PDA

View Full Version : Small arms



Nickdfresh
02-16-2006, 11:53 PM
I believe both the British military, and the Argentines, used similar rifles of Belgian FN origin. I know the Brits SLR-1(?) was semi-auto, and had a longer barrel and was used in conjunction with the Sterling SMG. I also know that at that time, they used small numbers of Armalite/Colt M-16A1s in some units such as the Gurkhas.

The Argentines issued a more conventional FN FAL rifle which was very similar except for a shorter barrel and it may have been full auto capable. I was wondering if they also issued a SMG to supplement the rifle with close range fire-power?

I was also wondering what was the overall effectiveness of these weapons in close in infantry engagements... Was there a decided small arms advantage on either side?

2nd of foot
02-17-2006, 06:43 AM
At this time Pl wpns in the UK force were

GPMG (in light and SF role)
SLR
SMG
84mm A/T
66mm A/T
2 inch mortar (I do not think any HE was in use only illum and smok)
L2 gren
83 gren WP

http://www.mdw.ozefamily.com/images/Weapon_layout.jpg

This is a good illustration but is not quite right, the 84 is the wrong one.

Night vision was by IWS one per section? And NOD at Bn level (MFC OOF recce)

At Bn/coy level you had 81 mm mortar and Milan (used extensively for attacking bunkers). Sniper rifle may have gone down to platoons but probably a Bn/coy asset.

I was not aware that any M16s were issued to the Gurkhas only SF. Ammo problems.

As for the Argentinean wpns if believe they were very similar. I have seen picture of SF with the silenced SMG so it would be possible to assume that the troops had them as well.

And illustration of captured weapons. I cannot see and other than FNs

http://www.comcen.com.au/~raiment/guns.JPG

I spent 12 weeks sharing a room with a 2 para soldier in 83 and he reported that they had so much ammo they were standing on it in the trenches.

One thing I will say about the Argentinean ammo which I had extensive use of. It was very very poor. The ammo was in 20 rd cardboard boxes in plastic containers of 200 rds in wooden boxes of 1000. You could not open the boxes because the screws were rusted so we had to drop them on the corner to break them open. The individual rds were stuck to the sides of the cartons and had to be cleaned with a knife before use. This is the first and only time I had had split cases. The ammo would not work in the brens and it was almost impossible to group at 100m. My 4-6 inch standard was now 12 inches and some round off the target. Hitting at 300m was by luck only.

I was lead to believe that the Argentinean night viewing equipment was very good.

Cuts
02-17-2006, 07:02 AM
Pistols

The standard British army pistol was the Browning Hi Power also in 9 x 19, issued to offrs and some SF sldrs.

The Argentines had both the 9 mm BHP and the Ballester-Molina in 45 ACP.


Submachineguns

Brit rdo ops, Sp Wpn crews, medics, some offrs, etc. carried the L2A3 Stirling SMG in 9 mm NATO.
A moderated version the L34A1 was available for issue to SF units but saw extremely limited use.

The Argentine forces used the 9 mm PA3-DM (FMK 3) which operates similarly to the Czech ZK 476 and it's decendants the 23 and 25 in that it has a bolt that extends over the bbl and houses the magazine in the pistol grip.
It has a retractable stock la the US M3/M3A1 'Grease Gun.'
Sterling L34A1's were carried by certain members of 601 and I believe 602 Cdo. It was far more popular amongst the Argentine troops than the British.


Rifles

The main British weapon was the L1A1 SLR, by far the best developent of the many models based on the FN FAL.
It is capable of semiautomatic fire only.

The M16 in various guises was carried by certain members of the RM and of course by some SF troops. A number of the SF M16's also carried the M203 40 mm gren launcher.

RM and army snipers carried the L42A1 Enfield bolt action rifle in 7.62. It is basically a rebarreled No4(T) with the foreend cut back to a half stock.


The Argentine army carried three locally poduced versions of the Belgian rifle, FAL II, FAL PARA and the FAP - the standard, folding stock and the heavy bbl light support versions.
All Argentine FAL versions were selective fire.
As far as I'm aware there were a few M16's within the Argentine forces but their SF made considerably more use of the FAL PARA and the SMGs.

I am led to believe that the Argie SF had some scoped M21's or M1A's but have not seen them myself.


