User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 6:47:10 AM EDT
[#1]
Stupidity
page 5 ownage |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 6:54:18 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lend Lease Nope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 7:10:15 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have always felt is was more political in nature- not wanting to draw the U.S. into the war. The US had already pretty much committed to staying out of the war and sit it out after the debacle of WWI. There was huge resistance to the US becoming embroiled in yet another European War - understandably so. So, I don't think that was as big a concern for Nazi Germany at the time. From a timeline perspective, The Battle of Britain had been fought and won by September 1940, and Lend Lease didn't start until 11th March 1941. The first German attack on US Military assets took place on On 23 October 1941, when the US Navy destroyer USS Reuben James left Newfoundland to escort a convoy bound for Britain and was sunk by German U Boat. Even so, the US stayed out of the war despite the loss of US lives and shipping on the merchant convoys. Of course, that did changed on 7th December 1941 when The Japanese attacker Pearl Harbour ad the Germans declared war on the US on 11 December 1941 leaving the US no choice but to reciprocate later that day. The US did all it could, quite reasonably and rationally, to avoid being dragged into another damaging and costly conflict. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 7:19:45 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: RAF kicked his shit in Battle of Britain statistics:  Battle of Britain Statistics | Allied and Axis Losses |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 7:31:41 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The RAF. FPNI 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 7:37:18 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone is wrong, ultimately is was logistical in nature. Ultimately yes, but there are a host of other reasons, mainly air power. Basically they lacked the naval assets to do it even discounting the air war, but air power is the reason they couldn't have done it even if they did have the naval assets. The nazis lacked aircraft that had sufficient range and duration to successfully win the battle of Britain. The fighters only had a few minutes worth of fuel for combat over the island and all the pilots that were shot down got captured. The british had air bases on the western part of the island that were out of reach to the lutfwaffe and all the pilots that were shot down and survived were back in the air, sometimes the same day. Since they couldn't control the air, they also couldn't adequately defend an invasion fleet. It was never going to happen and the regular army and navy german brass knew it. The only reason they even made noises about it was because hitler wanted to do it and his sycophants told him what he wanted to hear. What's especially telling is that goering basically lied about their chances, failed and still didn't get fired. It tells you how desperate hitler was for politically reliable generals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 7:57:08 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The RAF. FPNI |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 7:58:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: As we all know, Hitler had his eye on the UK for a list of very obvious reasons. He never invaded, though. Why not? Was it because: 1. He felt his troop transports would have been sunk by the Allied navy. 2. He felt his troops would have been shot to shit from the air during the beach landings. 3. He felt his troops would have been shot to shit by shore batteries during the beach landings. 4. He felt he would have made it ashore only to be slaughtered by every man, woman, and child Brit. 5. He did not have the men and equipment to spare for the operation. Discuss. The cuisine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 8:02:46 AM EDT
[#9]
Radar
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 9:18:07 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The RAF. FPN. The battle of Brittian was about denying air superiority to the Germans. Also early on Hitler was under some delusions that England would become an ally and sue for peace at some point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 9:27:08 AM EDT
[#11]
Even if Operation SeaLion was able to land an army on British shores, how do they sustain it (food, fuel, ammunition)? It can be like Guadalcanal where the Germans are left hanging on by their fingertips.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 10:36:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Spitfires and Hurricanes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 5:00:26 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the Royal Navy. RAF was the key, a couple thousand chaps defended the whole nation and they deserve every drop of credit for it. Radar and other things where certainly factors but in the end it came down to a bunch of guys strapping mostly inferior aircraft on and refusing to give up home and hearth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2020 8:06:48 PM EDT
[#14]
you obviously can never discount the valor of the pilots taking on I guess what was the most experienced and capable air force on Earth @ the time, but the radar and critically, the ground control, absolutely played the key role in the British victory over the Luftwaffe... it allowed the Royal Air Force to husband their limited resources and vector them directly to German raiding sorties rather than having them patrolling the wild blue yonder hoping to stumble upon an incoming raid..
