Sheesh - what a bunch of Germanophiles ;-)

[Matthias]

Personally i agree with what bigduke has said so far, (i also have read the reports of how many troops actually returned fire the way they were meant to) volume and reliablity count for the most in small arms war, no point having a great weapon that shoots slighty more accuratly over 300m's if it don't work, nevermind the fact that most inf combat takes places in the sub 300m's range, anyway sniper rifles are the masters out of this range. volume is the key in the sub 300m's range and there (along with reliabilty) the AK is probly the better long term option.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Matthias:

Personally i agree with what bigduke has said (snipped)

i also have read the reports

(snipped)

Those who have had to rely on a weapon on a day-to-day basis and have worked with others in the same situation know the difference between reports read and hearsay. No one who has access to better weapons carries an AK 47 for work at any range.

[MikeyD]

Speaking out of ignorance, what's your opinion of the oft-quoted M16 "swiss watch" syndrome? By that I mean its a lovely piece of equipment but takes a great deal of care and mainenance (much like the German MG34). The AK47 by comparison is as refined as a wooden club - and about as easy to maintain. This was the word on the M16 back-in-the-day when it first came out. Its of course been considerably improved since then.

[roqf77]

sorry code 13 didnt mean it like that.just saying that there are 2 machine gun types in the british army, the lsw at section level but the lsw is being replaced by the minim and is becoming a company level weapon. and the gpmg is company level in the light role and battalion level at heavy.

[roqf77]

http://p081.ezboard.com/fforumonwarfrm10.showMessage?topicID=39.topic

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/pw/minimi.htm

interesting addresses!

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Code13:

Thanks for the insult there rofq77, nice to see civility is still alive and well on message boards.

Just out of interest, since you are uch an undoubted oracle, but in the British Army is the GPMG issued at squad level or platoon level, or higher?

British Infantry platoon, 2003-present

Ideal TO&E

Platoon HQ: 4 men, 2 carrying 51mm mortar

1x MG section: 4 men, 2 GPMGs

3x sections, each

2x fireteam:4 men, 2 L85A2, 1 L586A2, 1 Minimi, 1 AG36 grenade launcher

Plus a sprinkling of LAW 80

Note: the LSW is not being supplanted, but supplemented by the Minimi

In WWII, the Bren was an important part of the section, but it wasn't the only part of the section. Reports abound that If a German squad lost it's MG, it would often fold, as the squad was a means to carry the MG and ammo about, especially towards the latter half of the war.

[roqf77]

Plus a sprinkling of LAW 80

.

Err on the website i linked it said the law the british army uses was 94mm.

[Wicky]

LAW-80 is oddly enough 94mm caliber :confused:

[Abbott]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Speaking out of ignorance, what's your opinion of the oft-quoted M16 "swiss watch" syndrome? By that I mean its a lovely piece of equipment but takes a great deal of care and mainenance (much like the German MG34). The AK47 by comparison is as refined as a wooden club - and about as easy to maintain. This was the word on the M16 back-in-the-day when it first came out. Its of course been considerably improved since then.

You answered your own question MikeyD . The rifle had problems when it was introduced. They were solved some 35 odd years ago.

The point being the AK 47 fulfills its intended role. Not all troops fit the role the AK 47 was designed to fill, thus there are much better choices available from several manufactures world wide that fit more needs then a fully automatic weapon that can easily empty a magazine downrange. Firefights are not won by those who fire the most rounds downrange the fastest. Those teenagers with AK that are mentioned earlier in this thread are often buried by the truckload, killed by well-trained squads or fire teams. The fellow who remarked earlier that he would put his well-armed squad up against a platoon was absolutely correct. They probably were capable of routing a company-sized unit of AK 47 armed teenagers. I have seen one man back up 20-armed men (who were armed with AK 47’s) and confident they would kill everyone present. He did so at close range (arms length or less) without firing a shot, with only two other men present for back up, it had nothing to do with available firepower. It may be difficult to understand if you haven’t seen it.

[Code13]

In the situation you describe Abbot it isnt about firepower, you are right, but absolutely about training.

Taking a squad of professional, well equipped soldiers against rabble malitia is a no contest, always has been and always will be.

Mercenary units around the world have been proving that since the Foreign Legion was formed.

All the examples of the M16 being a better weapon have used the "rabble with AK v trained troops with M16" to prove their point, and gladly discounted events from Vietnam when trained AK troops met trained M16 troops and the M16 troops much rather chose the AK claiming early model teething problems caused that.

