Assault Rifle REALLY needs some love.

[DR_Mechano]

OK, Assault rifle is probably, IMO, the worst preforming blaster primary at the moment (Dual Pistols may be second, not sure, it seems popular though) but what it lacks in single target it makes up for having ridiculous amounts of Cones and AoEs. Buckshot, Flamethrower, Full Auto for cones and M30 grenade launcher and Ignite for AoE. Its single target isn't bad...it's just not amazing.

 

Now we get to Assault Rifle on Sentinel. It's single target, thanks to the lower damage modifier is still only OK even with Disorientating shot, Aim and Incinerator but its bread and butter, its cones and AoEs just feel so lacking thanks to the combination of lower target caps, lower damage and narrower cones. Been talking with other people and most of them seem to agree that AR is probably the worst Sentinel Primary....so maybe it needs some love?

[Ry]

Honestly I love Assault Rifle on a Sentinel, even more than a Blaster because of Incinerator. I'd say the only downside is Sentinels don't the same epic pools as a blaster, alongside the fact the extreme vulnerability mechanic isnt AoE, but that applies to all Sentinels. I haven't played every type of Sentinel, but those I've experienced Assault Rifle is one of the only two I've managed to have enough to value out of to hit 50, I pray they never give Incinerator to Blasters because that'll make playing Assault Rifle on a Sentinel worthless, I like that they get an improved version of a flamethrower honestly. Blasters have all the goodies 😞

[Lancek]

Maybe swap M30 Grenade for Venom Grenade or a Quick Snipe capable LRM Rocket 

[SeraphimKensai]

I have 4 sentinels currently:

Water/bio, Rad/rad, Elec/fire, and an AR/Regen

 

I have ranked them all in the order how they perform. I wouldn't mind if we increased cone arcs or raised some target caps or such as I would love to play my AR/Regen due to its great name: American Jesus, but it just underperforms comparing to my other sentinels.

[tjknight]

14 hours ago, Lancek said:

Maybe swap M30 Grenade for Venom Grenade or a Quick Snipe capable LRM Rocket 

Oh man.. Sentinels getting Venom Grenade would be SWEEEEEEET! 

[DR_Mechano]

On 1/22/2020 at 11:10 PM, Lancek said:

Maybe swap M30 Grenade for Venom Grenade or a Quick Snipe capable LRM Rocket 

This is something I cannot argue with. Having recently looked at a thread where Sunsette looks through all the Sentinel Primaries, Assault rifle is dead last in terms of both single target and AoE just behind Dual pistols...something really needs to be done because AR right now on Sentinel, at least to me, feels weaksauce.

[oldskool]

22 hours ago, DR_Mechano said:

This is something I cannot argue with. Having recently looked at a thread where Sunsette looks through all the Sentinel Primaries, Assault rifle is dead last in terms of both single target and AoE just behind Dual pistols...something really needs to be done because AR right now on Sentinel, at least to me, feels weaksauce.

If you're talking about the thread I think you're talking about, I'd take it with a grain of salt.  While I don't disagree that AR needs some love, some of her old metrics make me scratch my head.  Its like we're playing two different games.  

She had a post showing Dual Pistols with sub-200 DPS potential.  I still have no clue where that comes from or what skills she was using.  I can pull 50-60 more DPS than she lists with that set.  Some of her calculations for Fire Blast included epic melee attacks, but seem to ignore them in the other primaries.  

Energy Blast also stinks, but built with procs it isn't as bad as it was made out to be.  

Finally, I don't want Sentinels to get Venom Grenade or a quick snipe anything.  Venom Grenade can remain a VEAT exclusive.  No Sentinels get snipes, period.  So AR shouldn't.  If Incinerate was swapped with some direct damage attack like LRM Rocket, fine.  Assault Rifles issues are in power design across the tiers.  Disorienting Shot being the most efficient attack is a shame, and the AoE was hurt significantly with the target caps.  

- Reduce Disorienting Shot's DPA

- Spread that efficiency between Slug and Incinerate -- there is no reason these attacks should be WORSE than the Tier 2

- Buff damage across the board if necessary (it probably is)

- Review animation times as some are longish

- Consider granting Flamethrower its original target cap of 10 vs 6 letting it cheat the Sentinel caps like Sonic Blast does with its cone attacks. 
 