They developed and deployed this amazing system really just in time for the war, and it worked fantastically... around the middle of May 1940 Hugh Dowding(Air Marshall/Fighter Command) informed Churchill that they would need something like 50 squadrons to defend Britain which they did not possess @ home at the time, sending squadrons over to get chewed up in France... they began holding back squadrons from France when they were asking for more aircraft after the first part of the Battle of France was over... which didn't make the French to happy... it was a very close run thing. I've seen different figures, but the Germans lost something like 1,800 aircraft(25-30% of Luftwaffe strength) and 22-2,300 aircrew... that's a huge shit sandwich, to then turn around and fight the Soviet minus I guess the equivalent of a couple air fleets... good idea! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:05:10 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An A-bomb is useless without a delivery method. Germany never had an operational bomber that could deliver an early A-bomb, which weighs 4 times what a V-2 can lift. You think they couldn't have developed one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:19:27 AM EDT
[#16]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 9:13:51 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You think they couldn't have developed one? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: An A-bomb is useless without a delivery method. Germany never had an operational bomber that could deliver an early A-bomb, which weighs 4 times what a V-2 can lift. You think they couldn't have developed one? German had such limited industrial capacity and critical war material shortages that everything suffered. They couldn't keep up with the demand for weapons, tanks, planes, etc. But people somehow think they'd be able to produce fissionable material? No, people really should look into just how massive of a program it was for the US to produce the limited number of Nuclear weapons we made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:19:25 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Their tech was clearly the most advanced ranging from artillery, tanks, small arms, to jet engines. They made it much harder on themselves... while fighting a war on 2 fronts. Too much, too fast, The candle that burns twice as bright, burns twice as fast. Wrong. In fact, very wrong. Artillery? Allies were better, and the U.S. in particular was MUCH better. Read what German generals has to say about it. Tanks? They were automotive disasters. M26 is better, although that isn't saying much. Small arms? Nope. German infantry were carrying a bolt action mauser little different from the ones used in WWI. Brits had the excellent Lee-Enfield with twice the capacity and a faster rate of fire, and the Americans had the superlative semi-auto 8 round Garand. Jet and rocket engines? Yeah, the krauts were ahead. What good did it do them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:20:26 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: German had such limited industrial capacity and critical war material shortages that everything suffered. They couldn't keep up with the demand for weapons, tanks, planes, etc. But people somehow think they'd be able to produce fissionable material? No, people really should look into just how massive of a program it was for the US to produce the limited number of Nuclear weapons we made. Not to mention that the B29 program was more expensive than than the Manhattan project. The delivery platform isnt a trivial matter for early bombs due to their immense size. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:22:41 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They had these things called U-Boats. They would’ve sailed one right down the Hudson and detonated it. Huge save. 1. Good luck getting a crew to try a suicide mission like that. 2. By the time anyone had nukes, U-boats had a life expectancy you measure with an egg timer. They were being sunk in wholesale lots in the open sea, much less when they dared to try to enter confined waters. 3. There was only one country on Earth at the time with the resources, money, and industrial capacity to not only design and build TWO different nukes, but also design and build two completely different delivery systems. That country was emphatically NOT Germany. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:23:48 AM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:25:42 AM EDT
[#22]
Water
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:27:44 AM EDT
[#23]
They went to war with Britain before the Operation Barbarossa started. The Royal Navy gave them a pretty good ass-kicking when they invaded Norway. Sank a couple of battleships and they didn't have many to begin with. They didn't have many mid-range bombers and couldn't really cross the channel with an invasion force without suffering significant losses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:31:05 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They went to war with Britain before the Operation Barbarossa started. The Royal Navy gave them a pretty good ass-kicking when they invaded Norway. Sank a couple of battleships and they didn't have many to begin with. They didn't have many mid-range bombers and couldn't really cross the channel with an invasion force without suffering significant losses. I also remember seeing a documentary on the sinking of the Bismarck. Churchill said in no uncertain terms......."we cannot let that ship get/stay out into the open seas".........and they were able to successfully sink it. The Brits were too powerful for Germany to conquer is what I believe made Hitler give up on that one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:32:57 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You think they couldn't have developed one? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: An A-bomb is useless without a delivery method. Germany never had an operational bomber that could deliver an early A-bomb, which weighs 4 times what a V-2 can lift. You think they couldn't have developed one? No - they couldn't have. Look at it this way - you only have so many engineers, only so many machine tools - and it takes machine tools to make more machine tools!. Then there is the little matter of institutional knowledge. Of all of Germany's war-time attempts to build large aircraft, the most successful (read: "least unsuccessful") design was the FW200 Condor - a converted airliner. Even that was a failure at anything other than recon. Germany simply didn't have a history of making large aircraft. Neither did Italy or Japan. Great Britain, Russia, and the United States, however, DID have such a history, and GB and the US had sufficient money and excess industrial capacity to do so. Germany had their engineers going down what turned out to be dead ends that contributed little to their war effort - heavy tanks, jets, rockets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:33:14 AM EDT
[#26]
Hitler always thought Britain would come around and concede, he had been successful with all his other demands through Chamberlain he figured he wouldn't have to fight Britain to get what he wanted.
