AK-47 vs. M-16
- Thread starter 44rugerfan
- Start date
Killit n Grillit
New member
Being a grunt during the gulf war,our squad was allowed 1 captured ak47 and some of the enemy`s ammo,reason being of course we had a hard time keeping the sand out of our P.O.S. M16s.during the long road to the highway of death,we encounterd a nasty sand storm,kinda hard keeping the m-16 clean all the time.But we knew the ak-47 would not let us down.Just my .02 worth.
I gotta put my .02 here.
I would rather carry the AK. I carried the M16 for 7 mos during Desert Shield/Storm and was not impressed with the reliability. A little of that powdery sandy grit in the action and you had troubles. It seeped in through the dust covers, between the mag and mag well,and any opening available. There was no way to keep the gritty powder stuff out of your weapon. We picked up numerous AK's that were unbelievably dirty and gritty and all were perfectly functional.
My vote..AK.
Good SHooting
RED
I would rather carry the AK. I carried the M16 for 7 mos during Desert Shield/Storm and was not impressed with the reliability. A little of that powdery sandy grit in the action and you had troubles. It seeped in through the dust covers, between the mag and mag well,and any opening available. There was no way to keep the gritty powder stuff out of your weapon. We picked up numerous AK's that were unbelievably dirty and gritty and all were perfectly functional.
My vote..AK.
Good SHooting
RED
Killit n Grillit,
It would seem to me that a lunatic ran your unit in the Gulf War. Think about it in an 11-man infantry squad (or whatever number is now) the 16’s are not realiable so the commander allows one squad member to keep and carry an captured AK? Lets hope you don’t get into a firefight with more than one individual.
My only experience working in a sand AO environment was in spring of 69 working the vills(1 month) in a sand dune along the South China Sea area near Bong Song. Yes the sand did seem to get everywhere but if you took care of your rifle it worked. During one firefight (ambush) in which my Platoons, Plt. Leader, 2 of the squad leaders and two rifle men were WIA eveyones 16 worked.
When I took my Basic and AIT instructors always stress keeping your rifle in working order KEEP it clean so if you’re in an dirty environment you will have to clean it more often. No the instructors weren’t talking just about the 16 as I was trained with M-14 both in basic and AIT.
Have a good day.
Turk
It would seem to me that a lunatic ran your unit in the Gulf War. Think about it in an 11-man infantry squad (or whatever number is now) the 16’s are not realiable so the commander allows one squad member to keep and carry an captured AK? Lets hope you don’t get into a firefight with more than one individual.
My only experience working in a sand AO environment was in spring of 69 working the vills(1 month) in a sand dune along the South China Sea area near Bong Song. Yes the sand did seem to get everywhere but if you took care of your rifle it worked. During one firefight (ambush) in which my Platoons, Plt. Leader, 2 of the squad leaders and two rifle men were WIA eveyones 16 worked.
When I took my Basic and AIT instructors always stress keeping your rifle in working order KEEP it clean so if you’re in an dirty environment you will have to clean it more often. No the instructors weren’t talking just about the 16 as I was trained with M-14 both in basic and AIT.
Have a good day.
Turk
Edmund Rowe
New member
Thank you, Oris!
Oris: Thank you very much for your replies about experience in the Soviet Army! I was very curious as to how long you actually stayed in those chemical suits in training. I thought you guys either got very tough or had lots of heat casualties!
Once a month practice and leftovers that have to be shot up? Sounds like you guys practiced more than our current US military! And the paperwork accounting sounds the same in both sides of the world.
Did you ever see any special units training like the paratroopers you mentioned, Spetsnaz, Razvedchiki (scouts), Raydoviki (raiders), or Vysotniki (deep penetration units)?
Edmund
Oris: Thank you very much for your replies about experience in the Soviet Army! I was very curious as to how long you actually stayed in those chemical suits in training. I thought you guys either got very tough or had lots of heat casualties!
Once a month practice and leftovers that have to be shot up? Sounds like you guys practiced more than our current US military! And the paperwork accounting sounds the same in both sides of the world.
Did you ever see any special units training like the paratroopers you mentioned, Spetsnaz, Razvedchiki (scouts), Raydoviki (raiders), or Vysotniki (deep penetration units)?
Edmund
FireForged
New member
I own both and enjoy both very much, BUT. I have 2 AK's, one of which is a beater. I bought the "beater AK" in 1989 and have never-ever cleaned it. I have fired over 9K round through it over the years and it has not failed yet. I did replace the upper handguard but thats it. My choice would be the AK.
