developed under the SPIW program.


Rifle (AR-15) M16

But already in 1966, Colt received a government contract for the supply of 840 rifles for a total of almost 000 million US dollars, which at current prices is about 92 million dollars. With previously purchased 746 M104 rifles, this will be approximately $ 000 million at current prices.

ACR Program


To replace the “temporary” M16 rifle with the US Army, the ACR (Advanced Combat Rifle) program was launched in 1986. According to the results of the ACR program, a weapon was supposed to be developed, providing a double probability of hitting targets in comparison with the M16 rifle.

Development contracts were entered into in 1986 with six companies: AAI Corporation, Ares Incorporated, Colt Manufacturing Company, Heckler & Koch, McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Systems and Steyr Mannlicher. Already in 1989, AAI, Colt, H&K and Steyr presented their prototypes.


Advanced Combat Rifle Weapon Prototypes

All the projects presented were workable, but not one showed the ACR program’s required double superiority over the M16 rifle, which led to the closure of the program in April 1990.

The cost of the Advanced Combat Rifle program was $ 300 million, or about $ 613 million at current prices.

OICW Program


In 1986/1987, the US Army Infantry School published a SAS-2000 report (Small Arms System-2000, Small Arms System 2000), which claimed that the rifle as a weapon had already reached its peak, and the only way create a more effective infantry weapon - use explosive ammunition. This was the starting point for the emergence of a new program - OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon, "Objective Individual Combat Weapon").

Within the framework of the OICW program, it was planned to create a weapon in which a compact multiple-charge grenade launcher with remote detonation of grenades in the air will become the main striking means. As an auxiliary melee weapon, it was supposed to use a compact automatic machine of a standard caliber 5,56x45 mm integrated with a grenade launcher.

Initially, three industry groups were involved in the OICW competition: AAI Corporation, Alliant Techsystems and Heckler & Koch, Olin Ordnance and FN Herstal. AAI Corporation and Alliant Techsystems reached the final of the competition. Ultimately, in 2000, it was decided that further development under the OICW program would continue with Alliant Techsystems Inc in cooperation with Heckler & Koch and Brashear.

During the development process, the OICW weapons prototypes underwent many changes and in the final turned into a complex that received the name XM29, including a semi-automatic grenade launcher of 20 mm caliber, a 5,56x45 mm short-barreled automatic rifle and a computerized sight with a laser range finder, which provides distance measurement and programming grenades before departure from the barrel, in order to ensure its detonation next to the target. Thus, it was planned not only to increase the probability of hitting the target, but also to ensure the defeat of targets that are beyond the barrier.


OICW Weapon Prototypes and Final Model XM29

It was assumed that the effectiveness of the weapons developed by the OICW program would be five times higher than the standard American M16A2 rifle with the M203 grenade launcher.

In 2004, the program was closed, according to official figures, due to the high cost and mass of weapons developed. According to the author, most likely due to the fact that the XM29 complex required too much time to aim when firing a grenade and did not provide its guaranteed detonation at a given point.

The OICW development contract with Alliant Techsystems Inc totaled $ 95,5 million, or $ 134 million at current prices. The cost of the XM29 serial complex was supposed to be about $ 10, but in fact, the real cost of the complex in 000 prices was estimated at $ 2010, of which the majority was in the sighting complex, which is $ 40 at current prices (in fact, electronics has property significantly cheaper over time, so these forecasts can be called into question).

After the OICW program was closed, two separate programs were launched: the creation of the new 5,56 mm XM8 submachine gun and the 25 mm XM25 semi-automatic semi-automatic hand grenade launcher, both programs were officially closed in 2006 and 2018, respectively.

NGSW Program


Currently, the most expensive development and purchase of small arms is the American NGSW program (Next Generation Squad Weapons), in which it is planned to purchase about 250 thousand weapons (NGSW-R rifle and NGSW-AR machine gun), 150 million rounds, which enough to equip them with warring units.


