Weapon Of Mass Destruction

[SWJED]

26 November Washington Post commentary - Weapon Of Mass Destruction (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/24/AR2006112400788.html) by Larry Kahaner.


In the grand narrative of World War II, the Battle of Bryansk is a minor conflict, barely deserving of a footnote. But Bryansk has another place in history. It was there that a then-unknown tank commander named Mikhail Kalashnikov decided that his Russian comrades would never again be defeated. In the years following the Great Patriotic War, as Soviet propagandists dubbed it, he was to conceive and fabricate a weapon so simple, and yet so revolutionary, that it would change the way wars were fought and won. It was the AK-47 assault rifle.

The AK-47 has become the world's most prolific and effective combat weapon, a device so cheap and simple that it can be bought in many countries for less than the cost of a live chicken. Depicted on the flag and currency of several countries, waved by guerrillas and rebels everywhere, the AK is responsible for about a quarter-million deaths every year. It is the firearm of choice for at least 50 legitimate standing armies and countless fighting forces from Africa and the Middle East to Central America and Los Angeles. It has become a cultural icon, its signature form -- that banana-shaped magazine -- defining in our consciousness the contours of a deadly weapon.

This week, the U.S. military's presence in Iraq will surpass the length of time that American forces were engaged in World War II. And the AK-47 will forever link the two conflicts. The story of the gun itself, from inspiration in Bryansk to bloody insurgency in Iraq, is also the story of the transformation of modern warfare. The AK blew away old battlefield calculations of military superiority, of tactics and strategy, of who could be a soldier, of whose technology would triumph...

Much more at the link...

[Uboat509]

Ah, the Cult of the AK lives on. It certain circles the AK seems to have taken on almost mythical qualities. I have even heard some people bemoaning the fact that the US hasn't scrapped M16/M4 and adopted the AK. Personally I don't get it. I have a very un-pc friend who believes that any nation that uses the AK as a primary weapon are savages. I wouldn't go that far but he has a point. Any nation that can afford a better weapon generally will. I have trained with a few countries that use them and I am not as enamored of the thing as the author of this piece seems to be. Yes, it is a reliable and cheep gun but there is, in my mind, little else to recommend it. It's good for the countries that can't afford better but to suggest that it is better than the M4 or the HK 53 or many of the other modern rifles is ridiculous.

SFC W

[zenpundit]

"Yes, it is a reliable and cheep gun "

If you have an army that must actually fight in the field, as opposed to being a more heavily armed version of the police, and your army is filled with semi-literate or illiterate peasant recruits, then reliable and cheap is the way to go.

The Russians went a very long time prior to the AK-47 relying on bayonet charges.

[SWJED]

I can't remember where I read something like this: The AK-47 was made for under-trained cannon-fodder. There is quite a bit of 'cultural intel' you can gain from the AK - not made for those who maintain their weapons (hence the loosely fitted parts), the first stop on the selector is automatic (not for a well- trained marksman) and it is not as accurate as the M-16 or M-4 (no precision-fire as range increases). Bottom-line the well-trained and disciplined would probably look for something else besides the AK as their weapon of choice.

[Sarajevo071]

Wow, so much “AK bashing” here!? ;) I personally loved my AK (better version/quality then Russian) and I was military trained. I admit, I hold M16 only once in my hands, but what about all that issues I heard how M16 get more jammed and less reliable in extreme conditions!? A read allot about that. Also the lenght... If I am walking thru the woods, jungle or inside some building, I would like to have something lesser lenght but powerfull enough to go thru brick walls... But, that's just me. "Cannon-fodder" and "illiterate peasant recruit".

That's funny! :p

[SWJED]

Wow, so much “AK bashing” here!? ;) I personally loved my AK (better version/quality then Russian) and I was military trained. I admit, I hold M16 only once in my hands, but what about all that issues I heard how M16 get more jammed and less reliable in extreme conditions!? A read allot about that. Also the lenght... If I am walking thru the woods, jungle or inside some building, I would like to have something lesser lenght but powerfull enough to go thru brick walls... But, that's just me. "Cannon-fodder" and "illiterate peasant recruit".

That's funny! :p

Don't take it personal - Warsaw Pact leadership decided you were illiterate cannon-fodder - not the West;)

[SWJED]

... ran across this site - AK-47 vs AR-15 / M-16 (http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.php) - has a lot of pros and cons of both weapons.


"The M16 is by far the more superior weapon. It's lighter, more accurate, more versatile, and with proper maintenance it is very reliable. Indeed, it might be less sand proof then the Galil/AK47 series. However, all you need is to clean it once a day and it will work properly. Since modern armies clean their smallarms on a daily even during combat deployment this is a non-issue.