Funny thing about Chamberlain although he gave away a lot of things to Hitler he also sponsored all the Radar and new plane builds in England so he was equally responsible for saving England. The Battle of Britain is what defeated Hitler. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:37:24 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryThat's great! When I did mine I had to use iMovie and it was kind of a pain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:41:33 AM EDT
[#28]
An accident. The movie "Battle of Britain" tried to capture this, but the Luftwaffe accidentally bombing London, triggered a raid on Berlin. Hitler then switched from bombing airfields to British cities. That gave the RAF time to recover.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1413593/The-Luftwaffe-blunder-that-started-five-years-of-destruction.html I used to be stationed near a former BoB airfield. The local pub was filled with artifacts from the Battle; old timers when I lived there remembered parachutes from shot down pilots. One can argue that if not for that mistake, the LW would have crushed the RAF on the ground and eventually at least tried SeaLion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 10:59:30 AM EDT
[#29]
Shifting away from military targets really fucked them.
Even if the RAF had gotten beaten the Royal Navy would have probably YOLO'd the channel crossing. Hitler really wanted Great Britain to sue for peace more than he really wanted a real invasion. Goering was too busy having morphine riddled watersports parties to really give too many fucks as well. When in doubt, take some more pervitin and push harder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 11:08:53 AM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 11:49:45 AM EDT
[#31]
Even if there was no RAF it would of taken only a small portion of the British fleet to wipe out a German invasion. So even if Germany planes wiped out those ships they would of lost a invasion fleet as bait and Britain would still have plenty of warships. Plus Britain had plenty of subs they could if used to. Hitler was probably just gambling on some traitors in Britain would just mess up British defenses just long enough he could pull something off. Plenty were catching onto that game by then so wasnt going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 12:17:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Russia Hitler turned his focus on Russia only after it was apparent that an invasion of Britain was unachievable. Those saying the US military prevented the the invasion are even further off on their WWII timeline. The US arrived in England en masse in 1942. German ambitions of invading Britain were long gone by 1942. They were overextended in the east with the Soviets starting their counter-offensive by then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 2:39:35 PM EDT
[#33]
The British army was in bad shape after Dunkirk. The Royal Navy was not though. The Germans simply couldn’t counter the Royal Navy of 1940.