The main contenders for victory in the NGSW program

The exact cost of future weapons is unknown, but the cost of rearmament is estimated at $ 150 million per year. Drawing an analogy with the supply of US Army new M17 / M18 army pistols by SIG Sauer in the amount of approximately 100 thousand sets per year, it can be assumed that the supply of rifles will be at a comparable or slightly lower pace. If we accept that 250 thousand sets of small arms under the NGSW program will be delivered in 3-6 years, then the cost of their acquisition will be about 450-900 million dollars.

conclusions


The development and production of small arms, at first glance, are not cheap.


On the other hand, rearmament of the U.S. Army from the M1 Garand rifle to the M14 rifle and from the M14 rifle to the M16 rifle cost only two billion dollars at current prices. In total, for all small arms programs (assault / automatic rifles are implied), the costs are unlikely to exceed five billion dollars at current prices, and this is from the middle of the XNUMXth to the beginning of the XNUMXst century.

Ammo? The commercial cost of quality cartridges (not sniper) is 0,5-1 dollars apiece. Under army contracts will be even lower. Well, let's say 1 dollar, respectively, one billion rounds - one billion dollars, it’s easy to scale further.

The estimated purchase price of 250 weapons under the NGSW program is equivalent to about 000-75 Abrams tanks ($ 150 million per unit) or 6,1-10 Apache helicopters ($ 15 million per unit), or the cost of 60-1 ships of the coastal zone of LCS (2 million dollars per unit), or 460-0,15 the cost of one multipurpose submarine of the Virginia type (0,3 billion dollars per unit). In total, about 2,7 million units of small arms are operated in the American army, thus, for the rearmament of all armed forces with a completely new small arms, approximately (1–1,8 billion dollars) are needed (not counting the cartridges for it).


It is enough to compare the volumes of armaments cited for comparison purchased by the US armed forces to understand how small a fraction of the cost is small arms. Abrams tanks were purchased over 6000 units, Apache helicopters about 600 units, ships of the coastal zone LCS planned to purchase about 20-40 units, Virginia submarine plans to purchase 30 units.

At the same time, from a third to half or more of all those killed and wounded in military conflicts are small arms.

The cost of small arms and ammunition according to the criterion of "cost-effectiveness" or unit cost of destruction of enemy manpower is significantly ahead of all other types of weapons. Of course, this does not mean that it is necessary to abandon airplanes, tanks and ships, and with this money to buy only megablasts for infantry, but this shows the value of small arms quite clearly.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS 17 January 2020 18: 15 New
    • 17
    • 6
    +11
    The estimated purchase price of 250 weapons under the NGSW program is equivalent to about 000-75 Abrams tanks ($ 150 million per unit) or 6,1-10 Apache helicopters ($ 15 million per unit), or the cost of 60-1 ships of the coastal zone of LCS (2 million dollars per unit), or 460-0,15 the cost of one multipurpose submarine of the Virginia type (0,3 billion dollars per unit).

    Something it reminded me ... the cartoon was like that about how a boa constrictor was measured. 5 monkeys, or 38 parrots. And there were more in the parrots. wassat
    1. YOUR 18 January 2020 03: 31 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      M16 Americans their program .... and the flag in their hands. Personally, I’m more interested in how things are with this in our country. And then they said, they talked about the tanks Abram how expensive he is and suddenly the refusal to buy T14, T15 because of their prohibitive cost. Caliber 5.45 is scolded by everyone and sundry, but they do updated weapons for it.
      The Americans will adopt the weapons described in this article and again, as in the distant times, when they removed 7.62 * 39 and replaced by 5.45 * 39, looking at the Americans, we will catch up with them
      1. Andrey77 18 January 2020 15: 13 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Ficus in what. In a global war, it’s beneficial to injure rather than kill. In a local war, on the contrary, it is better to kill. All Africa Fights Caliber 7,62
        1. bk0010 18 January 2020 15: 52 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Andrey77
          In a global war, it’s beneficial to injure rather than kill.
          Not anymore: medicine has advanced, too often wounded veterans have begun to return to duty, and this is fraught.
          1. Andrey77 18 January 2020 18: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            So you need to hurt before disability. So?
            1. bk0010 18 January 2020 20: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Well, if you can dose the lesion so much, then yes. And this is not a fact: a trained or educated person can, and say, without a leg, bring tangible benefits more than require maintenance and care, simply not in the trenches and not in agriculture.
          2. YOUR 19 January 2020 03: 26 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Mines 90 grams in weight during the explosion does not kill, cripples. Will medicine make a new foot? A bullet in the abdomen, breast medicine also gut and lungs replace?
            1. bk0010 19 January 2020 13: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: YOUR
              A bullet in the abdomen, breast medicine also gut and lungs replace?
              Do not replace, cure.
              1. YOUR 19 January 2020 13: 50 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Well then, that's fine.
        2. YOUR 19 January 2020 03: 07 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          All of Africa is fighting for what they could buy.
    2. CTABEP 19 January 2020 01: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And in submarines it’s generally sad :(!
    3. max702 19 January 2020 09: 49 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Finally, at least someone voiced the figures on the cost of switching from one type of gunner to another, including with a new cartridge .. And what do we see? Pennies! In reality, the whole transition with the replacement of the entire rifleman 10-15bn \ dollars with a margin is real .. And this is with the development and purchase .. And the fact that the author cited chocolate in the "parrots" because it’s understandable, for example, a pair of frigates who will never participate in the database to provide a simple infantry Jack or Vanya with modern weapons that he will use all the time and which, due to his advantage, will save a lot of lives ... So all the cries that the rearmament of infantry is a type of expensive nonsense ..
  2. Amateur 17 January 2020 18: 20 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    Carpet bombing failed to defeat either Nazi Germany or communist Vietnam,