The simple fact is that it is a point of doctrine, the US/UK/NATO forces look to aimed rifle fire whereas former Soviet troops look to volume fire and supression. IMO the former Soviet forces are still looking on their troops in the same way as tank riding SMG units in WW2.

Add to this the talk of comparable accuracy which to me is an obscuring of the information, even in WW1 the optimal combat range for the British Army and the Lee Enfield was 300m, with a weapon accurate and lethal up to 2000m. Every one so far has indicated that both the AK and M16 are comperable in accuracy upto this 300m level.

So whats the difference?

A trained man can hit targets with good accuracy upto 300m with both weapons

Beyond that range the M16 is far more accurate (so why dont the US adopt any of the even more accurate rifles out there?), below that the AK provides a good volume of fire without any chance of jamming or failiure, no matter what the conditions.

TO me the choice is simply one of personal preference, both are equally strong in some areas, and beyond that have different strengths and weakneses

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Code13:

"rabble with AK v trained troops with M16"

I agree with much of what you said. The conversation has drifted in and out with several different angles. However my example was a counter to earlier posts on the subject.

My point not being "verse Militia's" only. My point being I have never, ever seen anyone who used an AK 47 when they had access to better weapons. The people I have worked with and I had enough training to know the difference and what that difference meant towards being effective. Everyone had the opportunity to arm himself with an AK 47 and would have done so if that would have been an improvement. Never was that choice made and that continues to this day with better versions of the AK available.

I believe a lot of what many are discussing concerning the AK 47 in this thread borders on urban myth without any experience to understand what survivability and effectiveness truly means.

[Nidan1]

All I know, is that some young fellow from North Vietnam was able to place a 7.62x39 from an AK-47 (probably, could have been an SkS, don't know for sure) into my left left thigh, from about 70-100m away. He could have been aiming for my head, but who wants to quibble about that? In any event, I was not able to respond with my M-16.

The point being....and adequately discussed here..is that both weapons have their place in history...and put into the hands of a determined, dedicated person can kill or maim...which is the number one purpose of a weapon, IMO.

[Bigduke6]

Several few points.

I in a friendly but frank way disagree with several of Abbott's assertions:

1. The M-16's problems were not solved 35 years ago, as Abbott claims. The M-16A1 was standard U.S. Army issue until the latter half of the 1980s. That weapon jammed like nobody's business. M-16A2 fixed most of the problems, albeit in part by reducing the max burst to three rounds.

IMO this is not a great solution, but to be honest the jury is still out as to whether 3-round bursts are more effective in combat than blowing entire magazines. Sure short bursts are better if they're aimed, but my contention is the great bulk of fire in combat is at best generally aimed, and often just thrown out there.

2. Anecdotally about a week ago on CNN I watched U.S. Marines using SAWs and M-16s shoot up a building wall with a window, in which supposedly were some insurgents. The jarheads were all over the building wall, frequently 3-4 meters off target at a range of around 200 meters. I think U.S. Marinesi n Iraq qualify as pro soldiers by most standards. I would say this is a small proof of my contention that when it's live rounds against armed humans, most troops will choose volume of fire over careful aiming.

3. With respect I think Abbott's definition of "professional soldier" is too narrow. The world is a very big place, and there are lots of soldiers. I personally have met probably hundreds of peacekeepers with service time in - Lebanon, Trans-Dniestr, Chechnya, Abkhazia, Nargono-Karabakh, Northern Ossetia, Sierra Leonne, Croatia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq - who use the AK-74 and swear by it.

Those soldiers - I'm basically talking former Red Army members or Russian, Ukrainian, Moldovan, and Kazakh, service members - I am quite sure could not conceive of replacing AK-74 with the weapons they come across in those conflicts. Certainly one can disagree with their choice, but lumping people like that in the category of "non-professionals with no access to better weapons", I think is unfair and inaccurate.

4. I would add the Red Chinese army has used the Kalashnikov design for about two generations, so if the issue is raw numbers of who prefers what, Kalashnikov wins hands down. And it's not like the Chinese have no choice but Kalashnikov, they're the world's manufacturing hub these days and if they can design anti-tank missiles and cutting-edge fighters - which they do - they certainly are capable of coming up with a new automatic rifle if they see the need. But so far, Kalashnikov is good enough for the Red Chinese.

Also there is the hardly small Indian army, which, again, uses predominantly Kalashnikov.

