The G-3 rifle is outdated.

[Fenrir]

When they finally saw the advantages of smaller caliber rapid fire in

Not really. In fact the opposite was true for the most part. An initial force was sent into Afghanistan in 2003 with the G3.

At this point the force was comprised primarily of special operations forces from MJK and KJK, also armed with the G3 and MP5s.

The bulk of the regular force was part of Telemark Battalion and was in theater as part of a Force Protection unit, not as combat troops. It wasn't until about mid-2005 that you started to see armed patrols from Norwegian units.

One year later the HK416 starts to show up, but the decision to replace the G3 with the HK416 wasn't a result of the War in Afghanistan, rather it was a result of Norway seeking to come inline with developments in NATO including a shift towards a smaller caliber.

The HK416 has and continues to serve well in Afghanistan, but in an annual assessment report, Norwegian troops in Afghanistan reported that beyond 400m the HK416 just isn't up to par and requested RPGs, mortars, heavy machine guns and higher caliber rifles. What was sent to them?

Partially the new HK417 for field trials, in this case by members of KJK.

But the AG3 returned to theater as well.

It fulfills a role the HK416 can't. The shift to the HK416 wasn't so much a reaction to Afghanistan, because Afghanistan's terrain is suited moreso to long-range weapons, but that NATO was shifting and Norway, being a NATO member, had to keep up. In Afghanistan the higher caliber G3 was preferred over the HK416/

That's what the snipers and DMs and artillery and choppers are for.

Distance engagement doesn't necessarily mean long-range, just outside of the effective fire range of a given platform. Where the HK416 starts to lose effectiveness, the HK417 or AG3 retain lethality.

This is also why in Western armies we're seeing the emergence of a squad sniper tactics. Tactical changes to make up for deficiencies in arms. No need to alter the arms used, rather make tactical shifts to adapt to changing conditions.

This is something the Soviets had been doing with their SVD for some time, but they had the tradeoff of not using dedicated snipers as frequently.

Yeah, tell the enemy to fight differently, cuz we don't have the right gun to fight them as it is.

No. You adapt to what you have and make it fit. No one asked militants in Iraq or Afghanistan to stop using IEDs, they simply adapted heavier vehicles, jamming technologies and new tactics to lessen the threat.

Also, don't get this the wrong way, but if the Norwegian army gets its guns wrong, it's not like they have much to lose anyways. They're a third world country which has always been peaceful and no one really wants to mess with it.

Third world as in neutral right? Not aligned with the US or Russia? The Cold War meaning... yes (can't be from an economic perspective as Norway is one of, if not the, most developed nations)? If so then no. Norway is firmly in the NATO camp, being a NATO member state.

As for being peaceful, well Norway did partake in the wars in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, Iraq, Iraq again:

And likely has elements in Syria and supporting allied action in African nations, so I'm not sure I can agree with us being peaceful. Norway is largely strife free, but our military has seen constant action. This doesn't even touch on counter piracy ops off the Horn of Africa or anti-smuggling ops in the Mediterranean.

We also do have someone that enjoys messing with us, as we share a long sea and land border with Russia.

They're friendly for the most part, but they're still an irritant.

 

[C130]

why not just go for MPT-76. I really like this rifle.

 

[Zarvan]

why not just go for MPT-76. I really like this rifle.

Pakistan is not satisfied with this Gun performance

 

[karakoram]

I meant in terms of accuracy !

 

[mdcp]

Pakistan made blunder by using 9mm in mp-5 rather they were suppose to use 5.56 nato in mp-5 and also for mid range they are suppose to use little strong weapon.

 

[Fenrir]

Pakistan made blunder by using 9mm in mp-5 rather they were suppose to use 5.56 nato in mp-5 and also for mid range they are suppose to use little strong weapon.

So the HK53 then?

The 5.56 G3 variant, the HK33 would have been a good pairing with it if commonality was sought to be retained.

I still favor the 7.62 in the high altitude, mountainous, open terrain battlefield India and Pakistan are facing.

As a whole, the MP5, while serviceable, is getting a bit long in the tooth, especially is small caliber variants (though the HK53 is actually a variant of the HK33 based on the MP5, but not directly evolved from it) and former uses are rapidly swapping the type of PDWs like the MP7, whos round hits much harder.

 

[CriticalThought]

Pakistan made blunder by using 9mm in mp-5 rather they were suppose to use 5.56 nato in mp-5 and also for mid range they are suppose to use little strong weapon.

The MP-5 in 9mm is a pure pleasure to use in CQB. You want something that has a real punch and takes out the baddie getting into your face with a high probability. I'm in office right now so maybe I'll post later, but go to youtube and search for POF-5. See what people in America are saying about it. Now imagine that beauty in full auto in the hands of our SSG operators. One mean killing machine. I wouldn't change it for anything.

 

[Faiez]

Third world as in neutral right? Not aligned with the US or Russia? The Cold War meaning... yes (can't be from an economic perspective as Norway is one of, if not the, most developed nations)? If so then no. Norway is firmly in the NATO camp, being a NATO member state.

As for being peaceful, well Norway did partake in the wars in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, Iraq, Iraq again:

I meant, Norway isn't like a "Gold" or "Premium" member of NATO. If you know what I mean...?
Norway doesn't really have/need a big army, NATO's got its back.

I'm not from Norway, you obviously know better. But should anything happen at Norway Russia border, wouldn't that automatically turn into nuclear war?