Imagine an amphibious landing where ships of the line from your enemy are cutting through your landing craft like a hot knife through butter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 2:42:15 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 8th Air Force. What? There was no 8th Air Force in England at that time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 2:56:08 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. In fact, very wrong. Artillery? Allies were better, and the U.S. in particular was MUCH better. Read what German generals has to say about it. While Allied artillery was certainly excellent, on the individual tube level, German guns were at least as technically advanced. Their fire control techniques were also on par. Their ammunition design was actually ahead of the Allies until 1943 or so, and in some categories was never superseded. In 1940-41 (the time frame relevant to this discussion) German artillery was, except for being mostly horse-drawn, equal to or better than anyone's. It's only later in the war when Allied techniques improved, aided by technology such as VT fuzes and plentiful, reliable radios. Oh and of course, crushing numerical superiority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 3:03:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Au contraire, it had the one thing he desperately needed, which was the elimination of Britain as a staging area for the eventual allied invasion of Europe (and the elimination of the British Navy from Med operations). If Hitler had invaded Britain and won, we most likely would have had to back off in the European theater for lack of a staging area. Then, without the RN, our Lend/Lease supplies to the Commies probably would have had a much harder time getting to Russia if we were even still sending them at all. Could have changed the course of the war in the Atlantic. Pacific probably would have still shook out the same way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 6:48:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If Hitler hadn't attacked Stalin, Stalin would have invaded Germany via Eastern Europe within the year anyway (and probably taking the whole of Europe AND England in the end) They were going to fight, but Stalin wasnt invading anyone that close to the end of the great purge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:04:46 PM EDT
[#38]
The Krauts had secretly consolidated all available resources for their surprise attack on Pearl Harbour
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:12:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: As we all know, Hitler had his eye on the UK for a list of very obvious reasons. He never invaded, though. Why not? Was it because: 1. He felt his troop transports would have been sunk by the Allied navy. 2. He felt his troops would have been shot to shit from the air during the beach landings. 3. He felt his troops would have been shot to shit by shore batteries during the beach landings. 4. He felt he would have made it ashore only to be slaughtered by every man, woman, and child Brit. 5. He did not have the men and equipment to spare for the operation. Discuss. He probably had thoughts too not just a big bag of feelings. He felt he felt he felt...wtf is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:18:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He probably had thoughts too not just a big bag of feelings. He felt he felt he felt...wtf is that? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: As we all know, Hitler had his eye on the UK for a list of very obvious reasons. He never invaded, though. Why not? Was it because: 1. He felt his troop transports would have been sunk by the Allied navy. 2. He felt his troops would have been shot to shit from the air during the beach landings. 3. He felt his troops would have been shot to shit by shore batteries during the beach landings. 4. He felt he would have made it ashore only to be slaughtered by every man, woman, and child Brit. 5. He did not have the men and equipment to spare for the operation. Discuss. He probably had thoughts too not just a big bag of feelings. He felt he felt he felt...wtf is that? providence |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:22:19 PM EDT
[#41]
The UK was of zero threat once they bailed France. The supplies the Nazis needed would come from the conquered Soviet Union. Mainly oil, food, and metal.
Remember ww1 germany was blockaded and struggled to even feed their country. They had no rubber or later on oil. Hitler had to go East, he would be starved out of food, rubber, oil etc, a repeat.of WW1 by the Royal Navy blockade Once Russia bailed in 1917 and collapsed Germany basically took all of Ukraine and the Caucus area. Fast forward to WW2 germany again wanted Ukraine and the Caucuses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:27:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The UK was of zero threat once they bailed France. The supplies the Nazis needed would come from the conquered Soviet Union. Mainly oil, food, and metal. Remember ww1 germany was blockaded and struggled to even feed their country. They had no rubber or later on oil. Hitler had to go East, he would be starved out of food, rubber, oil etc, a repeat.of WW1 by the Royal Navy blockade Once Russia bailed in 1917 and collapsed Germany basically took all of Ukraine and the Caucus area. Fast forward to WW2 germany again wanted Ukraine and the Caucuses.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:40:54 PM EDT
[#43]
There sure are a lot of people in this thread who think that Germany was at war with Russia during the Battle of Britain.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:42:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Hitler hadn't planned for a war in the West, Russia was always the aim. Hitler miscalculated when he invaded Poland and he wasn't expecting that Britain & France would declare war on Germany. Up to then there had been no real push back when Germany reoccupied the Saar, ignored the Treaty limits on its armed forces, annexed Austria and marched into Czechoslovakia. So before he could invade Russia he now had to deal with France and Britain which wasn't part of the original plan. As pointed out there were no specialised amphibious assault forces for a seaborne assault and apart from a small section around the Straits of Dover the Channel is fairly wide.