5. Hizbullah troops in Lebanon have been at war with Israel for about two decades, and so they have regular access to Galil and M-16-series weapons. Hizbullah prefer Kalashnikov. Certainly they don't qualify as a 1st World army. But to me, twenty years of combat experience against the Israelis is a pretty good definition of real soldiering.

6. It is quite true most Kalashnikov-armed soldiers will choose AKM and/or AK-74, over AK-47. To me, this does not in any way undermine the basic excellence of the Kalashnikov design - after all if the design had been bad the Russians could have tossed it out and gone with something radically different, like for instance happened when T-62 turned out to be a clunker and so T-64 came out lickety-split afterwards.

7. Final point in the form of a question:

Abbott, a generic Russian infantry platoon is on one end of an urban battlefield, and a generic U.S. infantry platoon on the other. Both sides have their just automatic rifles, the Russians AK-74, the American M-16. Numbers are equal. Which side is going to win?

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Abbott, a generic Russian infantry platoon is on one end of an urban battlefield, and a generic U.S. infantry platoon on the other. Both sides have their just automatic rifles, the Russians AK-74, the American M-16. Numbers are equal. Which side is going to win?

The lucky side....

I wanted to add, after further contemplation, that there are so many variables in a modern combat situation, that make all discussion of the personal weapon of the participants, somewhat moot.

BigDuke6's question above is totally hypothetical and tries to compare modern armed combat to the Gunfight at the OK Corral.

An infantry platoon on a mission is not in a vacuum, no matter what personal firearm they are carrying. There are supporting fires, leadership roles, tactical considerations, human errors, unexpected situations, all of these, and more, play a role in who simply comes out the winner.

Most home grown groups such a Hezbolla, Al Qaeda, and others, are simply nothing more than well equipped and funded street gangs. There is no comparison to them and a purposefully trained military unit. Their choice of weapon is dictated by economics first, and personal choice second. The reasons they dont pick up western small arms, is probably more due to the fact of ammunition problems or unfamiliarity rather than a choice made based on the weapon's capability.

A simple debate on the merits of two different assault weapon designs, has IMO morphed into something far more complicated and point of view based. It is however an interesting discussion, even though it is totally off topic.

[ June 24, 2005, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Code13]

Just to throw another curve ball in about accuracy v firepower.

During the falklands war both sides were pretty much armed with identical rifles, apart from the Argentinians were capable of automatic fire where the British were not.

The British troops happily swapped their rifles for ones capable of auto fire, until they learned that they were more prone to jamming...

[c3k]

BigDuke6,

I'm certainly not swaggering into the midst of this, mostly, civil thread, but I disagree with some of your assumptions in an earlier post.

Your contention was that a force of undisciplined fighters would gradually gain experience as the fight continued. As well, the disciplined platoon would lose a man here, another there, gradually being attrited. In that manner, the undisciplined mob with cheap, inaccurate AK-47's will win over the highly trained, small numbered platoon with expensive, accurate M-16's.

You assume the following: there are survivors from the undisciplined force. They learn something. This knowledge is transmitted to others. These others understand, value and use that knowledge.

That is a LARGE number of assumptions.

Equally, you assume the attrition of the highly trained side will NOT be replaced by equally highly trained substitutes. That there is a limit to the number and/or quality of replacements.

Let me postulate a campaign slightly different than yours. In mine, a large number of undisciplined troops engage in attacks and are wiped out, to a man, every time. No survivors. Ever. The highly trained unit DOES take casualties. They are rotated out of action, substitutes are filled in, the unit achieves high cohesion, then is rotated back into action. The combatant portion of the highly trained force is always at 100% manpower.

In that case, the AK-47 is of no grater use than a sharpened stick. (Okay, an exaggeration.)

The main element here, with which I think you'll agree, is that the training of the individual soldier is MUCH more important than the weapon.

Just wanted to poke holes in a theory with underlying assumptions. So, feel free to shoot me down with your 7.62mm, 5.56mm, or 5.45mm bullet.

Regards,

Ken

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by roqf77:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Plus a sprinkling of LAW 80

.

Err on the website i linked it said the law the british army uses was 94mm. </font>

[Code13]

mind you, wasnt the trusty Carl Gustav RR also 94mm?

[roqf77]

I know. Being as I work for the company that produced the LAW 80, I don't really care what your website says. The LAW 80 (Light Anti-armour Weapon for the 80's) has, as stated by Wicky, a calibre of 94mm. The number refers to the decade, as for the SA80 and the AS90.

calm down i was just asking. I have already stated thst i hsve no direct military knowledge. I think you need to knock the chip on your shoulder off. Especialy as it had already been clarified so there was realy no need. plus its not my website actualy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as yes code 13 this does sound like im being a hypocrit but i didnt mean that statement like that.

