Posted on 08/24/2003 4:17:32 PM PDT by hemogoblin
BAQOUBA, Iraq — 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. 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 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 say 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 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 and his M4. 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.
Well, it's well known that Eugene Stoner created a "swiss watch" of precision with the AR-15/M-16 design, but it does need to be kept clean to function, and it quite choosy about the powder in the ammo fed to it (the original problems seen in Viet-Nam). The current version is a terrific weapon, but it requires a well trained and conciencous soldier to keep it in firing condition. On the other hand, the AK was designed for peasants, who don't know anything about guns, and were never taught how to clean them. Not that that's a bad thing. It just means that the weapon will take far more abuse without jamming than an AR will.
I also like the idea of a bigger, heavier bullet (.30 vs .22) myself. While velocity is important in energy computations, I just like the idea of a bigger bullet, for a bigger hole.
Mark
That's always been one of their biggest appeals. ...And the fact that the 7.62 X 39 is more potent than the 5.56 mm.
In lots of environments, reliability and knockdown power is more important than accuracy. A lot of the AK's "accuracy" problems stem from its miserable sights. Put a better sight on it, and you have all the accuracy you would need at firefights under 100 yards
The case for the 'simplicity' of Russian weapons was obviously exaggerated with respect to the jets, for our jets have consistently been able to sweep theirs from the sky.
But it looks like a good case can be made for simple, durable stuff like the AK.
HELLS - BELLS - yes!
And why in hell havn't we taken care of this problem.. we've only had THIRTY YEARS to do it in.
It bugs me that our tankers are jumping out of tanks with nothing but a 9mm. The M4 would do just fine here - better yet UZIs.
I know the 82nd has an abundant supply of UZIs (spec ops).
By God if we are gonna fight in the desert, we need a good desert weapon!
Maybe the U.N. can bail us out here. France? Cuba?
Forgive this if it is ignorant, just something I've often wondered about.
LTS
If our boys are squeezing off AK rounds, enemies in the area are less likly to identify those sounds as American weapons than that of the M16. The M16 has a very distint, almost 'plastic' sound to it, and it is very noticable to the enemy.
I would suspect that the sound of an AK would prolly just register with an Iraqi as someone celebrating, and not the sound of approching US troops.
This is much the same as the German "Blitzkrieg" philosophy early in WW2 when high quality & innovation defeated much larger but anachronistic armies. Quality outclassed mass production, up to a point. The Germans were finally worn down by a lengthy two front war against enemies with near limitless manpower and production capacity.
None of our enemies in the ME pose this type of threat.
For the most part, yes. The AK's are built with wider tolerances, which means more area to move between parts, and also less tight-fitting barrels. These wider tolerances necessarily mean less accuracy.
However, part of the inaccuracy of the AK is attributable to its poor sights. It's rear sight is half way up the weapon or more, very close to the front sight. This means you can sight a target but not really be dead-on with the aim. The Israelis modified by moving the rear sight further back. They called it the Galil.
All you M16 apologists can now chime in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.