[Ry]

You know what? I'd be down for the Venom Grenade for AR on Sentinels. That combined with what I already love about Incinerator, I think this could be wondrous. I don't think it should be as strong as the Arachnos Soldier version, however. Gotta keep my Spider boiz on top! /o/

[Warwallalt]

Narrower cones? Full Auto has a 90 degree arc (Sentinel). I haven't seen any difference with Flamethrower or buckshot being narrower. I have a AR/Regen, not built well at all, but he tears through things, not +4/8, but then again he wasn't built for that.

 

I also have a DP/SR, and that is wonderful, efficiently goes through +4/8 anything. Basically plays (and feels better) than my SR Scrapper, but has better AoEs and can initiate 2 of them from range. I don't know exactly where everyone comes from on gameplay, but when we are saying this is behind that, are we looking at recharge times? Or is it straight damage when activated? Those DP AoEs are pretty much constant. We were have a discussion on things like this the other day in our SG. Sets like Katana or Claws don't hit like a truck, but they are both an unrelenting stream of damage.

 

Totally with you Ry on Incinerator. I have a Traps/AR Defender and planned to skip that on my Sentinel thinking it was Ignite, but wow it is so good.

 

I think sometimes the planners do us a disservice when we are comparing just damage. I need the gameplay to make a call, like how Seraphim has ranked them do to his experience. I really liked the idea of DP/SR, I thought it would very fun on incarnate and team stuff (and it is team/incarnate/farm[damage type means nothing]), but I didn't know it would be so powerful solo. I have my Claws/SR, and liked the idea of a PSI/SR, but the more I look at PSI the more the numbers look weak. Thing is I have learned I got to get in there and play it so actually see.

 

Anyway. not trying to pick on anyone in particular. I'm seeing a lot of people in and out of game not looking at the total picture (just my opinion folks). 

 

 

[oldskool]

On 2/4/2020 at 12:20 PM, Warwallalt said:

Narrower cones?

This is a great point.  

Sentinel don't have narrower cones.  They do have shorter cones.  Almost all Sentinel cone attacks are shorter in length than the other ATs.  Archery is an exception as Fistful of Arrows is slightly wider, Full Auto on Sentinels is wider, Sonic Blast's cones are largely untouched, and Psychic Scream is new to the Sentinel version of that set (so not a good comparison).  

I've already stated what I think needs to be changed.  Too much AR's effectiveness is weighted into Burst and Disorienting Shot.  I feel that damage could be smoothed out a bit across other powers in the set.  Incinerator has very high base damage within the context of the set, but it could use some help.  In reflecting, the animation review to shorten it some would increase its overall DPA which I would be happy with.  There are other sets that could also use damage passes and animation checks too so AR isn't alone.  

My reasons for wanting to see those kinds of changes is due to the issue that AR has been historically an AoE set.  Its AoE was largely focused into cones, but those were changed for being a Sentinel.  The overall single-target, which Sentinels can be very good at, wasn't really changed.  So in an ideal world Sentinel AR has some of the worst single-target potential, about middle of the road AoE potential, and a version of Full Auto that is a bit worse off as it becomes dependent on Aim.  Aim should be a great buff to make sets experience some burst but shouldn't be the tool that fixes changes made to a set.  

Survival of +4/8 wasn't my issue with Sentinel AR/Bio.  Everything that irritates me about the set stems from how it feels in actual play and the design decisions that made it happen.  I had a hard time getting into AR/Dev on Blasters in the past, and the Sentinel version kinda soured me more.  As to the idea about using planners and skewed perceptions, I wholeheartedly agree.  The last time I used Mids the scalar was still off and some powers are wrong.  That's not what I base my judgment on.  All I have to do is go in game and look at the tool tip of the power to see the base damage, recharge, and then calculate off animation and Arcanatime.  Assault Rifle still comes out behind. 