Once it became obvious by early Autumn there wasn't going to be a quick easy invasion and winter coming Hitler lost interest. The Italy picks a fight with Greece and Britain in North Africa and is getting beaten so Germany has to bail them out which is another distraction before the Russian invasion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 7:54:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seaborne invasions are tough, and the Germans were not a nautical power. They did manage to embarrass the RN in WWI and WW2 but the surface fleet never posed a strategic threat. Look up how many ships the Royal Navy had to throw at an invasion. Seriously, look it up. Without total air superiority, it would have been an absolute slaughter. Even Hitler knew it was impossible, and that’s saying something. Britain would have literally plowed through the troop barges with WWI era Battleships. I sorta wish the Nazis would have tried. It woulda been one of the most epic battles in all of history. I too wish the Germans had tried. It would have been a defeat on the scale of Stalingrad (or more) and would have seriously damaged Germans’ willingness to continue the war. As important as the BoB was and valiant as the RAF pilots were, Sealion was a foregone conslusion. No matter what Germany did, they could not both establish and sustain a beachhead. Especially when their erstwhile transports could be sunk by the wake of a destroyer passing by at 30+ knots. The Wehrmacht knew it would have to use numerous civilians from France and the Low Countries to even have the personnel to run them across the Channel. Can you imagine the Germans trying to co-ordinate a quadrilingual invasion force of really, really slow barges across a wide strait, with often high currents, at night? Hitler probably would have been successfully blown up by Christmas 1940. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 8:51:28 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While Allied artillery was certainly excellent, on the individual tube level, German guns were at least as technically advanced. Quote HistoryQuoted: While Allied artillery was certainly excellent, on the individual tube level, German guns were at least as technically advanced. Artillery is not fought with single tubes, but massed. U.S. not only matched German artillery on a single tube level, but could mass fires much better than Germany ever thought about. American artillery generally had a longer range, and the U.S. could supply shells fast enough to keep them in the fight. Their fire control techniques were also on par. Nope. Maybe Rommel is a sufficient authority to convince you? "A component by component examination of American and German artillery shows that almost from the beginning of America’s participation in the conflict the U.S. Army had the superior system. American artillerymen did not try to combat the enemy’s artillery by building bigger guns. The approach from the beginning was to build a better system and it worked. That was clear to thoughtful observers at the time. Viewing the Italian campaign, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commented, “The enemy’s tremendous superiority in artillery, and even more in the air, has broken the front open.” During the Normandy campaign, Rommel added, “Also in evidence is their great superiority in artillery and outstandingly large supply of ammunition.” By any reasonable standard, especially during the latter part of World War II, the American artillery arm was very clearly superior to that of the Germans." Source: https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german-field-artillery-in-world-war-ii-a-comparison/#:~:text=At%20first%20glance%2C%20there%20seems%20to%20be%20little,German%20counterparts%20and%20generally%20had%20a%20longer%20range Not even close. Their ammunition design was actually ahead of the Allies until 1943 or so, and in some categories was never superseded. In 1940-41 (the time frame relevant to this discussion) German artillery was, except for being mostly horse-drawn, equal to or better than anyone's. It's only later in the war when Allied techniques improved, aided by technology such as VT fuzes and plentiful, reliable radios. Oh and of course, crushing numerical superiority. We were not fighting the Germans in 1940-41. Why is that the relevant time frame? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 8:56:08 PM EDT
[#47]
Hugo Stieglitz.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 9:06:19 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You think they couldn't have developed one? Well, they didn't develop either, so... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 9:07:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The British army was in bad shape after Dunkirk. The Royal Navy was not though. The Germans simply couldn't counter the Royal Navy of 1940. Imagine an amphibious landing where ships of the line from your enemy are cutting through your landing craft like a hot knife through butter. The German air forces sucked at strategic bombing but they were actually pretty good at tactical bombing. I bet they would have figured out how to put warheads on battleship foreheads in short order once they had chewed through the hawkers and spitfires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2020 9:18:22 PM EDT
[#50]
This isn't an original question. Read up on Operation Sea Lion and the reasons it wasn't pursued.
It isnt certain that it was ever seriously considered, but when you consider the Battle of Britain basically ended the Luftwaffe, and the already far superior Royal Navy, an amphibious assault across the channel was beyond impossible. It is also worth noting that at no point did Germany ever have sufficient transport ships, and the prioritization of its construction is unfathomable considering the Soviet Union. Plenty of reasons why not. But it can be vastly simplified by one word... water. Without it, the British Army wouldn't have stood a chance. Now, if the Battle of Britain had ended in favor of the Germans, they may have been able to keep the Navy away, but Germany still could not afford the material for transport construction, nor the manpower with their ambitions in the East. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
