Do any of the military types here have a problem with this?

[The Mad Monk]

U.S. troops using confiscated Iraqi AK-47s
By Andrew England, Associated Press, 8/24/2003 14:00

BAQOUBA, Iraq (AP) An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.

Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.

U.S. troops in Iraq may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's stock of Kalashnikovs and, they say, they need them.

The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.

A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection.

But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.

''We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it,'' said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.

''Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now,'' Young said. ''We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged.''

In Humvees, on tanks but never openly on base U.S. soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but now mass produced around the world.

The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently.

Now U.S. troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at checkpoints are putting the rifles to use and they like what they see.

Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better ''knockdown'' power and can kill with fewer shots.

''The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick,'' said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee.

Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters weapon. Also, it has ''some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire back on them with their own weapons,'' McCarson said.

Most U.S. soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 a newer, shorter version of the M16 that has been used by American troops since the 1960s is better for long distance, precision shooting.

But around Baqouba, troops are finding themselves attacked by assailants hidden deep in date palm groves. Or they are raiding houses, taking on enemies at close-quarters.

Two weeks ago, Sgt. Sam Bailey of Cedar Falls, Iowa, was in a Humvee when a patrol came under rocket-propelled grenade and heavy machine gun fire. It was dark, the road narrow. On one side, there was a mud wall and palms trees, on the other a canal surrounded by tall grass.

Bailey, who couldn't see who was firing, had an AK-47 on his lap and his M4 up front. The choice was simple.

''I put the AK on auto and started spraying,'' Bailey said.

Some soldiers also say it's easier to get ammo for the AK they can pick it up on any raid or from any confiscated weapon.

''It's plentiful,'' said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He has about 120 rounds for his M16.

Young doesn't carry an AK but has fired one. He's considered banning his troops from carrying AKs, but hasn't yet because ''if I take the AK away from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with them.''

Staff Sgt. Michael Perez, a tanker, said he would take anything over his standard issue 9mm pistol when he's out of his tank.

And the AK's durability has impressed him.

''They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight, pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work,'' Perez said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If so, for what specifically?

Generalities are fine, but if you make a distinction between, say, tankers having to use AKs on foot patrol, and tankers on foot patrol period, I want to know.

Also -- does the article ring true?

Thanks!

[LoneWolf]

If want to win, you've got to kill people.


Do you want to win?

[Dis]

sound okay to me.

I'm still pissed about the M-16's jamming during that ambush of Jessica Lynch's convoy.

Yes I realize it's the desert, and the mantenance company probably wasn't keeping up on the cleaning of their rifles.

But I can't help but think the Kalashnikov's are superior weapons to M-16's.

[notyoueither]

There's probably a reason they are so popular.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by LoneWolf
If want to win, you've got to kill people.


Do you want to win?

Interesting question.

Another interesting question:

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH IT?

[The Mad Monk]

I'm not at all bothered with them picking up AKs because they're better for the job at hand. I am a little bothered that they have to pick them up because we haven't bothered to supply them (or better) ourselves. I am more than a little bothered that tankers are being used for foot patrols -- I mean, are they really trained for that? It underlines that we are undermanned over there, if we have to misapply forces in this manner.

[:) Smiley]

The US should definitely have every soldier get acquainted with the AK47, if for no other reason than to know thy enemy.

[Dis]

yes I already known that tank divisions are being counted along with the regular divisions as part of the total manpower in Iraq.

It's pretty obvious that we are undermanned out there. And it doesn't suprise me they are being used for this purpose. I really don't have any problem with them being used this way. Our troops should be flexible. They all went to the same boot camp. They know how to fight.

The lack of supply is a problem. But sometimes you can't get out of military regulations and procedures. They just aren't ever issued assault perosnal weapons. There is no procedure in place for issuing tank personnel assault personal weapons.

well you may know how I feel. Even though I supported the war, it was obvious from the time the museum was looted, that the U.S. really has no idea what it's doing. I can care less about the artifacts, but what that signified, was the U.S. had no control over the country. And we still have no control over the borders, and we should. Yes I realize that would requie many, many more troops. But you should do the job right the first time, not half-assed.

What can I say. I now think Bush's whole administration is incompetant. Even though I supported them a mere 6 months ago. There is no way in hell I am voting for Bush again.

[LoneWolf]

AH, Monk, I didn't take your point. I apologize.

[Az]

At the last 3 weeks, I gained a little ( very little. ) experience with M-16s.

Likes:

they're light. very light.

dislikes:

they jam in the sand like hell! After getting basic outdoors training, I couldn't even complete the safeguarding of the weapon, because the sand made it jam.