There is a bit of hyperbole about the set being dead last for single-target and AoE.  Water Blast, without procs, is probably dead last on single-target [Edit - It is.].  Psychic Blast is very likely one of the worst sets for AoE within the entire AT [Edit - Psychic Wail is the only redeeming feature].  Psychic Scream and Tornado have some "meh" base damage with over 2 second base animation times.  I don't think either of the DPAs even break 20 or not much over it.  Even the worst AoE power in either Assault Rifle or Dual Pistols is still far better than anything in the set other than Psychic Wail.  Psychic Wail is more than twice as effective as Hail of Bullets or Full Auto.  Dual Pistols players have to run Incendiary Ammunition for Hail of Bullets to not completely suck wind.  Full Auto would be the worst T9 in the entire AT if Rain of Arrows didn't exist[Edit - Fixed, I was wrong using old info (shame on me!) and Rain of Arrows is far stronger than I realized].  Archery gets to be the winner of the worst damage to animation ratio on T9 in the AT [Edit - So all of that is wrong. Oops] followed by Assault Rifle, then Dual Pistols, and then Electrical Blast (Thunderous Blast suffers from a really long animation) [Edit - Thunderous Blast and Full Auto are in the same league. Hail without Incendiary isn't anything to write home about either.].  With Dual Pistols running Incendiary Ammunition then Hail of Bullets comes close to Blackstar in Dark Blast, Nova in Energy Blast and within spitting distance of Geyser, and Atomic Blast [Edit - A lot of the T9's all hover around the exact same DPA since they have the same base damage and animation time. Fire's is only slightly better.].  Everything else is better (Beam, Ice, Sonic, Psy, etc... all have better T9's) [Edit - To be fair, Ice, Sonic, and Psy absolutely need their T9's to be worth taking].  

 

Edit: So despite the errors in the tangential rant above, Sentinel Assault Rifle isn't a total loss on its AoE potential.  Sure, Full Auto could use a buff but the set still has 3 other AoEs.  Full Auto has a 10 target cap like many others of its tier so a slight DPA difference out of the others in the mediocre range isn't that big a loss in practice either.  Flamethrower's a fairly damaging extra cone that many other primaries don't get.  All things considered Assault Rifle isn't really last at anything, but it doesn't excel at anything either.  The last part there circles back to my feelings mentioned earlier in this long winded post.  AR is just "meh" at everything and its worsened by having its former legacy of AoE clipped a bit on Sentinels.  Its still very playable but for really pushing its capabilities I'd recommend pairing it with Super Reflexes (for procs, more recharge, easy of play). 

My Dual Pistols/Ninjutsu handles +4/8 just fine.  I've solo'ed TFs too.  I'm pretty happy with it, but I've also improved the damage through proc abuse too.  It's not close in damage, not by a long shot, to my Scrappers or Stalkers.  That's ok.  Even before the Tanker changes my Dark Armor/Titan Weapons could give clear times on my Sentinels a run for their money.  Now, it is a monster nipping at the performance of my main Scrapper while also being largely resistant to all damage except toxic (all others at 90% during ATO uptime - seriously). 

I do not need my Sentinels to out perform my melee characters, but I would like some design decisions at least revisited for some smoother operations.   

Edited February 21, 2020 by oldskool

[Pzn]

On 2/4/2020 at 6:36 PM, oldskool said:

Archery gets to be the winner of the worst damage to animation ratio on T9

Rain of arrows was buffed a few months after the servers went up.  The animation time is now just 2 seconds, making archery a pretty sweet set.  I wish full auto got the same treatment with a target cap bump up to 16.

[oldskool]

19 hours ago, josh1622 said:

Rain of arrows was buffed a few months after the servers went up.  The animation time is now just 2 seconds, making archery a pretty sweet set.  I wish full auto got the same treatment with a target cap bump up to 16.

Well how did I over look that? 😉 

 

That changes a lot.  I also went in game and confirmed watching the pet drop some damage.  The DPA is actually far higher than I thought.  What's also funny is the actual damage average is higher than the game's tooltip reads.  

So that gets to put Full Auto pretty much on par with Thunderous Blast.  Mid's has the wrong DPA value so I tested that too and it is better than the builder suggests (for whatever that's worth).  At least FA has company.  

[SwitchFade]

What AR actually needs is distinction.

 

DP has ammo swaps, AR needs something of this flavor or a power that gives splash AoE to all attacks. Assault rifles are notoriously inaccurate have high velocity penetrating rounds. They are not precision weapons, they're meant for suppression and excessive output.

 

For instance, the 5.56mm round was created intentionally small and jacketed so that it would penetrate body armour without fragmenting, leaving the target alive and incapacitated, screaming in pain. It demoralized healthy troops who witnessed and they attempted to rescue the not dead soldier. Think, you shoot one person, he does not die, 2 come to help him. One round, 3 men stop fighting.

