Ak

[schromf]

I have a question, but I would like to preface it with this is not a stab at the function and or reliability of the AK.

My question is in conflicts over the last 30-40 years has the AK been the battle rifle of the winning side? It seems to me that it almost seems to be, figure out which side is not using AK's and they will be the eventual victor. This doesn't apply to conflicts where both sides were using AK's as in the Russians in Afganistan, the Chinese/Vietnamise war. Am I missing something here or is this a trend nobody pays attention to. If this is a fact or trend ( it might not be and I am interested in replies) might not its effectiveness have some bearing on these outcomes?

Again this is not intended to get a cat fight started on how well your AK works. I am fully aware that other factors such as command structure and socio-economic status influence these outcomes, it is just something I observed from the armchair.

 

[goalie]

it is just something I observed from the armchair.

That is the important part of your observation.

 

[DMK]

The AK is a symptom of the problem, not the cause. The Kalisnikov is easily manufactured under poor conditions, it's cheap and works well with limited training.

Lack of industry, limited budgets and poor training do not facilitate victory.

That said, there have been wars won by the sides fielding AKs. The N. Vietnamese won the war although that victory had nothing to do with infantry weapons. The Rodesian conflict was also won by the side armed with AKs. Again, the rifles had little to do with that if you look at the big picture.

 

[pbhome71]

NVA v.s. ARVN

 

[schromf]

Rhodesia ?

Ok details of Rhodesia are a little vague but I am assuming the 1971-79 conflict. What side used what?

Reference to N. Vietnamese I limited the timeline to not include ( vague I agree ) so that Vietnam was not part of the discussion or this will get way off topic.

I will throw another point your way I think the Chad conflict was won by the AK toting side. But I attribute that to the other side was the French, and they have a pretty dubious record of victories in the last 100 years.

Armchair observations at this point yes, but I spent about 18 of the last 25 years as either active military or a military advisor overseas so some of my observations are based on actual experience.

DMK: Lack of industry, limited budgets and poor training do not facilitate victory.

Point well taken, and I concur that this is a very small part of the big picture, and aircraft, C4ISR, Command infra-structure, training, main battle tanks, artillary, missiles, and naval forces weigh much more on the outcomes. And yes MONEY, which finances all of the previous.

Well said by the way on it being a symptom of the problem.

 

[Destructo6]

Well, I'd say stamping receivers is easier than milling, developing and maintaining the dies used to do so is more difficult and requires more expertise than milling. If you don't do the setup properly, you have a high probability of destroying not only a punch or two, but of breaking the die plate as well. Repairing a die plate isn't exactly child's play. Also, you need to sharpen and shim dies on a regular basis.

I'm not wild about picking the timeframe to eliminate Vietnam.

 

[schromf]

I eliminated the Vietnam, because I figured it would lead the thread way off topic with a myriad of opinions, most not directly related to the question.

 

[Doug S]

No offense, but your question although thought provoking has nothing to do with history and/or facts. Victories in warfare over the last 30-40 years have had much less to do with hardware than with ideology. Social & economic factors played a much more significant part in military outcomes during this time period. It could even be that poor conscripts just don’t make for good soldiers. I tend to think that the examples that you hint at, lost not on lack of hardware or manpower, but due to ineffectual government. It helps to believe in what you’re fighting for.

 

[Doug S]

Looking back over my post, I left out the primary reason for my opinion. That is, we know that although the AK has some "issues", it works. How could a rifle known for rugged reliability, that works when other rifles simply don't, have contributed to defeat?

 

[schromf]

AK issues

I was really not alluding to or aware of issues with the AK's. And I have no affections for the AK yeah or nay. Isssues I would suspect might be contributed to place and method of manufacture which seems to range from very good to awful.

Let me state again I think the point above about being a symptom not the disease is right on target.

On the Con side might not the cartridge ( not the rifle ) be a contributing factor, it has bad armor pentration, the range is somewhat limited, and it doesn't have a light machine gun associated with it requiring seperate logistics efforts, and the round it is somewhat heavy.

Another reason I wanted to limit the timeline is the date of the design, I think the Korean war through the Vietnam when the design was relatively new but mature ( not hard fast dates with definate gray areas on either side ) was the AK's high water mark. But time has a nasty habit of moving on, with associated develpments, the AK74 and the RPKS-74 have corrected the cons above, and the AK47 is a somewhat dated piece of military hardware. Again symptom above as most countries that use them purchase the AK's because they work reliably and can be either purchased cheap, or manufactured with basic tooling.

Doug S. : I stated when I started this thread about the socio-economic influences which I believe are the real disease. One other point is while I agree about training, not all of these conflicts had troops that didn't believe in what they were fighting for, the Serbs and Taliban are examples.
I didn't really bring this war in Iraq into this, if you thought I was hinting at it because I don't see battle rifles had any bearing on the outcome at all, it was Airpower, Naval Forces, heavy armor, and C4ISR that made the outcome of that almost inevitable.

 

[Dionysusigma]

I'd be more afraid of a SEAL that's armed with my Marlin .22 than I would if I were fighting an Iraqi with an AK.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Destructo6]

it doesn't have a light machine gun associated with it requiring seperate logistics efforts,

Forgetting the RPD?

 

[goon]

The AK has the RPK as a LMG version.
It is limited by the fact that you can't change the barrel out on it when it gets hot, and that limits the rate of fire. But most of that could be overcome with discipline while firing.
The reason that the AK has always lost is that the people using the AK are not really the ideal material for an army.
I know that if you armed the entire US army with the AK, we would still win.
It takes more to win a war than just infantry and small arms.

 

[308win]

My .02, the side with the will is hard to defeat - ARVN vs NVA, Castro vs Batista. The US soldier has never lost a war but the same can't be said about the parasitic, bottom feeding, scum-suckers AKA US politicians. I believe that the tactical armaments employed have little to do with the outcome so long as the supply is adequate for the job at hand.

 

[lee n. field]

My question is in conflicts over the last 30-40 years has the AK been the battle rifle of the winning side?

Us vs. the commies in Viet Nam.

 

[goalie]

I'd be more afraid of a SEAL that's armed with my Marlin .22 than I would if I were fighting an Iraqi with an AK.

I'll leave it at that.

But would you be more afraid of a SEAL with the Marlin, or a SEAL with an AK?

 

[Dionysusigma]

Neither. A SEAL with a knife.

But if I had to pick, the AK. It's not necessarily the hardware that wins a fight (normally).