The AK, and weapons with similar loading mechanisms maybe heavier, but at least they don't jam! Our commander promissed to teach us about the Galil, though.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Dissident
yes I already known that tank divisions are being counted along with the regular divisions as part of the total manpower in Iraq.

It's pretty obvious that we are undermanned out there. And it doesn't suprise me they are being used for this purpose. I really don't have any problem with them being used this way. Our troops should be flexible. They all went to the same boot camp. They know how to fight.

The lack of supply is a problem. But sometimes you can't get out of military regulations and procedures. They just aren't ever issued assault perosnal weapons. There is no procedure in place for issuing tank personnel assault personal weapons.

well you may know how I feel. Even though I supported the war, it was obvious from the time the museum was looted, that the U.S. really has no idea what it's doing. I can care less about the artifacts, but what that signified, was the U.S. had no control over the country. And we still have no control over the borders, and we should. Yes I realize that would requie many, many more troops. But you should do the job right the first time, not half-assed.

What can I say. I now think Bush's whole administration is incompetant. Even though I supported them a mere 6 months ago. There is no way in hell I am voting for Bush again.

Dissident, you are the lifeblood of a healthy democracy.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LoneWolf
If want to win, you've got to kill people.

Against guerrilla warfare, you don't win by killing people.

[Dis]

well you don't win by not killing them

[Skanky Burns]

You win by not having them there in the first place.

[Az]

[Darsnan]

When I went thru Basic Training I was told that everyone's secondary MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) was Infantry, so I doubt things have changed much since I was in: in the military, you go where you are told to go, and do what your told to do.
As far as using AK-47's are concerned: good improvisation, IMO. What concerns me, though, was an article in the ABC News last night where a Senator stated that he's getting angry phone calls from parents of GI's being shipped to Iraq now saying their kids are being sent without the kevlar inserts into their flack jackets! Thats gotta be depressing to the soldiers in that they are being sent by their government into Harm's Way, but they aren't going to be given an essential piece of equipment!


D

[Az]

I don't have kevlar protection, either.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by Dissident
yes I already known that tank divisions are being counted along with the regular divisions as part of the total manpower in Iraq.

It's pretty obvious that we are undermanned out there. And it doesn't suprise me they are being used for this purpose. I really don't have any problem with them being used this way. Our troops should be flexible. They all went to the same boot camp. They know how to fight.

The lack of supply is a problem. But sometimes you can't get out of military regulations and procedures. They just aren't ever issued assault perosnal weapons. There is no procedure in place for issuing tank personnel assault personal weapons.

well you may know how I feel. Even though I supported the war, it was obvious from the time the museum was looted, that the U.S. really has no idea what it's doing. I can care less about the artifacts, but what that signified, was the U.S. had no control over the country. And we still have no control over the borders, and we should. Yes I realize that would requie many, many more troops. But you should do the job right the first time, not half-assed.

What can I say. I now think Bush's whole administration is incompetant. Even though I supported them a mere 6 months ago. There is no way in hell I am voting for Bush again.

First off, It is not unusual at all for troops to perform as infantry regardless of MOS, and that certainly is no indication of being undermanned.

The museum being looted was obviously not good, but to say that indicates that the US doesn't know what it is doing is ludicrous. To say that museum security should have been the priority after invading a country and in the midst of trying to hunt down and kill any enemy soldiers is equally ludicrous.

And that is exactly what you seem to be saying since you say that the museum instance is what was the last straw for you.

And, at present, we aren't undermanned in Iraq, but that could change if more resistance is encountered.

But, the way I have heard it explained by the defense secretary, and i know you bush haters will say that i am digesting lies, but there are 2 reasons that the force strength is at the level it is.

1) Believe it or not, more men aren't needed, because there have only been minor skirmishes encountered (albeit many a day at some points that result in US deaths).

But they are skirmishes that last for a few minutes, with (and I know this sounds harsh) few casualties..They aren't hour/day long grand battles that require more troops. The force strength is, at present, adequate to deal with the enemy threat level. This could of course change.


2) Adding more troops to the point where the country is swarming with them would create a Iraqi dependency on those troops to provide security.

The preferable way of increasing the security is not to send more US troops, but to train more Iraqi police officers as quickly as possible, so that they learn as quickly as possible to provide for their own security, instead of becoming more dependent on foreign troops for security to the point where weening them off of that (and us eventually leaving) would be a problem.


All the while if more troops were indeed needed they would be sent in a heartbeat, rest assured.

This makes sense to me, but i'm sure many of you out there will begin the bashing.

Oh, and as far as the M16 thing goes, it is a sweet weapon. It does jam if very dirty, and dousing it with oil will help, but the accuracy is nothing short of amazing if you really know how to use it.