 

So the point is, it should just mash things, splash damage, stun, DoT, fear so forth.

[Underfyre]

Well, I mean, assault rifles can be extremely accurate in single fire situations. Now machine guns? Those fit your description perfectly.

[SwitchFade]

1 hour ago, SaintD said:

Oh dear God, this absolute horseshit has been getting trashed as such on the internet since the nineties, what internet cesspool did you even dredge this out of?

Assault rifles aren't precision weapons? They're rifles, not machine guns. Assault rifles are intended and preferentially used in semi-auto and soldiers are consistently trained and graded on MARKSMANSHIP. Assault rifles have a full auto feature for the assault part where fully automatic fire and their shortened length from battle rifles mean soldiers don't need specialized SMG's for CQB. You don't use full auto at any range above shoving the weapon in the other guy's chest.

The 5.56mm round wasn't designed to leave a target alive, that's the dumbest thing anyone ever managed to get lunatics to believe on the internet since flat Earthers learnt how to type. The reasons for 5.56 are simple; an intermediate sized, lightweight round between 'full-sized' rounds and much smaller pistol rounds that would have higher lethality than the pistol rounds but would allow for a far larger combat loadout than full-sized rounds. The result is that fewer men can put out and sustain far more fire, and achieve fire superiority.

My God, these assertions don't even make logical sense. You have to straight up just not do any thinking whatsoever in order to believe that militaries all over the world are using bullets deliberately designed to be LESS lethal out of some mental idea that giving the medic, who isn't shooting, something to do, and allowing an enemy combat veteran to live, is somehow smart.

Well we'll. Thanks for the vitriol. You have no idea what you speak of, but I welcome you to research. And assault rifles are not precision weapons, fact. Again, please avail yourself of the knowledge that is at hand before you  type text such as this.

[oldskool]

3 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

Well we'll. Thanks for the vitriol. You have no idea what you speak of, but I welcome you to research. And assault rifles are not precision weapons, fact. Again, please avail yourself of the knowledge that is at hand before you  type text such as this.

I'm not condoning some of the harsh tone, but the information isn't off.  

There is a myth that assault weapons are inaccurate which isn't true.  Assault weapons are essentially rifles, which are intended to be accurate by design, with fully automatic modes for high rate of fire.  Assault weapons are tactical in nature allowing a soldier to deploy more than one rate of fire as necessary.  The term machine gun describes weapons which fire in fully automatic mode and are designed for rapid shots.  The terms of assault weapon, assault rifle, machine gun, sub machine gun, and battle rifle are often used interchangeably.  These aren't the same kinds of weapons though.  [Edit: There is also a misunderstanding that machine guns can't be accurate either due to recoil and high rate of fire.  This is why support stands (bipods) exist and you see soldiers training to fire heavy high rate of fire weapons on the ground with a stable base.  With training you can certainly send high amounts of rounds towards a target with precision.  Smaller submachine guns can be pretty accurate in close quarters combat even in fully automatic mode.  The FN P90 can be considered  compact submachine gun and that weapon is highly effective for what it was designed to do.]

 

Furthermore, the design of the 5.56 has its origins in the 1950s where NATO was seeking to have a unified cartridge for weaponry.  The 7.62x51mm was eventually determined to be too heavy for mass carry.  The 7.62x39mm can sometimes be confused here though those work with the AK series of rifles.  The 5.56 was adopted since it was determined to have adequate stopping power while offering a lighter total cartridge for troop transport.  We're talking holding the carry of multiple rounds vs just what the rifle itself holds.  

 

The 5.56 wasn't adopted for the reason you state.  It was adopted for its stopping power while addressing an issue of logistics.  

 

Edited February 23, 2020 by oldskool

[GM Tempest]

Please avoid getting too heated, folks, this isn't a Fire farm.

[SwitchFade]

8 hours ago, oldskool said:

I'm not condoning some of the harsh tone, but the information isn't off.  