    However, as one well-known leader says: "cutlets separately, flies separately."
    Is it too bold on the part of the author to compare Germany, who lost the war, with Vietnam, who won the war? request
    1. Theodore 17 January 2020 18: 30 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      And dumped on Vietnam, more bombs and shells than for the entire 2nd World!
      1. English tarantas 19 January 2020 15: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Only the Germans were bombed by infrastructure and industry, and Vietnam was the jungle.
    2. Ua3qhp 17 January 2020 18: 32 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      "But as early as 1966, Colt received a government contract for the supply of 840 rifles totaling nearly $ 000 million."
      Is that almost $ 109 a rifle?
      1. Kleber 17 January 2020 21: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        More precisely, 109,52 ... using an inflationary calculator, we get 690,04 percent between 1966 and 2018. Total: 109,52 * 690,04 = $ 755,73 per barrel, which is not so cheap in large bulk.
        1. Ua3qhp 17 January 2020 22: 27 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Hard to tell. Recalculate directly through the inflation calculator. One would need to know the then price level of the firearm, at least for the civilian market.
  3. Mavrikiy 17 January 2020 18: 39 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    At the same time, from a third to half or more of all those killed and wounded in military conflicts are small arms.
    About 20 years ago, it was reported that during WWII 70% of the manpower damage was due to mortars. request Positional war, etc. request
    1. Vasily Ponomarev 17 January 2020 18: 53 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      and I was thinking about artillery, and with us over time this share increased, but among the Germans it decreased, in some article I read it
      1. Gato 17 January 2020 19: 34 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        About 20 years ago, it was reported that during WWII 70% of the defeat of manpower accounted for mortars

        Subtracted a similar figure in one military medical monograph of 2 MV each - 70% of the wounds were fragmentation, i.e. all types of artillery, air bombs and grenades. Less than 10% - bullet, up to 15% - shell shock from the shock wave (i.e., again artillery and aircraft).
        1. YOUR 18 January 2020 03: 22 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Exactly. And the memoirs of the Germans, most of all suffered losses from the fire of Soviet artillery. Read in this article surprised.
          1. scriptguru 18 January 2020 08: 52 New
            • 0
            • 9
            -9
            It is a pity the millions who fled with the rifle at the enemy and almost completely senselessly died.
            1. YOUR 18 January 2020 09: 50 New
              • 7
              • 1
              +6
              It’s pointless not to defend the homeland
              1. scriptguru 19 January 2020 02: 58 New
                • 1
                • 7
                -6
                To defend the homeland is voluntary. And if you drive away a crowd of untrained men and boys and drive them to machine guns - this is a mass murder.
      2. bk0010 18 January 2020 15: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Broniks can significantly affect these statistics.
    2. Andrey77 18 January 2020 15: 16 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      To the artillery. Mortars including.
  4. illi 17 January 2020 19: 00 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Yes, no one argues. Which is not expensive. However, if you look at the results of American programs and many of ours. The results are zero. It turns out that the upgraded M-16 and AK in a new body kit, surpass all these super-duper.
    1. missuris 17 January 2020 20: 30 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      In fact, both the M-16 and the AK were at one time a super-duper. and all other past contests were too ambitious in terms of technology and completely automatic results were required from the machines.
      for example, in the USSR or already in Russia, the military requested a 2-fold increase in accuracy) they still demanded that the planes fly 2 times further or the armor protection of the tanks increases 2 times))
      modern competition has the greatest chances of life. because opponents in local conflicts are armed with the same 5.56, 5.45 and 7.62, and the Americans want a little more than 6.8 and 8.6 for machine guns
      1. DesToeR 17 January 2020 23: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: missuris
        for example, in the USSR or already in Russia, the military requested a 2-fold increase in accuracy) they still demanded that the planes fly 2 times further or the armor protection of the tanks increases 2 times))

