AK-12 : The 5th Generation AK 7.62mm, 5.56mm and 5.45mm Rifle

But is that wise?
It is taking me ages to post here... the page only half loads most of the time so I can't enter my comment and have to repeatedly refresh the page, so this will likely be my last comment.
I have enjoyed our chat, but am dismayed at the lack of balanced information you seem to have picked up from the History and Discovery channels.

Of course there are plenty of common myths in the west... the Scud was defeated by the Patriot is a good example... the reality is that the Scud was never intended as a weapon of terror with a conventional warhead, it was a theatre weapon able to take out an entire air field... with a chemical or bio or small nuclear warhead. The Scud was defeated by its own inaccuracy... which is no surprise as it was an early 1960s weapon and by Desert Storm the Russians had rather more capable weapons on trucks (ie TOPOL).

The questions you need to ask yourself is what can you take from the performance of a downgraded export T-72 in the hands of the Iraqis against M1 Abrams tanks in 1991?

The T-72 was clearly the inferior vehicle, but it was never intended to be a breakthrough tank that smashed NATOs front line... that was the role of the T-64 and later T-80, the T-72 was to flood through those gaps and engage rear area targets like HQs, and supply lines where its armour and fire power were more than adequate.

Comparing the T-80 to an Abrams of the time and it actualy comes out pretty good, though not particularly superior in any area.

Tank development is not about miracles, it is about measure and countermeasure. When the much heavier armour and better protection characteristics of the later model T-72s were revealed the US developed new ammo to deal with it. When the US developed new ammo, the Russian designers developed new types of protection to act against it.

The T-72 was a very good tank in comparison with an M60 which in many ways was its direct counterpart.

It was not very good compared to the Abrams.

Claiming the withdrawl of the T-72 from former warsaw pact countries inventories shows they were bad is naieve. Those same countries also withdrew their Mig-29s and in many cases kept their Mig-21s... that doesn't mean the Mig-21 was a better fighter than a Mig-29.

What happened was that while the T-72 and Mig-29 were the cheap numbers planes in Soviet service, with the T-80 and Su-27 as expensive but also more capable stablemates, for the Warsaw Pact nations their T-72s and Mig-29s were their top level aircraft with older models forming the backbone of their fleets respectively. Now when they changed to NATO they are hardly going to spend the money to replace the majority equipment in their militaries... that is just too expensive, but for them the T-72 and Mig-29 are the expensive items in their inventory so it was cheaper to withdraw them and replace them with a cheap NATO equivalent... Leopard 2A4s or 2A5s in the case of tanks and F-16s in the case of the planes.

Doesn't mean these planes or tanks were better as this was purely political... if you want to join NATO you need to buy our old cast offs instead of keeping those old Soviet cast offs... it was all political.

The fact that your western experts are arguing that this proves the superiority or inferiority of anything should make you question their logic and their assertions.

But you are completely entitled to your own view and if you don't agree with me that is fine... you share the opinion of the vast majority of the uninformed western public who base their opinions on those same western experts.

I am more interested in the truth however... like the average of 32 Patriots fired at each Scud that was launched, and the fact that because the Patriot was a SAM and not an ABM system the speed of the modified Scuds meant the Patriots that did hit the targets tended to shred the rear of the missiles with fragments that would be totally effective against an aircraft. The fragments would have broken the target and it would not have been able to maintain normal flight and crash. The problem is that an incoming ballistic missile is a falling object so shattering its engine will have little effect as the engine stopped working quite some time ago, so the main effect of the Patriot was to slightly deflect a lot of Scuds to change their impact point by a few hundred metres... and as they were so inaccurate (targets smaller than 2km across were pretty safe without a nuclear or Chem or Bio warhead) the effect of the Patriot was purely morale. The warheads generally hit intact but rarely hit anything of importance anyway.
The Patriot didn't really fail because it was never designed as an ABM system... just like the T-72 didnt fail when Iraq invaded Kuwaite... and it would have been fine if they had continued into Saudi Arabia as it took 8 months for the US to ship its Abrams tanks to the war zone so it would have come up against Sheridans...
Its failing was that up against a coalition that included a superpower with full air control it did not really have much of a chance in flat open terrain where the enemy had the C4IR advantage and air control and better ammo and night vision equipment and better training.
You can judge the T-72 as rubbish based on that, but I doubt any western tank could have given the iraqis the win either.

Brief introduction
of the practical curved barrel assault rifle

Crack the technical bottleneck of the curved barrel rifle used in the Second World War
Have you ever had to shoot around a shelter? Well, my friend, now you won’t have to attempt the ricochet shot anymore. With this beauty, you can make that shot around the shelter without ever exposing any part of your body. This beauty is the mysterious weapon PCBAR (practical curved barrel assault rifle).
I have finished the dream up of PCBAR (practical curved barrel assault rifle), finally, have cracked a 66-year-old mystery - the technical bottleneck of the curved barrel MP 44 Assault Rifle on display in our Second World War gallery, this is an ideal gun for urban combat for looking around the corners of buildings too. You have not heard of it in your dreams, but this is real and trusting. The PCBAR is a "revolutionary weapon system that enables military and law enforcement to effictively observe/engage targets from around the corner/behind cover without exposing any part of the operator's body ".

warriorlee@yahoo.cn