There is a myth that assault weapons are inaccurate which isn't true.  Assault weapons are essentially rifles, which are intended to be accurate by design, with fully automatic modes for high rate of fire.  Assault weapons are tactical in nature allowing a soldier to deploy more than one rate of fire as necessary.  The term machine gun describes weapons which fire in fully automatic mode and are designed for rapid shots.  The terms of assault weapon, assault rifle, machine gun, sub machine gun, and battle rifle are often used interchangeably.  These aren't the same kinds of weapons though.  [Edit: There is also a misunderstanding that machine guns can't be accurate either due to recoil and high rate of fire.  This is why support stands (bipods) exist and you see soldiers training to fire heavy high rate of fire weapons on the ground with a stable base.  With training you can certainly send high amounts of rounds towards a target with precision.  Smaller submachine guns can be pretty accurate in close quarters combat even in fully automatic mode.  The FN P90 can be considered  compact submachine gun and that weapon is highly effective for what it was designed to do.]

 

Furthermore, the design of the 5.56 has its origins in the 1950s where NATO was seeking to have a unified cartridge for weaponry.  The 7.62x51mm was eventually determined to be too heavy for mass carry.  The 7.62x39mm can sometimes be confused here though those work with the AK series of rifles.  The 5.56 was adopted since it was determined to have adequate stopping power while offering a lighter total cartridge for troop transport.  We're talking holding the carry of multiple rounds vs just what the rifle itself holds.  

 

The 5.56 wasn't adopted for the reason you state.  It was adopted for its stopping power while addressing an issue of logistics.  

 

The 5.56mmx45 was developed in the 50's, but the 5.56mmx39 "Soviet" was introduced in the 70's, along with the ak74. This round, profile, weighting and characteristics were developed to defeat body armour, create drastic wound channels and incapacitate.

 

The round was developed with specific boat tailing, jacketing, weighting and a nose profile that created a tumbling effect that enlarged the wind channel. It has higher velocity than the 7.62mmx54, the regularly (in the 60's and 70's) used 5.56mmx45 nato variant and other such rounds used by American forces.

 

Soviet military strategy of the time, especially those taught to guerilla fighters, such as the NVC and Viet Cong, relied heavily on maximal effect for minimal effort. One of the ways this was achieved was this very round (who's predecessor was developed for increased ammunition carry) to wound and incapacitate, forcing field medics and allies to respond, presenting more targets and reducing fighting forces exponentially.  Further effect was the increased number of patients at MASH facilities, overwhelming them.

 

Field reports from enlisted men routinely documented enemy forces that would attack individual targets and leave them wounded, but not dead. Anyone responding to help them would also be wounded and left. American forces began to loath going into the field from FB's and forward operating bases, because of the morale impact. This is the nature of guerilla warfare, one which the Soviets learned in Afghanistan, and put to use in Vietnam.

 

This is all well documented fact.

[SeraphimKensai]

Regardless of semantics, I feel we can all agree that assault rifle on every AT that can use the set could use some love.

[oldskool]

17 hours ago, SwitchFade said:

The 5.56mmx45 was developed in the 50's, but the 5.56mmx39 "Soviet" was introduced in the 70's, along with the ak74. This round, profile, weighting and characteristics were developed to defeat body armour, create drastic wound channels and incapacitate.

 

The round was developed with specific boat tailing, jacketing, weighting and a nose profile that created a tumbling effect that enlarged the wind channel. It has higher velocity than the 7.62mmx54, the regularly (in the 60's and 70's) used 5.56mmx45 nato variant and other such rounds used by American forces.

 

Soviet military strategy of the time, especially those taught to guerilla fighters, such as the NVC and Viet Cong, relied heavily on maximal effect for minimal effort. One of the ways this was achieved was this very round (who's predecessor was developed for increased ammunition carry) to wound and incapacitate, forcing field medics and allies to respond, presenting more targets and reducing fighting forces exponentially.  Further effect was the increased number of patients at MASH facilities, overwhelming them.

 

Field reports from enlisted men routinely documented enemy forces that would attack individual targets and leave them wounded, but not dead. Anyone responding to help them would also be wounded and left. American forces began to loath going into the field from FB's and forward operating bases, because of the morale impact. This is the nature of guerilla warfare, one which the Soviets learned in Afghanistan, and put to use in Vietnam.

 

This is all well documented fact.

You keep writing this stuff as "fact", but I'm a bit confused as to where you're getting this info.  