        In Russia, I hope that today such strict requirements are imposed on new models. Otherwise, there is no sense in the new model - the old one, modernized, will be more effective due to the larger series, the development of industry and saturation in the troops. And the criteria are 2 times (or more) to the individual characteristics of the military because Understand that it’s impossible to improve everything twice, but the consolidated indicator can and will give 1,5 ... 1,8.
      2. Andrey77 18 January 2020 15: 19 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And they want it right. At 6.8, the ballistics is excellent. But how much money will it cost ..
    2. parma 20 January 2020 06: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: illi
      Yes, no one argues. Which is not expensive. However, if you look at the results of American programs and many of ours. The results are zero. It turns out that the upgraded M-16 and AK in a new body kit, surpass all these super-duper.

      Here’s the question: taking into account the cost of bullets, let's re-equip the Bundeswehr with tanks, with the new rifle, with helicopters, it’s about lonely for money (Abrams and Apache are far from the cheapest cars even among Western ones, so Leo and Tigers can be bought more for those money) ... So the question arises, but what is more needed and more effective? But they have not yet calculated the number of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles that can be purchased with this money ....
  5. Undecim 17 January 2020 19: 19 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    How much does a machine cost?
    We open the report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the procurement of equipment for troops in Iraq.
    1. Undecim 17 January 2020 19: 24 New
      • 10
      • 2
      +8

      As you can see, the M4 carbine costs $ 647.
      1. Zufei 17 January 2020 21: 13 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        M9 for as much as $ 11 cheaper. Pricing in MO - it is, yes.
      2. Private-K 18 January 2020 09: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Thank you for the tablet - plus you in the piggy bank.
        Someone profits a lot from the obviously overpriced mortars: three 81-mm pindyurks are
        as much as a huge heavy tanker, and 1/3 more expensive than a 120 mm mortar.
  6. antivirus 17 January 2020 19: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    you rumble-banging boots. Under the cartridge and berets are buying.
    1. Paul Siebert 17 January 2020 20: 36 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Why are you lisping, Anti-Virus? smile
  7. Paul Siebert 17 January 2020 20: 34 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The rifles reviewed under the OICW program (with explosive ordnance) reminded me of the mangalore weapons from The Fifth Element.
    Remember the monsteroid guns firing both arrows and bullets and gas, throwing nets?
    Just at that time, the film was shot when the program was running in.
    We thought - this is the future. To trends in Hollywood listen ...
  8. Bogatyrev 17 January 2020 21: 16 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    There is a significant correction regarding conflict statistics.
    Yes, tanks are fighting with tanks. But the author forgot that small arms will never be the main factor in the war of equal opponents. The main factor of war is art and only art. Only it determines the outcome of the collision, all other things being equal. And is the main factor in the defeat of the infantry. But not small arms.
  9. voyaka uh 17 January 2020 22: 23 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    "In this case, from a third to half or more of all those killed and wounded in the military
    conflicts account for small arms "////
    ----
    The infantry does not win the war. She cleans the area after the tanks
    broke through to this area, and aviation and artillery ironed out resistance nodes, ammunition depots and enemy communications.
    1. Ua3qhp 18 January 2020 18: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Your untruth, until the infantry has arrived, there will be no victory. That's only after the infantry entered the city - it will be taken.
  10. starik80 17 January 2020 23: 31 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    WWII and other conflicts of non-banana republics were solved by artillery. Personal small arms for mass combat combatants with a two-week training should cost max 15 thousand rubles, AK it costs about that much.