Machineguns

Both sides used the FN MAG in 7.62 NATO, although the the L7A2 GPMG as used by the Brits has some small differences, the most notable being the lack of a Stellite bbl liner that the MAG had.

The Brits also used the L4A4 'Bren' also in 7.62 x 51, despite it haing been officially withdrawn from service. This weapon was still very much in evidence during Op Granby in the Gulf in '91.

Argentina, having based their forces on the American model had a plethora of 50 cal M2 BMG's, some with state-of-theart night vision sights which led to effective night sharpshooting over distance.
The Brits somehow managed to dig up a fair few M2's from mothballs for the Op, and from 'Lessons Learned' have now kept this wonderful brainchild of John Moses on the inventory and even extended it's use.


The Argentine forces had the capability of laying down devastating automatic fire, fighting as they were from well prepared positions.
They also had considerably more, and more modern night vision eqpt while the best a Brit inf section could hope for was an IWS if it was lucky !
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2678/iws6jh.jpg
The IWS - large, heavy, ungainly and outdated in '82...

On a basis of that elusive term which I detest, 'firepower' then the advantage lie with the Argentine troops.
As has been shown, eqpt does not do the winning for you, it is the man on the gnd and his determination to succeed.
Each battle stands as a testament to the trg, regtl system and grit of the men involved.

Panzerknacker
02-17-2006, 07:00 PM
I am led to believe that the Argie SF had some scoped M21's or M1A's but have not seen them myself.

Actually those were Garands-Berettas .308 with 20 round detachable magazine.

Topor
02-17-2006, 09:28 PM
Any reports I've read on firing the FN-FAL on auto, state that it was less than satisfactory, to say the least, due to the use of a full power cartridge in a relatively light weight battle rifle.
The pile of discarded weapons in the photo is shown elsewhere on the 'net & contains more than a few items not mentioned(IIRC there is at least one M3 there).

Cuts
02-17-2006, 11:22 PM
Generally the FAL in R&R is a bugger to control, but less so than many other battle rifles of a similar cal.
Having said that I had my sweaty little puddies on one where the armourer had made his own muzzle brake and 20 rds fired from the standing unspported position, (mg rested on a flat hand,) produced no appreciable muzzle rise !

We were picking up Argie M3A1's overseas about five years back, they'd all been rebarreled to 9 x 19.
I believe the M3A1's were mainly issued to their armd crews.

Cuts
02-17-2006, 11:42 PM
I am led to believe that the Argie SF had some scoped M21's or M1A's but have not seen them myself.

Actually those were Garands-Berettas .308 with 20 round detachable magazine.

Which would make them BM59's.
Panzerknacker were all the Argentine M14 type rifles Beretta produced ?

The M14 was merely a Garand in 7.62 with a detatchable mag, the Beretta BM59 was the Italian produced model.
The M1A is a Springfield Armoury version of the M21 - an accurised M14, (Vietnam era ones often had the ART II glass mounted.)


The 20 rd magazines are standard and interchangable across the various types.

Panzerknacker
02-18-2006, 10:12 AM
The BM -59 is not exactly a M-14, it is simply a garand M1 rechambered to 7,62x51mm, the M-14 had a diferent barrel and gas port.

The argentines BM-59 were made in italy and acording to my uncle that was a marine in the 70s, it was prone to jam.

The rifle was only issued to the Argentine marines wich always had an armament different to the army forces.

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/5096/bm59r6ma.jpg

Nickdfresh
02-18-2006, 01:34 PM
The BM -59 is not exactly a M-14, it is simply a garand M1 rechambered to 7,62x51mm, the M-14 had a diferent barrel and gas port.
...
http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/5096/bm59r6ma.jpg
http://tri.army.mil/LC/cs/csi/m14rifle.jpg

Correct.

Although, they would be very similar since an M-14 was also an update of the M-1 Garand, recalibrated to fire the standard NATO 7.62X51mm cartridge, and giving it a 20-round box mag...

Cuts
02-18-2006, 06:55 PM
The BM -59 is not exactly a M-14, it is simply a garand M1 rechambered to 7,62x51mm, the M-14 had a diferent barrel and gas port.

The argentines BM-59 were made in italy and acording to my uncle that was a marine in the 70s, it was prone to jam.