 

There is record of the confiscation of United States M16 rifles using 5.56 NATO in the Vietnam War (U.S. enters arena in 1965 and withdraws though March 29th 1973 [Paris Peace Accords signed January 1973] - 10 remaining Marines air lifted out after fall of Saigon, war ends with fall of Saigon 1975).  

 

The reverse engineering of the 5.56 NATO was completed by 1973.  The 5.56x39 was released with the AK-74 (designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov to chamber the round) in 1974.  The weapon is translated "Kalashnikov Automatic Rifle Model 1974".  As mentioned before, Saigon fell April 30th 1975 thus ending that war.  

 

The Soviet - Afghan War started 1979 after a failed coup in 1978. 

 

What's perplexing... 

 

Vietnam's conflict waged from 1955 through 1975.  Vietnam's ground forces largely used Russian made AK-47 and SKS Carbines as personal arms.  The Russian equivalent to the M60 was used for heavy fire.  Anyway, both of the previously mentioned weapons used 7.62x39 rounds.  The Russian made 5.56x39 didn't release into circulation of Soviet military until 1974.  It's first use in a theater of war that I know of is the Soviet-Afghan War of 1979.  

That would mean a few things... 

 

1) The Vietcong couldn't have 5.56x39 as a part of a wound the warriors so others drag them off strategy as the weapons to fire didn't exist.  Again, Vietnam War 1955 to 1975 (United States enters in 1965 and completes withdraw by 1973).

 

2) Soviet war with Afghanistan was in 1979 so I'm not sure how they put guerrilla tactics learned here to use in Vietnam where the war ended 4 years earlier.  

 

Does Soviet strategy also involve time travel?

 

By the way, these dates are also well documented and considered historical fact.  However, I am absolutely willing to read whatever information you can share regarding how the Soviets taught the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics using a weapon that didn't exist. 

 

Edit: Instead of just pushing this thread further with this absurd discussion I'll just add the edit. 

 

I'm not going to debate Balochistan (stated below) which has been an active hot zone for over 70 years.  There was a prototype field test of a 5.56 variant deployed in 1968.  That was the AO-35.  That rifle was ultimately rejected.  In the 1970 (the actual year not some vague "early 1970's" paraphrase), the cartridge and rifle pairing was put to redesign.  That process took 4 years.  That's where the AK-74 and the ammo it used comes from.  Trying to insinuate a final product was used as a means of guerrilla warfare in Vietnam is dubious at best.  The Vietcong largely used Russian equipment.  There would be no reason not to take other weapons and munitions from enemies as you find it, but at the end of the day that's not the standard equipment that was already established for the forces in question. The weapons used by the Vietcong ran on 7.62x39 when talking personal rifles/carbines.  Even today, we field test new small batch ammo prototypes and weapons.  There is no reason to think that didn't happen before, and I'm not suggesting that the munitions that became the modern 5.45x39 magically appeared.  However, it is a documented fact that 7.62x39 munitions were the widely used type during Vietnam.  It is documented fact that the AK-74, and its ammo the 5.45x39, debut war theater was in 1979.  To suggest that some prototype variants played a larger role in the overall guerrilla tactics is questionable.  Telling people it's just matter of fact and public record is equally lazy.  You'd be assuming I haven't looked.  Furthermore, the Vietcong were well aware of the Art of War and guerrilla tactics are practically invented in that work.  Also, I'm well aware of the guerrilla tactics of the Mjuahideen.  The Soviets were on the receiving end of those tactics in the 1970's.

 

Anyway, I'm done here.

Edited February 24, 2020 by oldskool
I'm well aware the round we're talking about is 5.45 and not 5.56. It wasn't a typo on my part and completely intentional.

[oldskool]

1 hour ago, SeraphimKensai said:

Regardless of semantics, I feel we can all agree that assault rifle on every AT that can use the set could use some love.

Agreed.

[SwitchFade]

1 hour ago, oldskool said:

You keep writing this stuff as "fact", but I'm a bit confused as to where you're getting this info.  

 

There is record of the confiscation of United States M16 rifles using 5.56 NATO in the Vietnam War (U.S. enters arena in 1965 and withdraws though March 29th 1973 [Paris Peace Accords signed January 1973] - 10 remaining Marines air lifted out after fall of Saigon, war ends with fall of Saigon 1975).  