Edmund Rowe
New member
More AK and M-16 lore
Some anecdotal info on both M-16s and AKs I have seen over the years: (in no particular order)
(I present these to attempt to show many different opinions on what soldiers and designers have said about the rifles)
-Andrew McNab in either his book "Bravo Two Zero" or "Immediate Action" described how the British SAS liked their M-16s for their "lightweight, dependable" features. Note that they ran into the same problem with penetration in northern Ireland and chose folding stock FN-FALs captured from Argentina for the work of busting through auto bodies. They used M-16s with M-203 grenade launchers for their long range patrol in Bravo Two Zero into Iraq. I noted that they seemed to have a large degree of freedom in picking their weapons for missions. It's interesting to see how a foreign country's military (although the SAS is a highly select and unique group) unscarred by the early Viet Nam experience views M-16s.
-In David Isby's "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army", he points out how many American soldiers used captured AKs in preference to their M-16s. He also notes that non-Soviet ammunition caused some reliability problems in North Vietnamese AKs which led some of them to use captured M-16s. Some other NV Army soldiers used M-16s because they preferred it's lightweight and ease of recoil. This historical aside seldom seems to get mentioned in AK vs M-16 discussions. (Sometimes I wonder if the grass always seems greener on the other side??)
-Some years ago Peter G. Kokalis (Soldier Of Fortune's small arms editor) was invited to Mikhail Kalashnikov's birthday party. Yes, THE Mikhail Kalashnikov. Peter G. took the opportunity to discuss some features of the AKM and AK-74. One thing he asked was what the so-called "rate reducer" was for in military AKMs? Some in the West argued that it was for reducing the cyclic rate of the AKM fired on full auto. Mikhail thought that was funny and explained how the sheet metal receivers of the AKM caused more "bolt bounce" in full auto firing that caused functioning problems. (Yes, even the AK can have some trouble sometime). So the widget that drags on the bolt as it moves forward retards the "bounce" to some extent such that cycling is smooth again like in the older AK-47 forged receiver rifles. (As civilians with mostly semi-auto rifles, we are unlikely to see the bolt retarding mechanism)
-Another question Peter G. was dying to ask ("You MUST answer this question....") was what the groove in the AK-74 buttstock is for? In the West for decades the debate raged on its purpose. Some said its an identification mark to distinguish the AKM from the AK-74 easily. Others said it's for infantry inside armored personell carriers to grip with their fingertips while firing on full auto out the firing ports. So what's the mysterious groove for?? Mikhail explained that the first prototype AK-74s were built on AKMs, but the 5.45mm barrel had the same outer diameter but obviously smaller inner diameter than the 7.62mm barrels. This made the rifle heavier. The Red Army had a maximum weight limit on the rifle so to save weight they cut the grooves in the buttstock. (The Machine Gun News article about this where Dan Shea is interviewing Peter G. is pretty funny... at this point Dan Shea is going "No......no!" because the reason for the groove is so mundane) After the explanation, Mikhail told Peter G. "Was good joke on you, no?"
Next part: what Viet Nam SOG troops thought of the M-16 vs AK
Edmund
Some anecdotal info on both M-16s and AKs I have seen over the years: (in no particular order)
(I present these to attempt to show many different opinions on what soldiers and designers have said about the rifles)
-Andrew McNab in either his book "Bravo Two Zero" or "Immediate Action" described how the British SAS liked their M-16s for their "lightweight, dependable" features. Note that they ran into the same problem with penetration in northern Ireland and chose folding stock FN-FALs captured from Argentina for the work of busting through auto bodies. They used M-16s with M-203 grenade launchers for their long range patrol in Bravo Two Zero into Iraq. I noted that they seemed to have a large degree of freedom in picking their weapons for missions. It's interesting to see how a foreign country's military (although the SAS is a highly select and unique group) unscarred by the early Viet Nam experience views M-16s.
-In David Isby's "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army", he points out how many American soldiers used captured AKs in preference to their M-16s. He also notes that non-Soviet ammunition caused some reliability problems in North Vietnamese AKs which led some of them to use captured M-16s. Some other NV Army soldiers used M-16s because they preferred it's lightweight and ease of recoil. This historical aside seldom seems to get mentioned in AK vs M-16 discussions. (Sometimes I wonder if the grass always seems greener on the other side??)
