Thread: NZ Defence Force to buy 82 new high-tech rifles for $4 million

Originally Posted by ebf

@Sarvo, can you pls explain to me what the difference is between offensive vs defensive weaponry ?

The actual weapon - No difference - it is the same weapon just in differing hands.
My point was - its intended use.

NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
We (NZ) are a "partner" to this Treaty Organization - why - as we are South Pacific not North Atlantic.
This weaponry would have been purchased to adhere to the agreement with partnership to NATO.
NZ (IMHO) - will never be attacked.
So weaponry like these weapons purchased, are obviously to be used in another part of the World for "NATO" at their demand and request.

A lot of good people on this forum, and I respect everyone to the extent it is deserved....

However, the FORUM F$%KWIT makes one post..... and doesn't contribute anything further.... and people fire up the keyboards.

Please respect opinions and remember that we all like shooting, hunting and talking shit. Hopefully we can keep it clean and respectful?

Hey @Nickoli that's not fair... @Philipo hasn't weighed in on this discussion - He is the undisputed forum f*wit, ok maybe not undisputed. Come to think of it there is a long list of contenders for that prestigious title.

Originally Posted by Nibblet

Did they go with nightforce?
No wonder the article describes them as day time optics.

Hahahahahahahaha, yep the logo was visible there.
Let me guess, you like the fancy German optics?

Originally Posted by tommygun

Hahahahahahahaha, yep the logo was visible there.
Let me guess, you like the fancy German optics?

I missed that.

Don't see the point in spending all that money.

If it doesn't say Burris, it doesn't do the business.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Sarvo

Oh really - exactly my Point!!
What part about NATO and its roll in killing indiscriminately do you not understand

Fucking GREEN Peace - go fly a kite

Any of it mate. You're upset that NZ soldiers, who's job it is is to kill enemy soldiers using rifles (or at least as far as the infantry is concerned), have some new rifles to do that?
I'm pretty sure that is literally their job description. Sounds like you haven't peeled yourself away from your sources of conspiracy theory inspiration long enough to realise that while the NZDF is trained and equipped to fight like most armies, they actually don't play much of a front-line role. Since the Vietnam war they have typically been in a peacekeeping role, or deployed to train soldiers in the foreign country in question, as a rule. Yet you are spouting some bullshit about NZ somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine (your words, not mine). NZ doesn't use its army defensively or offensively; there is a third option, and that is aiding our allies in their military efforts, and yes we like to think this happens to fight evil and uphold humanity's values, but it is just as much in order to support our allies because that is what we are obliged to do if our nation that wants to be taken seriously in the geopolitical world, and because we want to maintain military ties with them in case we should ever need them (god forbid)

Originally Posted by Dorkus

Hey @Nickoli that's not fair... @Philipo hasn't weighed in on this discussion - He is the undisputed forum f*wit, ok maybe not undisputed. Come to think of it there is a long list of contenders for that prestigious title.

That's Trolling for you.

Originally Posted by tommygun

Any of it mate. You're upset that NZ soldiers, who's job it is is to kill enemy soldiers using rifles (or at least as far as the infantry is concerned), have some new rifles to do that?
I'm pretty sure that is literally their job description. Sounds like you haven't peeled yourself away from your sources of conspiracy theory inspiration long enough to realise that while the NZDF is trained and equipped to fight like most armies, they actually don't play much of a front-line role. Since the Vietnam war they have typically been in a peacekeeping role, or deployed to train soldiers in the foreign country in question, as a rule. Yet you are spouting some bullshit about NZ somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine (your words, not mine). NZ doesn't use its army defensively or offensively; there is a third option, and that is aiding our allies in their military efforts, and yes we like to think this happens to fight evil and uphold humanity's values, but it is just as much in order to support our allies because that is what we are obliged to do if our nation that wants to be taken seriously in the geopolitical world, and because we want to maintain military ties with them in case we should ever need them (god forbid)

Calm down

My father fought in WWII - spent 1 month shy of a 5 years on "frontline" North Africa - an then Europe
Came back as an Officer with an MM

Where did I infer that NZ soldiers were "somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine" ?????
You missed my point entirely!!
Point being – why/what do we need such weaponry at such exaggerated cost ??
I know the answer – and if you cannot put 2+2 together – then you sir are the conspiracists

You should also difine "the enemey"
Or more to the point WHO difines who is the enemey

Originally Posted by tommygun

Any of it mate. You're upset that NZ soldiers, who's job it is is to kill enemy soldiers using rifles (or at least as far as the infantry is concerned), have some new rifles to do that?
I'm pretty sure that is literally their job description. Sounds like you haven't peeled yourself away from your sources of conspiracy theory inspiration long enough to realise that while the NZDF is trained and equipped to fight like most armies, they actually don't play much of a front-line role. Since the Vietnam war they have typically been in a peacekeeping role, or deployed to train soldiers in the foreign country in question, as a rule. Yet you are spouting some bullshit about NZ somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine (your words, not mine). NZ doesn't use its army defensively or offensively; there is a third option, and that is aiding our allies in their military efforts, and yes we like to think this happens to fight evil and uphold humanity's values, but it is just as much in order to support our allies because that is what we are obliged to do if our nation that wants to be taken seriously in the geopolitical world, and because we want to maintain military ties with them in case we should ever need them (god forbid)

Calm down

My father fought in WWII - spent 1 month shy of a 5 years on "frontline" North Africa - an then Europe
Came back as an Officer with an MM

Where did I infer that NZ soldiers were "somehow being responsible for NATO's alleged war crimes in East Ukraine" ?????
You missed my point entirely!!
Point being – why/what do we need such weaponry at such exaggerated cost ??
I know the answer – and if you cannot put 2+2 together – then you sir are the conspiracists

Looks like the embers are settling in this thread.

Insert random inflammatory comment here.

And I’m pretty sure I had a relative in the Crimean war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Alonzo

Looks like the embers are settling in this thread.

Insert random inflammatory comment here.

And I’m pretty sure I had a relative in the Crimean war.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My best friend served in the 2016 meme war.

Originally Posted by Nibblet

Did they go with nightforce?
No wonder the article describes them as day time optics.

I have a mate who served alongside some other special force in service. (I wont say which army as he was deliberately a bit vague on who was there with him...) But his comment went along the lines of "the gear we had then (mid 90s) was better than what the mid range civilian stuff is now. He was referring to night vision in particular. Now I am not saying for a second that tech has not improved in 20 years. It has come a long way, but the military gear (especially tech type gear) is usually far ahead of what we see or even dream of. In the same way the tech in our cars now came for the tech in elite sports and space gear 20 years ago....so it would be an educated guess that they wont disclose the tech specifics of what they get for the money, as I can assure you, even if we get hand me down level new gear it will still be far better than joe bloggs can find in a store. Hence the seemingly inflated price. You dont buy a F1 car for the same money as a V8 HSV or FPV Typhoon. ...You can buy tracking point optics for sports gear or if you are smart make some, but do you think for a second the military has not considered this level of tech? And would they tell you if they did?

I think the gear is pretty good value. This tag will likely include spares, armoury and user training, ammunition,...

Originally Posted by Alonzo

Looks like the embers are settling in this thread.

Insert random inflammatory comment here.

Tonsillitis. Oh and here is another inflammatory comment just to rark them all up ...... Prostatitis ..... ( that one will stop them pissing on this parade). Ha ha ha ha

Originally Posted by gadgetman

I think the gear is pretty good value. This tag will likely include spares, armoury and user training, ammunition,...

and the 'military' inflation tax just like aviation.