In fact, most of the myth regarding the M16 unreliability date back to the Vietnam War when the M16 was first issued. The 5.56 ammunition given then to the troops used a low quality sticky powder that caused massive buildup of dirt in the M16 mechanism and eventually to jamming problems. When the ammunition was changed, the misfire problems disappeared as well."

[Sarajevo071]

Don't take it personal - Warsaw Pact leadership decided you were illiterate cannon-fodder - not the West;)

No, I didn't take it personal... Especially since I was not under Warsaw Pact. ;) Yes, M16 has good sides too. But, I think it is just personal preferences... One can not say a priory this one or another one it's best. It's not the tool, it is how you using it and how good you are with it. In my hands I carried from WWII weapons, hand guns, MP5, to the M16 and I always went back to what I get to know best and what I like it. Also, even heavier, I preferred wooden stock.

PS. Don’t you think if those cops in LA bank robbery shootout have AK they would penetrate those 2 guys since they M16s (from SWAT) couldn’t do it!?

[slapout9]

The problem was not just the gun powder but to much oil on the bolt. Not only was the gun powder changed but so was the oil. If there is a lot of residue in the chamber combined with a lot of oil on the bolt it will form an occlusive seal, which will stop it from operating until cleaned. I have never seen it happen with ball ammo but blank ammo combined with the buildup from using a blank adapter and to much oil would stop ours all the time. Our armorer used to show the proper amount to apply to the whole bolt and bolt carrier group by putting a drop on the end of his fingertip. A little dab will do ya.

[Sarajevo071]

And with AK, you hit with your leg to open chamber and put bullet in, fire once to clean the barrel and you are ready to go again (even if no one clean that gun for days, even after rain or snow)! Until you get time to sit down and proper clean you weapon.

[Uboat509]

... ran across this site - AK-47 vs AR-15 / M-16 (http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.php) - has a lot of pros and cons of both weapons.

Interesting site but it seems that an inordinate amount of space was devoted to the bayonet. I'd be the first one to tell you that you do not want a bayonet on an M4, but that is pretty much moot now.

SFC W

[zenpundit]

Sarajevo,

I'm not attacking the Ak-47. Or illiterate peasants. Just pointing out that if you have a relatively poor country and you need 500,000 infantry weapons for your army, most of which is recruited from the villages - your bang for the buck is with something that is easy to use and stands up to abuse. This would be most of the world's militaries, numerically speaking.

And for everyone, HNN has an article up now by another AK-47 advocate:

" Why the U.S. loses Small Wars (http://hnn.us/articles/31296.html)"

Author's Website:

AK-47 (http://www.ak-47book.com/)

[Sarajevo071]

Even if you attacking AK it’s just fine. I wasn’t born with it. I was just saying my preferences and why… You do have right in pointing out price (I don’t agree about “weapon education”) but I was just questioning how good is western weapons in extreme conditions, since I didn’t have a chance to try them? What I heard was they need a lot down time and maintenance (starting from small arms up to planes). That’s all, mate. ;)

[120mm]

The AK has lousy ergonomics. And I've seen fairly impressive AK failures.

I would be comfortable using one, in a pinch, but I prefer the AR series of rifle.

[Mondor]

From what I have seen the primary problem with the AK has been the user and not the weapon, same can be said for AR family. An example: We were training some folks for service in the Afghan National Army. One of these guys had been fighting for his entire adult life, and had taken part in countless frontal assaults, positional defense, and other infantry type operations during that time. During the first marksmanship class you could see a light bulb go off over his head. "So that’s what that thing on the front of the barrel (the sights) is for". Very experienced individual just not well trained.

When our folks took an AK out to the rang and zeroed it in, they got very good shot groups out to 300 meters. This is exactly what the weapon was designed to do. The marginal weapons still fired, most of the time, but one had a hard time hitting the target. Bottom line, if the weapon is maintained and used as designed it works well. I don't care how much punishment an AK can take, if it does not receive proper maintenance it will not work well, (working well being defined as hitting the intended target) though it will function as a bullet hose.

[MASON]

All weapons and equipment have a cost and need time devoted to maintenance. Some less than others. Allowing time for other things, like reading and thinking, so when the time comes to act or speak or write in a public forum (War is one public forum, the internet is another) ones ideas' and purposes' may count for something more than a moment or be thought of in a good light giving resonance into the future.

As this thread demonstrates, weapons, particularly hand held ones have a cultural and personal nature to them. When, Where, and How weapons are used are a direct expression of personal will and character. The weapons image then assumes the general impression the operator has achieved.

The AK is definitely a formidable Icon.

Telling a mate, neighbor or would be friend on this small earth he does not dress well does not help him watch your back.