Hey guys, here is a possibly ignorant question about the AK47 and its possible retirement from modern warfare.
I keep wathcing all the coverage about Iraq, the insurgents, the death counts and such and have been wondering. Why is it that "guerilla fighters" on their home-turf and armed with a formidable weapon like an AK47 are suffering such high losses compared to those inflicted on US Forces. I was always taught that guerilla fighters on their home-turf had a HUGE advantage over an invading force.
Do you think this is a sign of the AK no longer being able to hold its own in modern warfare or is it more a case of the US military simply out performing them? Granted, the US has Apache helicopters and all kinds of advanced weaponry but is this why the numbers are so uneven or is the AK just finally at its end in terms of being a feared combat firearm? What are your thoughts?:assult:
I think it is the presence of our superior technology in other areas, better training and coordination of soldiers, morale of our forces, and if any problem with the AKs, the fact that they're worn or the conditions in which they've been stored and their history of use.
Generally armies that can afford the M16 also afford surveilance and communication equipment, good tanks, and good training. Guerillas who can only afford an AK generally don't have good training either.
Remember also that a few good shots are better than many bad ones. Even if the AR/M16 is less reliable, if the sites and construction allow the men to make their shots count, that will probably be more effective than many shots flawlessly fed and extracted but not aimed well.
I don't think a rifle that combined the best of both is unrealistic at all. I think the HK G36 is a step in the right direction, but that other steps can also be made.
__________________
Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf
high body counts, is the result of "ALL" the munitions thrown back at the enemy, small arms, rockets, grenades, mortars cannon fire, bombs. besides i doubt if there is much natural cover, just buildings and darkness.
Marines are highly trained, granted they dont have the armour, of say the the armys first armoured, every marine is trained to be a shooter, thats from the ground up to the top, Marines sort of get the cast offs of the army in terms of weaponry, logistics, communications, but marines excell in combat from training, close knit units, these rag tag enemy, are not trained very well, in cohesive fire and engagement, thats where the marines excell, highly motivated, and semper fidelis, the ak is a dam good weapon, but with out basic training to whoever is doing the shooting, this aint viet cong, nor nva , the marines do supporting bases of fire, and call in arty or what ever they need, the ak is a good weapon believe me I know, when it is put in the hands of well trained troopers
__________________
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine
Body armor is keeping the KIA's down...my understading is wounded US troop count is high...though not as high as Iraq's......Like others said Training...technology and other things help....When I was in the middle east, I noticed a lot of spray and pray type shooting on behalf of the Lebanease.....even with rocket artilary they kinda pointed it towards us fired and ran....so training is a big thing.
The answer to your question is not what the Iraqi "Insurgetns" are using as a weapon it is simply a question of training and most importantly dicipline. Fact: Our troops Army/Marines are a professional fighting force. Thoes knotheads shooting back at us are nothing more than a loosley organised, angry mob. They have no reliable command structure, or lagistics support. As mentioned above they spray and prey. They probibly have never practiced fire and manuver tactics. Other than preying 5 or 6 times a day they have no real military dicipline. They also were probibly issued an old weapon that is not sighted for them. They probibly have had littel or no formal training. No practice at a range. All of these littel intangables all add up to our superiority in armed conflict. I do not doubt our troops ability to destroy any target put in front of them. Comanders in the feild are being restrained for now, when the time comes they will let loose. Weather our guys are using M-4's or AK's, they are going to win.
As far as the AK goes it is a good weapon, unfortunatly it is being used by ammatures, against professionals.
Amatures against pros armed with the best money can buy,nothing wrong with the AK,it is more than adequite,but it is more like rats fighting lions,not much of a contest.
Kinda makes me think of another time when the little folks fought the jolly green giant,pure guts.