[Az]

I don't know how is it for you guys, but in the IDF, tank crews are PROHIBITED from leaving the tank during combat, patrol, or whatever. Some artillery soldiers, however, are also trained to be combat ground troops. ( My friend is in one such unit. )

[The Mad Monk]

"bush haters"...?



Ahem...who are you?

[Az]

He's been around. I remember him, IIRC.

[PLATO]

Historically it is not unusual for an invading or occupying army to use captured weapons. The M-16 has advatages in some environments and the AK-47 has advantages in others. Desert warfare tends to lean toward the AK. US doctrine does provide that every soldier is first infantry and then something else.

We must all remember that the occupations of Japan and Germany took 5-7 years to create stable viable governments. 6 months in Iraq is just a beginning. It should not take the 5-7 years mentioned above, but given the tiny amount of time we have been there, there has been a large amount of progress. In this "immediate gratification" society it is not unusual to see people saying dumb things like "we have no control" or "we need more troops". That is to be expected from those who do not understand what it takes to really pacify a population of millions and create a viable atmosphere for democratic government. It ain't gonna happen overnight.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I am a little bothered that they have to pick them up because we haven't bothered to supply them (or better) ourselves. I am more than a little bothered that tankers are being used for foot patrols -- I mean, are they really trained for that? It underlines that we are undermanned over there, if we have to misapply forces in this manner.

I'm not a little bothered by it, I'm a lot bothered. We need to at least give our soldiers the supplies needed to do their jobs and be safe.

[Az]

Since the usual amount of ammo available carried is 3-4 clips, and Assault Rifle ammo is, well, EVERYWHERE YOU GO, I don't think it's much of a problem. If you run out of 7.62mm, on the next encounter, you'll take the M-16 instead.

It's not that they're in such intense combat that those existing Iraqi ammo dumps are in a real danger of running out. But with all the looting going on, at the time, who knows.


The issue of using tank crews as foot soldiers is an interesting one. Personally, in the IDF, we have too little foot soldiers, and too many administrative personnel. That's one of the many problems with conscription.

[Verres]

they're going to kill each other however primative their weapons are. at least this way the massacre happens quicker and is far more efficient

[MichaeltheGreat]

In the US heavy division TO&E, there's little distinction between armored divisions and mechanized infantry divisions other than name. Both types have (according to the TO&E, but deviation is fairly common) five line battalions of mechanazed infantry and five line battalions of armor.

Most of the pukes in an armor battalion are support personnel - armorers & technicians, not the actual tank crews.

The fact that these guys have to dismount and patrol isn't that big of a deal, but they're not nearly, not even ten percent, trained or experienced for it like 11Bravos, so hopefully for everyone's sakes they're in areas that just have to be routinely patrolled and secured. That everyone's an infantryman line is a crock of **** - it's doctrine, and it's the way it's done, but there's a world of difference between an dismounted armor puke and an infantryman.

Using Kalashnikovs is OK with some constraints. The US issue ammo for M4's and M16's is the NATO standard "green tip" (steel penetrator inside jacketed lead) which is great for shooting people through block walls and behind improvised armor, but the wound characteristics are less than ideal, because green tips tend to make small, fully penetrating wound channels with limb and peripheral hits, and penetrating wound channels with lots of fragmentation on full body hits. In other words, the stopping power isn't that great, and it can take several hits to drop an enemy unless you get a clean heart or head shot.

The 7.62/39 round from the Kalashnikovs (very few weapons in Iraq use the later 5.45mm Russian ammo) provides a good balance, with better stopping power at short range with a tradeoff for accuracy and weight. On short range patrols, those tradeoffs aren't a problem.

The downside would come if you're heavily engaged. In urban environments, friendlies and targets are in and out of buildings, around corners, beneath parapets then pop up, etc. - in other words, mostly out of your limited field of view except for very brief moments. You use sound as a cue a lot, even with lateral communications and having both sides using the same weapons and ammo can lead to dangerous levels of confusion. Is mixed sounds of 5.56 and 7.62 coming from the same building just up the block all friendlies firing mixed weapons? Or is it friendlies and hostiles engaged in close fighting within the building? If you just here Kalashnikovs firing, is that friendlies armed with them, or do you presume it is hostiles?

If the conflict level is low enough, and currently, throughout the country, it is, then that situation doesn't present a problem. If things hit the fan, anywhere, then the mixed weapons issue is something that has to be rethought.

[Az]

I was thinking about the mixed guns as a problem.

So does the US army use the green tipped 5.56 ammo? the SS109 is it?

[MichaeltheGreat]

M855 is the US designation, SS109 is (I think) just the IMI designation.

It's standard issue to US forces.

[Verres]

When it comes to methods of killing, i revel in my ignorance.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If you have nothing to contribute to the thread topic, by all means, feel free not to.