 

The reverse engineering of the 5.56 NATO was completed by 1973.  The 5.56x39 was released with the AK-74 (designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov to chamber the round) in 1974.  The weapon is translated "Kalashnikov Automatic Rifle Model 1974".  As mentioned before, Saigon fell April 30th 1975 thus ending that war.  

 

The Soviet - Afghan War started 1979 after a failed coup in 1978. 

 

What's perplexing... 

 

Vietnam's conflict waged from 1955 through 1975.  Vietnam's ground forces largely used Russian made AK-47 and SKS Carbines as personal arms.  The Russian equivalent to the M60 was used for heavy fire.  Anyway, both of the previously mentioned weapons used 7.62x39 rounds.  The Russian made 5.56x39 didn't release into circulation of Soviet military until 1974.  It's first use in a theater of war that I know of is the Soviet-Afghan War of 1979.  

That would mean a few things... 

 

1) The Vietcong couldn't have 5.56x39 as a part of a wound the warriors so others drag them off strategy as the weapons to fire didn't exist.  Again, Vietnam War 1955 to 1975 (United States enters in 1965 and completes withdraw by 1973).

 

2) Soviet war with Afghanistan was in 1979 so I'm not sure how they put guerrilla tactics learned here to use in Vietnam where the war ended 4 years earlier.  

 

Does Soviet strategy also involve time travel?

 

By the way, these dates are also well documented and considered historical fact.  However, I am absolutely willing to read whatever information you can share regarding how the Soviets taught the Vietnamese guerrilla tactics using a weapon that didn't exist. 

I'm sure you're familiar with the conflict in the area from 63-69? Soviet land abutted Afghanistan during the insurgency in belochistan, Soviet military would regularly train, equip assist and in turn learn from the guerilla tactics used there. Soviet special forces, in turn, took these tactics to other proxy wars such as Vietnam. The round was deployed in the field as early as 1968 for testing, where they used it in different configuration for development purposes. It didn't magically spring into existence and was tested in the field.

 

Theround was entered into service in the early 70's. Notice, I didn't say the war the Soviets had with Afghanistan I said learned in Afghanistan. The cold war had many such proxy wars in the middle East, this just happens to be the prime area where the round was being tested.

 

I digress. Rapid thread hijacking and all this is public domain, feel free to research it. Snarky time travel quips are a bit uncalled for, eh?

Edited February 24, 2020 by SwitchFade

[DR_Mechano]

On 2/24/2020 at 12:18 AM, SeraphimKensai said:

Regardless of semantics, I feel we can all agree that assault rifle on every AT that can use the set could use some love.

As the OP I honestly think Assault Rifle could use some love on blasters and especially Sentinels. As I've mentioned elsewhere AR/Invuln was my first sentinel and it actually gave me such a horrible first impression of the AT that I've basically not made one since...I'm sure if I'd have made Beam/Bio or something it might have swayed me more but...oof...that first impression was a real killer for me especially when combined with the wonky Inherent.

[oldskool]

2 hours ago, DR_Mechano said:

As the OP I honestly think Assault Rifle could use some love on blasters and especially Sentinels. As I've mentioned elsewhere AR/Invuln was my first sentinel and it actually gave me such a horrible first impression of the AT that I've basically not made one since...I'm sure if I'd have made Beam/Bio or something it might have swayed me more but...oof...that first impression was a real killer for me especially when combined with the wonky Inherent.

Actually this thread got me interested in rerolling an AR/SR Sentinel with a big focus on proc damage.  I spent the majority of the week with my free time rigging up some attack sequences and modeling them over time.  So far I am happier with the results vs my first couple tries with it.  A heavy proc build with AR makes it more tolerable but really the powers need to stand on their own.  

I happen to really enjoy taking the under performers in the Sentinel and trying to figure out ways to make it work better.  Unfortunately, for the efforts I put in anyone else can just play Blaster/Corruptor AR with an easy to access Sniper Rifle and just have a far easier time.  

[biostem]

Maybe the current AR set needs to be branched off into 2 sets with distinct playstyles:

 

1. The "Frankengun" type implementation should be expanded upon - plasma bullets, healing rounds, antimatter bullets?  Go all-out with that stuff.

 

2. Precision Rifle - This would be more conventional and less flashy - use controlled shots, short bursts, etc.