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.
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.