So, according to the Admin, we have enough troops but according to this, it doesn't look like we have enough rifles? _________________ U.S. Troops Use Confiscated Iraqi AK-47s Sun Aug 24, 2:15 PM ET By ANDREW ENGLAND, Associated Press Writer 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. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete. U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites) 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.
So, the DoD has enough money to research "Star Wars," but not enough to properly equip our soldiers? Sad, utterly sad. We spend enough money on defense to properly equip our soldiers, we just have to spend it the right way. We have the best fighting force in the world, they should be the best outfitted force as well. Some of the priorities these days seem a bit out of whack to me.
Maybe so, but if that is true, they should have AKs that we bought or made rather than being forced to scrounge for their own weapons. The DoD is responsible for arming our troops, not dead Iraquis.
These weapons are apparently better for the modified mission, plentiful, and free. Why should taxpayers take an even harder hit when a simpler solution is offered? I am perfectly comfortable with our soldiers using the AK.
I see what you're saying johnheath, but don't you think that it's a fairly risky strategy? Sure, we may be able to scrounge for AKs successfully now, but what happens when we can't? We shouldn't have to find out how good our soldiers scrounging techniques are.
LOL, my understanding is that there are MILLIONS of AKs in Iraq. I agree, our soldiers should not have to "scrounge" for anything, but my understanding, from past news stories about attempts to disarm Iraqis, is that AKs are as common as shotguns in Texas (the preceding statement was fabricated in order to illustrate my point).
I seriously doubt the shortage of M16s and M4s is budgetary. They are tank operators and, as such, don't ordinarily need to be armed in that fashion. The only reason they have a shortage is because the nature of their mission has taken them out of the tanks and put them in a situation where they need more rifles than was expected. The military has huge logisitical hurdles to overcome and it is probably much easier and much quicker to requisition weapons for use than to wait for shipments of M4s. I'm sure the rifles are on their way, though a preference for the AK-47 may make the Armed Forces think about doing a re-design.
First off I only have 37 rifles Mrs. JB...and my blasted soon to be ex-wife is holding ransom on them just to be mean... There is nothing wrong with today's M16, and M4, they have been improved to the point that you can't improve them much more...The issue is the round. The .223 or 5.56 x 45 nato round is basically a .22 that is on super steroids... The 55 grain or 62 grain green tip .223 rounds are effective due to the fact the round yaws (turn sideways) moreso than most rounds...It also fragments due to the lightness of the round. ...So you can often have an entrance wound like a pencil and either an exit wound close to a baseball or several pieces travelled in the body...Each will have a good stopping effect. It is also a good round to defeat body armor. When you compare the .223 vs. the 7.62 x 39 of the AK-47, you notice the .223 is faster, and considered more accurate but the 7.62 at 122 grains equals slightly more energy and is a larger hole .30 vs. .22...and it is this "energy" that equates to better killing or stopping capability...As good as the .223 is, it is still relatively small and it doesn't always do what it's suppose to do, I heard some SOF, had to put several rounds to stop an oppenent in Afghanistan or Africa, maybe this isn't necessarily true, but there is a perception that the bigger hole gets the job done better... As far as being commited to a new round/new design, they have the OICW weapon, but for some reason haven't commited to it as a replacement...In my view, the M-16/M4 is great for close to intermediate ranges, and the .308 (7.62 x 51) Gets the nod at intermediate to long range, the M14/M1a is 50 years old, but has a great reputation for reliability from the start, where the M16 had a very shaky start in Vietnam for reliability. The AK has always had reliabilty on it's side, but now the modern M16/M4's have caught up (just don't use steel cased ammo) in reliabilty, and nearly as well in durability, but like I said perception makes everybody think, even soldiers.
Interestingly, the Soviets must have felt the same way as the American designers because they replaced the AK-47 a long time ago with the AK-74, a rifle which fires a 5.45mm round (ie. about the same as the M-16). I think we should adopt the Israeli Tavor rifle, because it has numerous advantages, if we are not willing to commit to the OICW. Either that or one of the newer bullpup rifles that use caseless ammunition.