The rifle was only issued to the Argentine marines wich always had an armament different to the army forces.

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/5096/bm59r6ma.jpg


The M-14 used the same gas regulating system as the M1 Garand, the bolt is only different in that it is connected to the operating rod by a roller rather than the lug system on the M1.
The BM-59 also had a different bbl, op rod and gas cyl from the Garand.

Argentina herself modified a number of M1's to take the BM59 magazines.


The BM59 mags are not the same as the M14 type, which could well be the source of the problem to which your uncle refers.
There are BM59's in circulation which do take the M14 mags but as far as I'm aware this modification was not carried out by Beretta.

Panzerknacker
02-18-2006, 07:50 PM
The M-14 used the same gas regulating system as the M1 Garand, the bolt is only different in that it is connected to the operating rod by a roller rather than the lug system on the M1.
The BM-59 also had a different bbl, op rod and gas cyl from the Garand.

Argentina herself modified a number of M1's to take the BM59 magazines.

That is correct.



The BM59 mags are not the same as the M14 type, which could well be the source of the problem to which your uncle refers.

Probably it was, my uncle also say that when the officers participated in some shooting contest with the BM, they lubricated the .308 cases to ensure the proper feeding, pretty scary thing to do because that increase the stress in the bolts face. :shock:

Nickdfresh
02-19-2006, 12:16 AM
The BM -59 is not exactly a M-14, it is simply a garand M1 rechambered to 7,62x51mm, the M-14 had a diferent barrel and gas port.

The argentines BM-59 were made in italy and acording to my uncle that was a marine in the 70s, it was prone to jam.

The rifle was only issued to the Argentine marines wich always had an armament different to the army forces.

http://img483.imageshack.us/img483/5096/bm59r6ma.jpg

How did the BM-59 fair in combat conditions of the Falklands/Malvinas War? Did the Argentine Marines like the weapon overall? Did it jam frequently?

Why did the Marines use the weapon instead of the FAL?

Panzerknacker
02-19-2006, 10:45 AM
Not too good, in the final days all the BIMs ( Marines battallions) were equipped with the FAL made by FM Argentina.

Panzerknacker
11-03-2006, 09:59 PM
An interesting plate from Ospreys "Military snipers from 1914", the rifle used by the argentine soldier is an original Springfield Armory M-14 with a Night vision scope.

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8007/francotiradoreslj5.jpg

Nickdfresh
11-04-2006, 02:05 PM
Interesting. The US "accuratized" the M14, and re-designated it as the M21 for a time. It mostly withdrawn by th late 1990s. The weapon has been essentially been rebuilt by USMC gunsmiths into a modernized version, and is now used as an intermediate sniper weapon to counter the Dragunov...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fc/Usmc_kabul_DMR_sighting.jpg/250px-Usmc_kabul_DMR_sighting.jpg

Panzerknacker
11-04-2006, 04:02 PM
I seen a lot of that M-21s in the CNN in Irak, quiet better that the Remington 700.

BM59_Fan
11-24-2006, 02:23 PM
The M-14 used the same gas regulating system as the M1 Garand, the bolt is only different in that it is connected to the operating rod by a roller rather than the lug system on the M1.
The BM-59 also had a different bbl, op rod and gas cyl from the Garand...


Actually the M14 uses a short stroke captured gas piston with the piston and OP rod being separate; The M1 Garand and the BM59 uses a long stroke piston with the piston being part of the OP rod. The Garand and BM59 Bolt are slightly different due to the feed lip differences between stripping a cart from the enblok clip Vs the Box Magazine. The Barrel of the BM59 Ital is about 8" shorter, the OP rod is also the same amount shorter and was straightened, and the gas cylinder had the distance between the piston axis and the bore axis increased over the M1 Garand so that the OP rod could be straightened and so that additionally a integral gas cutoff valve (Grenade Launcher) could be included.

A "Tanker" M1 Garand (18.5" Barrel) that has its OP Rod straightened can use the BM59 Gas Cylinder just fine.

In a separate note I had the opportunity when I was working for Lockheed to travel to and work and stay in Cordoba, Rio Cuarto, and Villa Mercedes/Villa Reynolds (7 months total). I was an Avionics and Weapons Instructor and Field Engineer on the A4AR program. I wrote and taught most of the courses in my area of expertise. I really liked Argentina and my stay and I made a lot of good Friends.