    “In the first year of World War II, the main striking weapon was artillery (this also includes tanks and aerial bombardments). Artillery fire accounted for 49% of losses from the German side and 44% from the Soviet side. That is, in the USSR, artillery was used more massively.

    Moreover, by the end of the war the role of artillery in the Red Army only increased. In 1945, it accounted for 54% of German losses. And, on the contrary, the Germans could no longer use guns so widely - the percentage of losses in the Red Army from artillery fire fell to 1945% in 32. "source https://zen.yandex.ru/media/wt1/ot-kakogo-orujiia -na-voine-samye-bolshie-poteri-5c5c91419e391400ae5f6636 I didn’t look at the statistics myself, but they write it like that.
    1. rumpeljschtizhen 18 January 2020 00: 34 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      This is an example from the Second World War ...... Modern realities say a little different ... Now, for the time being, conflicts of low intensity are real ... And the world community does not like when residential areas are equal to zero .... like in Dresden or Stalingrad
      1. Zufei 18 January 2020 08: 46 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Or terrible
      2. starik80 18 January 2020 10: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Take the Ukrainian conflict, Syria modern conflicts, artillery losses are much higher than shooting losses.
    2. karabass 18 January 2020 08: 49 New
      • 1
      • 9
      -8
      By the end of the Second World War, according to the testimony of officers, the infantry almost did not fight - tanks and artillery won the war on earth. Consumption of shells exceeded the norm by more than 10 times! I especially remember the story from the memoirs of the company captain! In 1944, trying to raise the company to attack, he had to run under bullets, beat the soldiers lying on the head with his boot, shoot 4 or 5 foot soldiers, but all in vain! according to his recollections, in 1941 they would have stood up and all died, and in 1944 they lay and thought: - after all, they will not shoot everyone!
  11. raif 18 January 2020 00: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the cost of the AK-74M assault rifle for public procurement is 47400 rubles. cartridge for her - 5 rubles. prices 2012-2015
    1. Clone 18 January 2020 02: 13 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: raif
      the cost of the AK-74M machine for public procurement is

      At one time, AKM cost 27 rubles, cartridges for it, 2 kopecks, PM-10 rubles, SVD-680 ... In any case, I remembered these numbers ... Eh, youth. fellow
      1. bk0010 18 January 2020 16: 04 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Clone
        SVD-680 ...
        Something expensive: 25 times more expensive than AK. I took the SVD (Tiger) 84000 each, the sight - 40000 (not the PSO, of course, that is significantly cheaper), the mounts on the sight - 7000. And this is with trade markups. It turns out just three times more expensive than the previously indicated figure (47400) without markups.
        1. Andrey77 15 February 2020 14: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Sight mounts are the most important. 7000 is your budget option. I got the Ljupold rings on the SHR-970 in the region of 10000. But I have a rifle, and you yourself know on the Tiger ... crowns. Lay out more of the crowns ...
    2. Private-K 18 January 2020 09: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      the cost of the AK-74M assault rifle for public procurement is 47400 rubles. cartridge for her - 5 rubles. prices 2012-2015

      With the then-current rate of 1 to 35, we get $ 1350 for the AK74M. Too much. IMHO - one extra toe.
    3. Tamer 18 January 2020 21: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: raif
      the cost of the AK-74M assault rifle for public procurement is 47400 rubles. cartridge for her - 5 rubles. prices 2012-2015