[Bigduke6]

Ken,

You and I at least seem to agree the critical issue is not the rifle then.

Fair comment. You make an excellent points. Certainly well-trained troops can kill tons of armed civilians. Absolutely there are cases where the "high cost" military has won the battle of the meatgrinder. No question a rabble armed with Kalashnikovs will not - automatically - molt into a an infantry comparable with its NATO-trained opponent. Malaya and Korea for instance come to my mind as case histories.

But there are plenty of other cases, recent ones, maybe even ones in progress, where high-tech and superior training didn't win the war. Where the lower-tech side took civilians and after paying blood tax produced an approximation of decent infantry. I would mention those post-WWII conflicts except that some forum readers get mad when I do.

The decisive factors in the infantry fight, I'm talking strategic here, are the availability of resources to shove into the meatgrinder, and the will to expend the resources. My point is, the ability of one side's rifle to shoot a little better and a little farther, or not, is meaningless in that equation.

On the tactical level, I think Nidan1 has it right. Combat is so complicated a little technical difference in infantry small arms has almost no effect on the firefight. So call it close to meaningless.

I think that undermines the arguement of Abbot and others that the Kalashnikov is an inferior weapon avoided by professional soldiers. If the type of weapon is meaningless strategically, and almost meaningless tactically, then why should a rational professional soldier care? Doesn't it make sense for that professional soldier to pay attention to the things that do make a difference to his survival?

Try this analogy on for size: The U.S. forces in Iraq are now armed with Kalashnikovs. Does the effectiveness change, and if so in which direction? I am of the opinion in terms of battles the kill ratios would be absolutely unchanged; a modern NATO infantry force is no more or less effective depending on its automatic rifle.

Here's another one: Replace all the Kalashnikovs carried by Iraqi rabble with M-16A4 or whatever top-end assault rifle you want. Is that Iraqi rabble going to suddenly start winning firefights?

Nidan1,

You are of course right, the semantic trap I was setting Abbott is quite artificial. I was trying to point out the marginality of an automatic rifle slight accuracy edge, in a typical infantry fight.

For the record, I like your answer of "luck". Personally I might predict the winner of that platoon-to-platoon fight based on "who's sitting still when contact is made"; but that usually comes down to luck as well, come to think of it.

If you ask me, those two platoons would cut each other to ribbons. I don't want to be there.

[Nidan1]

Hey Bigduke6, Abbott, et al.

Its really cool that we all understand how full of hot air we are Its still fun to discuss this stuff though, isn't it? Especially in today's world, where the alternative could be facing each other on some far off battlefield.

[Splinty]

One other relavant peice of info, is the venarable M16 series is being replaced as we type. The U.S. Army is going to the M 8 series of weapons, which have been designed out of the gate as being easy to maintain and use, and also accurate to higher tolerances than the weapons it will replace.

[Abbott]

Geez, Bigduke, you have drawn so many incorrect assumptions (again) that it is difficult to believe you are sober.

but to be honest the jury is still out as to whether 3-round bursts are more effective in combat than blowing entire magazines.

U.S. Marines using SAWs and M-16s shoot up a building wall with a window, in which supposedly were some insurgents. The jarheads were all over the building wall, frequently 3-4 meters off target at a range of around 200 meters.

Many of your previous statements are so incorrect that I in jest, questioned your sobriety. I am not trying to be impolite but you are often so far off that I am beginning to believe you have never left your desk.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Splinty:

One other relavant peice of info, is the venarable M16 series is being replaced as we type. The U.S. Army is going to the M 8 series of weapons, which have been designed out of the gate as being easy to maintain and use, and also accurate to higher tolerances than the weapons it will replace.

I thought that the competition to that had been re-opened, since the US army were also looking to replace the M249 as well.

Heckler and Koch, the manufacturers of the XM8, are also offering an upgrade of the M16, referred to as the 416. The latter is a design upgrade along the same lines as, but more significant than, the L85A1 to A2 conversion. FN and Colt, amongst others, are expected to bid.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by roqf77:

calm down i was just asking. I have already stated thst i hsve no direct military knowledge. I think you need to knock the chip on your shoulder off. Especialy as it had already been clarified so there was realy no need. plus its not my website actualy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! as yes code 13 this does sound like im being a hypocrit but i didnt mean that statement like that. [/QB]

I like my chip. It amuses after the total up-fudge today has been.