Panzerknacker
01-04-2007, 08:16 PM
In a separate note I had the opportunity when I was working for Lockheed to travel to and work and stay in Cordoba, Rio Cuarto, and Villa Mercedes/Villa Reynolds (7 months total). I was an Avionics and Weapons Instructor and Field Engineer on the A4AR program. I wrote and taught most of the courses in my area of expertise. I really liked Argentina and my stay and I made a lot of good Friends.



Good for you.


------------------

Another 1982 war vintage weapon, a FAP (Fusil Automatico pesado. heavy automatic rifle) with night scope.

http://www.saorbats.com.ar/GaleriaSaorbats/EA05/EA05/images/F_DSCN9179.jpg

Man of Stoat
01-05-2007, 01:14 PM
Now that's a proper scope rail, similar to the one I have got. Compare and contrast that with the flimsy modified top covers that the Brits used at the same time.

Panzerknacker
01-10-2007, 08:13 PM
Interesting pic: M-16 in use by the Argentine 601th Army commando Battallion.

http://i10.tinypic.com/2lwp3t1.jpg

CliSwe
02-01-2010, 06:42 AM
Just as a general observation (and I refuse to touch the politics in any other way): there was a surprising eclecticism in Argentine arms procurements, considering that most of their equipment, training and tactics were US-sourced. Most of the major European arms exporters achieved success in Argentina (including the UK, with the sale of two Type 42 destroyers, plus the aforementioned "Silenced Sterling" SMGs). Whilst the equipment itself was on par with the UK forces' kit, the men handling it on the Brit side were far superior in training, fitness and professionalism than the Argentines' conscript-heavy forces.

Cheers,
Cliff

Rising Sun*
02-01-2010, 07:08 AM
Whilst the equipment itself was on par with the UK forces' kit, the men handling it on the Brit side were far superior in training, fitness and professionalism than the Argentines' conscript-heavy forces.


Which perhaps assumes that conscripts are necessarily inferior troops.

That certainly wasn't the case with Australian conscripts in Vietnam, nor with American conscripts there and in other wars, nor with British conscripts in various wars.

I'd suggest that the problem with the Argentinian forces was less to do with being conscripts but more to do with leadership and training issues, although deficiencies in the latter are really just a sub-set of the former as poor training reflects poor leadership. And that comes back to deficiencies in the high command and senior officer corps, not the poor bloody conscripts sent out with inadequate training, leadership, equipment, and logisitics.

Which, in Argentina's case in the Falklands, also comes back to not having fought a war against a modern enemy nation. In particular, Argentina lacked the experience even of Brazil of having fought in just one of the world wars or any other modern large scale conflict.

Again, that doesn't reflect on the potential fighting qualities of the Argentinian conscripts but on the failures of their leadership to keep abreast of the modern warfare they would encounter against Britain, which has been semi-continuously involved in minor and major armed conflicts for roughly the past 1,500 years and has learned a bit from that, including taking on most of Europe a few times and winning (well, since 1066 anyway). While Argentina spent a relatively short time frigging about with internal guerrillas who could never mount anything approaching any assault or defence Britain could and did mount against Argentina.

CliSwe
02-01-2010, 07:46 AM
Which perhaps assumes that conscripts are necessarily inferior troops.

That certainly wasn't the case with Australian conscripts in Vietnam, nor with American conscripts there and in other wars, nor with British conscripts in various wars.

Conscription had gone by the time I joined up, but my father - who was a small-arms instructor - was most impressed by the quality of the National Servicemen he trained.

I'd suggest that the problem with the Argentinian forces was less to do with being conscripts but more to do with leadership and training issues, although deficiencies in the latter are really just a sub-set of the former as poor training reflects poor leadership. And that comes back to deficiencies in the high command and senior officer corps, not the poor bloody conscripts sent out with inadequate training, leadership, equipment, and logisitics.

I very much doubt that anyone in the Argentine officer corps seriously considered that they'd have to fight a campaign against a professional European army. The "Malvinas" campaign must've been a very steep learning curve for them.

Which, in Argentina's case in the Falklands, also comes back to not having fought a war against a modern enemy nation. In particular, Argentina lacked the experience even of Brazil of having fought in just one of the world wars or any other modern large scale conflict.