      Share a link?
      1. raif 19 January 2020 02: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Do you want to send me a link? wink
        1. Tamer 19 January 2020 23: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: raif
          Do you want to send me a link? wink

          just the number you brought ceiling-obsnuyu
          1. raif 19 January 2020 23: 37 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            no, the figure from the documents - consignment notes to the cargo. You would have pulled so many boxes with this good, you would have known more laughing
    4. CTABEP 19 January 2020 01: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In 2010, it cost 12 roofing felts, 15 thousand roofing felts, I don’t remember for years ago. Is it really so expensive?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. raif 19 January 2020 23: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        most likely depends on the year of release and you.dy. here still come across in warehouses porcelain plates at a price of 00 rubles 06 kopecks apiece. and also go through inventory
  12. Clone 18 January 2020 02: 09 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    When I see these products of foreign advanced ideas in the field of shooting, full of holes in all projections, the soul of the old soldier will rejoice ... Well, where is the potential adversary and in what conditions is he going to fight? Not otherwise than in sealed tiled rooms.
    Ndaaa ... how much time will it take to clean up the dirt and other soot from all these grooves with cutouts, so that the designated weapon could shoot at all.
    1. Zufei 18 January 2020 08: 49 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The washer with Karcher will be introduced to the staff of the department.
    2. scriptguru 18 January 2020 08: 58 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      In reality, in combat conditions of the “western” warhead, a weapon can be scratched, but not clogged with dirt. In any case, all these openings there are only in the outer parts of the weapon, which do not affect the performance, but due to the openings, the weight of the product decreases, the cooling of the overheated parts improves.
      1. Ua3qhp 18 January 2020 18: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, then try to scrub dirt out of these holes. True, can these covers with incomplete disassembly entirely removed?
        1. scriptguru 19 January 2020 03: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Of course, they are removed without problems. Without tools or with one or two simple tools and without special skills.
    3. Passing 18 January 2020 19: 24 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: Clone
      Well, where is the potential adversary and in what conditions is going to fight? Not otherwise than in sealed tiled rooms.

      And why fight on the neck in the mud? In the Russian abyss, to fight not for life but for death, no one in the West is going to, well, maybe the Poles and the Balts dream of this lying on the couch, but a local walking war warrior, with total superiority, may well be comfortable for a soldier. It can’t even, but must be. The military in the West is not a vocation at all, it is a utilitarian profession, where the main quality is not courage and heroism, but professionalism. And every professional wants an upscale precision tool and a convenient workplace.
  13. sgapich 18 January 2020 06: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This was the starting point for the emergence of a new program - OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon, "Objective Individual Combat Weapon").

    Here, “objective” is not translated as “objective,” but as “target.” hi
  14. Private-K 18 January 2020 09: 13 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    Something it reminded me ... the cartoon was like that, about how a boa constrictor was measured. 5 monkeys, or 38 parrots.

    Like I put you, for the accuracy of associative hi
    Oddly enough, but to measure one type of product in other types of goods is very correct and much more tangible than just money.
  15. Operator 18 January 2020 12: 54 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    For all types of calculations of the distribution of losses in all types of military conflicts, artillery remains the most "killer" type of weaponry; small arms, aircraft and mines are approximately equally divided.

    But you won’t put artillery in all the “holes”, because the gunner retains his role both on the battlefield and during the sweeping of the terrain. Moreover, the cost of defeating one enemy soldier from the rifleman (the cost of a rifle / machine gun + the cost of ammunition) is several times less than the cost of defeating using artillery (the cost of self-propelled guns + the cost of shots).

    Plus, the development of personal protective equipment for infantrymen requires the adequate development of the rifleman (which is already being done in the United States, but we have not yet).
  16. Luty 18 January 2020 21: 12 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In cost, one of the main components is seriality. The higher it is, the cheaper. And also how much the sample matches the cartridges with the previous one. So I believe that the best option is to return to 7.62x39 and improve the Nikonov and Kalashnikov samples. Is there only time? That is the question. And he is not in my competence.
  17. IL-64 18 January 2020 23: 24 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The infantry wins the war. Well trained infantry.
  18. EvilLion 5 March 2020 09: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The overwhelming majority of conflicts of the last decades were conducted by police actions, where the role of individual fighters and their weapons is high. In the great war, artillery was, is and will be the absolute weapon.
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. mk vm April 17 2020 21: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    modern clothes will protect not only from bullets with splinters and frostbite burns bruises
    a well-thought-out pumped-up passenger car (hand-cranked for safety purposes) can also be the armor of a class BTR brdm, etc.
    lightly armored truck is invulnerable to the tank
    the rocket will not destroy a difficult flying machine
    what will they show?
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. mk vm April 18 2020 00: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    no weapons with the NGSW Advanced Combat Rifle OICW program can compare with