Also, in mountain warfare, I don't know how a G-3 would be any better than 5.56 guns. Sure, you have slightly better range and accuracy with G-3, but does that give any real practical advantage? I mean G-3 is good for a DMR or for special operations, where you get to fire the first bullets and need higher probability to hit. But in "everyday" warfare, it's usually just they fire at you, they hide behind cover, then they fire at you, you hide behind cover. The one who can fire more bullets at the other side's general direction "wins".

I mean, lets take a real scenario where you're on a routine patrol, 2/3 vehicles. And suddenly an ambush happens, would you rather have majority of the team equipped with high accuracy semi-auto rifles or low accuracy high rpm full auto that can properly suppress the enemy? The general trend globally seems to be towards the second option and it makes sense.

Also, Norway being a small army plus only sent small force to Afghanistan, I would assume they didn't fight as part of the bulk force and were/are mostly restricted to limited special operations or something? That would explain your preference for large caliber maybe?

 

[Zarvan]

The MP-5 in 9mm is a pure pleasure to use in CQB. You want something that has a real punch and takes out the baddie getting into your face with a high probability. I'm in office right now so maybe I'll post later, but go to youtube and search for POF-5. See what people in America are saying about it. Now imagine that beauty in full auto in the hands of our SSG operators. One mean killing machine. I wouldn't change it for anything.

Pakistan is pretty much over with using MP-5. If SCAR is selected there are lot of chances its Self Defence Version would be taken as MP5 replacement.

 

[CriticalThought]

Pakistan is pretty much over with using MP-5. If SCAR is selected there are lot of chances its Self Defence Version would be taken as MP5 replacement.

It would be a sad day when that decision is made. The SCAR-L can be good for things like minor VIP escort where showing a cool looking weapon puts a daunting impression for most troublemakers, but no Special Forces operator worth his salt would take it into CQB with him. That said, if they decide to manufacture it for a niche market while retaining the MP-5, I wouldn't mind at all.

And what people are saying about POF-5

 

[Hamza913]

Then why do I at times still see Pakistan Army soldiers/officers defending the G-3...saying the caliber is awesome, made to kill, etc etc...?

Also, when exactly did the Pakistan Army adopt the G-3 ? Because the G-3 has been outdated since at least 2 decades now.

The G-3 is fine, don't worry.

 

[JPMM]

I meant, Norway isn't like a "Gold" or "Premium" member of NATO. If you know what I mean...?
Norway doesn't really have/need a big army, NATO's got its back.

I'm not from Norway, you obviously know better. But should anything happen at Norway Russia border, wouldn't that automatically turn into nuclear war?

Also, in mountain warfare, I don't know how a G-3 would be any better than 5.56 guns. Sure, you have slightly better range and accuracy with G-3, but does that give any real practical advantage? I mean G-3 is good for a DMR or for special operations, where you get to fire the first bullets and need higher probability to hit. But in "everyday" warfare, it's usually just they fire at you, they hide behind cover, then they fire at you, you hide behind cover. The one who can fire more bullets at the other side's general direction "wins".

I mean, lets take a real scenario where you're on a routine patrol, 2/3 vehicles. And suddenly an ambush happens, would you rather have majority of the team equipped with high accuracy semi-auto rifles or low accuracy high rpm full auto that can properly suppress the enemy? The general trend globally seems to be towards the second option and it makes sense.

Also, Norway being a small army plus only sent small force to Afghanistan, I would assume they didn't fight as part of the bulk force and were/are mostly restricted to limited special operations or something? That would explain your preference for large caliber maybe?

I am Portuguese and I am answring you so you do understand waths NATO all abaut. All over Europe we are small armies but together we are strong. There are Portuguese ready for fighting in Norway any time and trained in Norway.
G3 its a fine weapon in any envirement, Its outdated but still a powefull weapon. HK416 and HK417 will replace it (BOTH) and not just one and both can andle any need,
Greetings

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

So the HK53 then?

The 5.56 G3 variant, the HK33 would have been a good pairing with it if commonality was sought to be retained.

I still favor the 7.62 in the high altitude, mountainous, open terrain battlefield India and Pakistan are facing.

As a whole, the MP5, while serviceable, is getting a bit long in the tooth, especially is small caliber variants (though the HK53 is actually a variant of the HK33 based on the MP5, but not directly evolved from it) and former uses are rapidly swapping the type of PDWs like the MP7, whos round hits much harder.

By POF

 

[Faiez]

I am Portuguese and I am answring you so you do understand waths NATO all abaut. All over Europe we are small armies but together we are strong. There are Portuguese ready for fighting in Norway any time and trained in Norway.
G3 its a fine weapon in any envirement, Its outdated but still a powefull weapon. HK416 and HK417 will replace it (BOTH) and not just one and both can andle any need,
Greetings

Yes, I'm well aware of what NATO is and how it works.
And no, these are not small armies all over Europe, it's a few big armies and then lots of tiny (relatively insignificant) armies such as Norwegian Army. The major NATO contributors are still US, UK, Germany and France. And the major powers shifted to smaller 5.56 (and 5.45 on russian side) caliber for a reason. The smaller armies are simply playing catch up. That was my point.

Also, if HK416 and HK417 replaces G-3, you'll see most G-3s get replaced by the HK416, and HK417 being kept for special purposes.

In the end, G-3 as an assault rifle is outdated.

 

[CriticalThought]

In the end, G-3 as an assault rifle is outdated.

If u don't mind, I ll slightly rephrase that sentence and say trench warfare with battle rifles is outdated, especially in the context of a Pakistan/India war.