Brazil's contribution to WWII was fairly impressive; Argentina OTOH has always been a fairly insular nation. The "Dirty War" was their main focus for a long time before the Falklands.

Again, that doesn't reflect on the potential fighting qualities of the Argentinian conscripts but on the failures of their leadership to keep abreast of the modern warfare they would encounter against Britain, which has been semi-continuously involved in minor and major armed conflicts for roughly the past 1,500 years and has learned a bit from that, including taking on most of Europe a few times and winning (well, since 1066 anyway). While Argentina spent a relatively short time frigging about with internal guerrillas who could never mount anything approaching any assault or defence Britain could and did mount against Argentina.

I can do no more than absolutely agree with everything you said above - except to point out that the Argies were definitely misled by the political signals they were receiving.


Of course, the political background to the conflict presents us with two leaders desperately in need of a distraction from their internal economic and social problems: a war will do nicely, thank you. The difference was that Thatcher's diplomatic machinery was much more efficient than Galtieri's.

Cheers,
Cliff

Rising Sun*
02-01-2010, 08:10 AM
The difference was that Thatcher's diplomatic machinery was much more efficient than Galtieri's.

Diplomatic machinery? If that was any good there might not have been a war.

Or her war machinery?

It strikes me as one of those wars that neither side expected to occur when they were chesting each other, and then somebody went and kneed the other bloke in the nuts and it was on.

CliSwe
02-02-2010, 03:31 AM
Diplomatic machinery? If that was any good there might not have been a war.

Or her war machinery?

It strikes me as one of those wars that neither side expected to occur when they were chesting each other, and then somebody went and kneed the other bloke in the nuts and it was on.

Yeah - that's a good enough metaphor.;) But to clarify my point, RS: The UK's diplomatic success was not in preventing war, but in gathering support abroad for the UK's position. Before the Argies could scratch themselves, the UN, EU, NATO, Old Uncle Tom Cobley & All were against them. This after a series of veiled hints from the FO that the Brits regarded the Islands as an encumbrance. (Very similar to the signals the Whitlam government sent to Indonesia in 1975 re. the East Timor question.) And the Brits had to overcome Jean Kirkpatrick's support for the Argentines - no mean feat.

Cheers,
Cliff

Rising Sun*
02-02-2010, 04:56 AM
Very similar to the signals the Whitlam government sent to Indonesia in 1975 re. the East Timor question.

I'm old enough to remember that well, and still to be acutely ashamed of what Australia did. And didn't do.

Which in simple terms was to recognise a potential (supposed) communist threat and potentially unstable nation on our doorstep and leave it to the Indonesians to remove that problem for us, in the full knowledge that they weren't likely to observe the sorts of principles in fighting and occupying East Timor that we would.

Our government's signals to Indonesia weren't exactly veiled. It stood out like the proverbial dog's balls at the time.

CliSwe
02-03-2010, 01:49 AM
I'm old enough to remember that well, and still to be acutely ashamed of what Australia did. And didn't do.

Which in simple terms was to recognise a potential (supposed) communist threat and potentially unstable nation on our doorstep and leave it to the Indonesians to remove that problem for us, in the full knowledge that they weren't likely to observe the sorts of principles in fighting and occupying East Timor that we would.

Our government's signals to Indonesia weren't exactly veiled. It stood out like the proverbial dog's balls at the time.


We've gone waaay OT here (and I did promise to stay away from politics):rolleyes:but - it would have gone according to plan if not for the Balibo Five. And I remember the fear and loathing which did the rounds when the RAN threw out the script - and produced their transcripts of Indon military radio transmissions ordering the executions.:shock:

Cheers,
Cliff

Ww1-Jdh-Ww2
02-03-2010, 12:55 PM
The Browning Hi Power looks alot like the M1911 if u watch on the front side of the Pistol:lol:
I like the 7.65x21mm Parabellum much more than the 9mm:)
the M1911 is an Very old pistol But maybe on of the best !
i think it is sure the best of the 20st Century;)




http://www.eliteukforces.info/images/sas/browning-high-power.jpg


http://world.guns.ru/handguns/1911a1.jpg

visitor
02-25-2010, 10:28 AM
I know this is probably posted somewhere else in this forum so sorry if it's a repost, for this small arms thread I'll do my best to clear up the differences between the British L1A1 SLR and the Argentine clone of the Belgian FAL, whilst this in no way a definitive guide to all the differences between the L1A1 and FAL, in general this applies to any direct L1A1/FAL comparison (Israeli varints are not covered) so feel free to use the links or quote if you want to make a simliar post elswhere.

