Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Weapon Of Mass Destruction

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Weapon Of Mass Destruction

    26 November Washington Post commentary - Weapon Of Mass Destruction 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...

  2. #2
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    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

  3. #3
    Council Member zenpundit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    262

    Default Economics and demographics

    "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.

  4. #4
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default A couple of notes...

    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.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    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!

  6. #6
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default AK Bashing...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarajevo071 View Post
    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!
    Don't take it personal - Warsaw Pact leadership decided you were illiterate cannon-fodder - not the West

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •