US Troops using AK-47s

[robert arndt]

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 7/17/2004 12:48 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html
>
>Rob

In another thread you said that U.S. troops were "throwing away their M-4s" and
using AKs instead. All this article says is commanders are allowing soldiers in
specific circumstances to carry AKs.

Now then, what does this have to do with military aviation?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[JDupre5762]

>In another thread you said that U.S. troops were "throwing away their M-4s"
>and
>using AKs instead. All this article says is commanders are allowing soldiers
>in
>specific circumstances to carry AKs.
>
>Now then, what does this have to do with military aviation?

Because it was the Air Force that gave us the AR-15 which became the M-16 and
then the M-4. ;)

Maybe the Air Force can do the services another favor and be the first to adopt
the new Remington 6.8mm bullet and upgrade for the M-16/M-4. :)

John Dupre'

[robert arndt]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: (robert arndt)
> >Date: 7/17/2004 12:48 AM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html
> >
> >Rob
>
> In another thread you said that U.S. troops were "throwing away their M-4s" and
> using AKs instead. All this article says is commanders are allowing soldiers in
> specific circumstances to carry AKs.

In fierce street fighting against Iraqi insurgents many US soldiers
have "ditched or discarded" their M4s for captured AK-47s. That does
not imply that they were throwing them away (which as a US soldier you
cannot do)- they basically just kept the M4s around while preferring
to use the AK-47s in combat as their main weapon, especially with the
huge stocks of AK47 ammo lying around.
I never meant to imply they threw their M4s away. If I was in Iraq I
would grab one too and use it. We all know the history of the AK-47
families and copies around the world. It is arguably the best assault
rifle around in terms of longevity, durability, firepower, and
simplicity of design. (Of course they stole the basic design from the
German STG-44 while the West went for Mauser's STG-45 design).
>
> Now then, what does this have to do with military aviation?

Nothing, just proving you wrong again. YOU said the US soldiers
WEREN'T swapping out/using AK-47s in combat in Iraq. You asked me to
prove it and I did.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Rob

[Mike Williamson]

robert arndt wrote:

>
> Nothing, just proving you wrong again. YOU said the US soldiers
> WEREN'T swapping out/using AK-47s in combat in Iraq. You asked me to
> prove it and I did.
>

According to the article, they aren't swapping out. Troops
are authorized to use AK-47s primarily because as armored troops
they aren't issued M-16/M-4s to every troop. Nowhere in that
article did it mention a single M-16 being returned to the
armory in favor of another weapon. There was ONE instance where
a soldier reported that he USED a handy AK-47 to fire (blindly)
towards cover where unseen assailants were firing. In that
case, since he isn't limited on the amount of AK ammo he can
just pick up, and almost certainly doesn't have to account
for any of it, it makes perfect sense to spray several hundred
rounds down range. It doesn't cost anything, you've got more
ammo for that than your M-16 (again, because it isn't issued,
it's just laying around), and it's not like you are going
to take it home when you've finished. But none of those
issues have anything to do with the weapon itself, except
perhaps that the AK is fully-automatic as opposed to burst
(and I believe that the M-4 has full automatic capability
as well- is that correct). If they had the same amount
of ammo for both at the start, he'd be dropping the AK
almost immediately, as he'd be out of ammo.

Mike

[JDupre5762]

>We all know the history of the AK-47
>families and copies around the world. It is arguably the best assault
>rifle around in terms of longevity, durability, firepower, and
>simplicity of design. (Of course they stole the basic design from the
>German STG-44 while the West went for Mauser's STG-45 design).

This canard has been disproven many times. While there is a similarity in the
size of the round and shape of the magazine the StG 44 and AK 47 used two
substantially different operating principles and the AK is not a copy of the
StG 44.

John Dupre'

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 7/17/2004 1:09 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>> >From: (robert arndt)
>> >Date: 7/17/2004 12:48 AM Central Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>>
>>http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/978295p-6862352c.html
>> >
>> >Rob
>>
>> In another thread you said that U.S. troops were "throwing away their M-4s"
>and
>> using AKs instead. All this article says is commanders are allowing
>soldiers in
>> specific circumstances to carry AKs.
>
>In fierce street fighting against Iraqi insurgents many US soldiers
>have "ditched or discarded" their M4s for captured AK-47s.

You provide no proof.

That does
>not imply that they were throwing them away (which as a US soldier you
>cannot do)- they basically just kept the M4s around while preferring
>to use the AK-47s in combat as their main weapon, especially with the
>huge stocks of AK47 ammo lying around.
>I never meant to imply they threw their M4s away. If I was in Iraq I
>would grab one too and use it. We all know the history of the AK-47
>families and copies around the world. It is arguably the best assault
>rifle around in terms of longevity, durability, firepower, and
>simplicity of design. (Of course they stole the basic design from the
>German STG-44 while the West went for Mauser's STG-45 design).
>>
>> Now then, what does this have to do with military aviation?
>
>Nothing, just proving you wrong again. YOU said the US soldiers
>WEREN'T swapping out/using AK-47s in combat in Iraq. You asked me to
>prove it and I did.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>Rob

You still haven't proved it. The aricle you provide simply states soldiers only
issued side arms are being permitted to carry AKs in addition to their side
arms. Nowhere does the article say anyone is substitution the AKs for their
M-4s. In fact the article says soldiers are only being allowed to carry AKs
because there is a shortage of M-4s. Once again you have lied.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[robert arndt]

(JDupre5762) wrote in message >...
> >We all know the history of the AK-47
> >families and copies around the world. It is arguably the best assault
> >rifle around in terms of longevity, durability, firepower, and
> >simplicity of design. (Of course they stole the basic design from the
> >German STG-44 while the West went for Mauser's STG-45 design).
>
> This canard has been disproven many times. While there is a similarity in the
> size of the round and shape of the magazine the StG 44 and AK 47 used two
> substantially different operating principles and the AK is not a copy of the
> StG 44.
>
> John Dupre'

"After seeing the German MP44 (aka STG-44) and its intermediate
cartridge the Soviets rapidly appreciated the logic behind it and set
about developing their OWN version, which eveolved into the
Kalashnikov"

-Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, 6th Edition, Ian Hogg


"Once the GERMAN gun and its 7.9mm KURZ cartridge had been analysed,
the merits of such equipment in the hands of the tankoviy desant
troops (tank-borne infantry) became obvious; the assault rifle
combined the fire rate of a submachine gun with a cartridge that
offerered perhaps eight times the maximum effective range of the
standard 7.62x25 type"

- Kalashnikov, John Walter

" The rifle was designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov in 1944-45 to handle
the intermediate cartridge credited to Elizarov and Semin, but
apparently influenced by captured examples of the GERMAN 7.9mm KURZ
(found in the STG-44)"

- Guns of the Elite, 2nd Edition, George Markham

"Kalashnikov's resulting Automat Kalashnikova obrazets 1947g-AK47-
went right down the list of desirable features of the STG-44 beginning
with its straight line configuration, detachable 30 round box
magazine, pistol grip, and selective fire capability. Although its
bolt-locking was not taken from the STG-44, Kalashnikov DID make use
of that rifle's bolt carrier and gas operating system. Sheet metal
stampings are used in the receiver and top cover of the AKM versions,
and the folding stock of the AKMS is a slight modification of that of
the German MP-38 series."

-German Automatic Weapons of World War II, Robert Bruce


Is that enough for you, or shall I open another stack of books?

Rob

[phil hunt]

On 17 Jul 2004 05:57:00 GMT, B2431 > wrote:
>
>Now then, what does this have to do with military aviation?

I suppose you could argue that the bullet is in flight between
leaving the barrel and hitting the target :-)

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[robert arndt]

> >
> >Nothing, just proving you wrong again. YOU said the US soldiers
> >WEREN'T swapping out/using AK-47s in combat in Iraq. You asked me to
> >prove it and I did.
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >Rob
>
> You still haven't proved it. The aricle you provide simply states soldiers only
> issued side arms are being permitted to carry AKs in addition to their side
> arms. Nowhere does the article say anyone is substitution the AKs for their
> M-4s. In fact the article says soldiers are only being allowed to carry AKs
> because there is a shortage of M-4s. Once again you have lied.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Yeah, the official statement is "permitted"... as if any high command
could prevent the soldiers from using captured stock in close combat
situations. The US soldiers in Iraq have been using AK-47s for months
and I never suggested they turned in their M4s for the weapon... just
that they swapped-out (switched main arms) for the AK-47 in street
fighting. With all the plentiful ammo they could fire full auto all
day and not run out. They also don't have the cleaning requirements of
the M4 and have much better durability under harsh conditions.
I didn't lie at all. The official US Govt, does that much better ;)
Really Dan, are you just a little jealous you can't have an AK-47/74
yourself? They are excellent weapons and the new Nikonov AN-94 is even
better. I still want to "procure" one if I can but the cost would be
prohibited. They are most used by Russian MoD troops and SFs. Our
Govt. has had a hard time trying to get their hands on a few.. lucky
*******s the ones that did. I suppose the Secret Service Armory
already tested one out or maybe the French who worked with their paras
a while back. The Poles were nice enough to let Western troops try out
their Beryl but this rifle is nowhere near the AN-94 in capabilities.

Rob

[B2431]

>From: (robert arndt)
>Date: 7/19/2004 4:29 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> >

>Yeah, the official statement is "permitted"... as if any high command
>could prevent the soldiers from using captured stock in close combat
>situations. The US soldiers in Iraq have been using AK-47s for months
>and I never suggested they turned in their M4s for the weapon... just
>that they swapped-out (switched main arms) for the AK-47 in street
>fighting.

Actually you said the U.S. troops were throwing away their M-4s and picking up
AKs.

With all the plentiful ammo they could fire full auto all
>day and not run out. They also don't have the cleaning requirements of
>the M4 and have much better durability under harsh conditions.

Only a fool wouldn't keep his weapon clean in a combat zone.

>I didn't lie at all. The official US Govt, does that much better ;)
>Really Dan, are you just a little jealous you can't have an AK-47/74
>yourself?

I have either owned or used more M-16/AR-15 and AK types than you have, but
this is irrelevent to your claim U.S. troops were throwing away their M-4s and
carrying AKs instead.

They are excellent weapons and the new Nikonov AN-94 is even
>better. I still want to "procure" one if I can but the cost would be
>prohibited.

Try "prohibitive."

They are most used by Russian MoD troops and SFs. Our
>Govt. has had a hard time trying to get their hands on a few.. lucky
>*******s the ones that did. I suppose the Secret Service Armory
>already tested one out or maybe the French who worked with their paras
>a while back. The Poles were nice enough to let Western troops try out
>their Beryl but this rifle is nowhere near the AN-94 in capabilities.
>
>Rob

Now then, I ask again: what has any of this to do with military aviation?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Mike Williamson > wrote in message >...
> robert arndt wrote:
>
> >
> > Nothing, just proving you wrong again. YOU said the US soldiers
> > WEREN'T swapping out/using AK-47s in combat in Iraq. You asked me to
> > prove it and I did.
> >
>
> According to the article, they aren't swapping out. Troops
> are authorized to use AK-47s primarily because as armored troops
> they aren't issued M-16/M-4s to every troop.

Yeah it would seem that properly arming them for their new
asignments came as an afterthought to the DOD.

--

FF