So what is the difference between a L1A1 also called an Inch pattern FAL and a origonal Belgain pattern FAL refered to as a Metric type?
A good start is this link - http://50ae.net/metric-vs-inch/ - not a complete comparison but a very good start.
A very good pictorial on the L1A1 can be found at -
http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/cgnmilsurpknowledgebase/fn1a1vsfnl1a1vsfnc1a1 - this compares an American replica of a British L1A1 to the Canadian C1A1 and a Indian 1A1.
To finish - http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=4285 - which apart from being the source of the pictorial above also includes a history of the FAL and a brief guide to it's variants.

I hope this has been useful.

mkillebrew
02-26-2010, 06:51 AM
A good start is this link - http://50ae.net/metric-vs-inch/ - not a complete comparison but a very good start.



What's missing?

visitor
02-26-2010, 09:14 AM
Some internal details are not shown, primarily the L1A1 trigger mechanisms are slightly different internally and strip differently to the FAL see - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJRuTPiY6Ss - for a L1A1 trigger disassembly.
Also the cuts in the L1A1 bolt carrier evacuate particles through a gap in the bolt carrier rails the bigger gap from the side of the L1A1 magazine to the reciver compared to the FAL is to allow this. See the second link in my first post for the gaps in the bolt rails visible in the top down angle pictures of the recievers, also please see the top picture in the first link of the origonal post to see the FAL and L1A1 with magazines inserted placed side by side.

Another difference that's in a way relavant to this topic is that the L1A1s long flash hider has a rear lug and smaller diameter tip to mount a knife bayonet, again this can be seen in the second link of the first post, FAL's usually mount a socket type bayonet, the argentine FAL mounted a socket type. See - http://www.old-smithy.info/ - for just about anything to do with bayonets including a captured Argentine FAL bayonet and a variety of L1A1 bayonets from Britain and the Commonweath.

THE place to go for the FAL and L1A1 is - http://www.falfiles.com/index.php - I find it a very useful resource.

mkillebrew
02-26-2010, 01:28 PM
Thanks, I'll look more into it and update the page with the additional differences.

visitor
02-27-2010, 12:50 PM
I know night vision is mentioned in this area of the forum so I did some searching and found this on the FAL files forums - http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=194981 the link shows L1A1s with a variety of night vision fits, but you'll have to register to see them all.

visitor
03-25-2010, 07:11 PM
The images attached are not mine a big thank you to those who initially posted them on the various sites I found them on.

Ok have wanted to do this for a bit here's a little bit on night vision in use by both sides in the Falklands lots on British equiptment, I havent yet found an english language source detailing Argentine kit.

First picture, this has already been posted by Panzerkacker in post 18 shows the FM FAP (heavy barrel FAL clone) this is depicted with a US AN/PVS-4 night vision sight a "GEN II" night sight with day/night adapter for use in daylight.

The next picture illustrates the British L1A1 with the IWS (Individual Weapon Sight) that could be fitted to a variety of British weapon systems It is shown with it's US equivalent the "GEN I" AN/PVS-2 also mounted on a L1A1. the "Argentine sniper" in Panzerknacker's post 14 has a AN/PVS-2 on a M14.

Third and fourth is another picture of a British L1A1 with IWS mounted.

Pictures of the conflict also show British soldiers with the SUIT (Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux) a day/low light sight which has a tritium illuminated sighting reticule this is shown mounted to L1A1s in the next 2 pictures.

Last is the British Hythe sight, a replacement rear sight component for the L1A1 with a tritium insert for night combat, the rear sight has a second flip up leaf to give the user a tritium illuminated sight and there was a repalcement "trilux" front sight with a internal tritium vial.

If anyone has more on Argentine issued sights please post it.

visitor
04-28-2010, 03:36 PM
Hi again could anyone tell me the distribution of MG's (FAP/MAG/L4/L7) per platoon for the 2 sides please?