-Some years ago Peter G. Kokalis (Soldier Of Fortune's small arms editor) was invited to Mikhail Kalashnikov's birthday party. Yes, THE Mikhail Kalashnikov. Peter G. took the opportunity to discuss some features of the AKM and AK-74. One thing he asked was what the so-called "rate reducer" was for in military AKMs? Some in the West argued that it was for reducing the cyclic rate of the AKM fired on full auto. Mikhail thought that was funny and explained how the sheet metal receivers of the AKM caused more "bolt bounce" in full auto firing that caused functioning problems. (Yes, even the AK can have some trouble sometime). So the widget that drags on the bolt as it moves forward retards the "bounce" to some extent such that cycling is smooth again like in the older AK-47 forged receiver rifles. (As civilians with mostly semi-auto rifles, we are unlikely to see the bolt retarding mechanism)
-Another question Peter G. was dying to ask ("You MUST answer this question....") was what the groove in the AK-74 buttstock is for? In the West for decades the debate raged on its purpose. Some said its an identification mark to distinguish the AKM from the AK-74 easily. Others said it's for infantry inside armored personell carriers to grip with their fingertips while firing on full auto out the firing ports. So what's the mysterious groove for?? Mikhail explained that the first prototype AK-74s were built on AKMs, but the 5.45mm barrel had the same outer diameter but obviously smaller inner diameter than the 7.62mm barrels. This made the rifle heavier. The Red Army had a maximum weight limit on the rifle so to save weight they cut the grooves in the buttstock. (The Machine Gun News article about this where Dan Shea is interviewing Peter G. is pretty funny... at this point Dan Shea is going "No......no!" because the reason for the groove is so mundane) After the explanation, Mikhail told Peter G. "Was good joke on you, no?"
Next part: what Viet Nam SOG troops thought of the M-16 vs AK
Edmund
Nightcrawler
New member
Since no one else has mentioned it, I don't think...
...I will point out that the M16 and AK-47 aren't really contemporaries. I mean, sure, variants of both have been used since the 60's, BUT....
The AK-47 design has about ten or eleven years on the M16. It is based on the Nazi MP-44 of World War II. So, essentially, the bare-bones, basic design of the AK-47 has been around for over fifty years, and is still aces today. Not bad.
Not that the M16's record is shabby. It's been in constant production since the mid-60's, and is used 'round the world.
NOW, my personal experience with the M16 is limited to my beater A1 I have in the National Guard (we're talking golden oldie here) and the beater A2 I used in boot camp.
I've never fired my A1 with regular ammunition. For qualification, we only have a pistol range near our armory, so we have to use a special bolt and platic frangible ammunition (blue tip). Most of the time, said ammo works reasonably well, but lemme tell you, it fouls up the barrel like you wouldn't believe. The other ammo I've used is blanks, and let me tell you, if the M16 performed as well with live rounds as it does with blanks, I'd sooner drop it in the lake and take a damned .30-30. It can scaracely fire a full magazine on semi without becoming a single shot rifle (with blanks). I've never fired my A1 on full auto with live rounds. I got to qualify with the SAW last summer, "qualification" was having us shoot SEVEN round belts at a paper target 10 feet in front of us. Had to haul the spare barrels, too, although not only did we not need them, I wasn't issued the oven mits needed to change the barrel.
In boot camp, I had an A2, which worked well for me. It only jammed on the range once or twice, during the three weeks of Basic Rifle Marksmanship. (we didn't fire them much after that) I only fired like two magazines on burst fire. I noticed that "three" round burst was more like one, then three, then two, then four round burst, but hey, who am I to tell the brass any different?
Considering the AR design lacks a gas piston and sprays barrel spooge right back into the chamber (VERY dirty!) it works rather well, actually. It could be worse (see original M16).
I currently own a semi AK clone, so I have experience with that as well. Here are my recommendations for each.
AR-15
-Losen up tolerances
-Make front sight easier to adjust
-If possible, redesign the bolt to not have so many small pieces
-Lose the three round burst. Full auto fire in a rifle is limited in its uses; 3RB has no combat function whatsoever, that I can see.
-Make the #*$@%# handguards easier to take off.
-Start giving M4s to Combat Engineers!
D)
-Shorten the selector switch just a bit, so when it's on semi it doesn't bug the trigger finger of us lefties
-Ambidextrious selector switch (although I'd still use my left thumb to move it)
Avtomat Kalashnikov
-Push Button Magazine release
-Make the front sight easier to adjust
-Leave the adjustment of the rear sight as is (it's so quick) but replace the sight itself with a peep sight
-If possible, incorporate a non-reciprocating charging handle (ever get smacked in the thumb by that sucker?)
-Use of carbon fiber and synthetics to lighten the weight
-Ambidextrious sling loops
-Thicker pistol grip (my personal desire, anyway)
-Better trigger (you can feel the recoil of the AK in the trigger...my finger got tingly, today, after 100 rounds...was kind of unpleasant)
-Make the recoil buffer standard issue (makes it last longer)
Just my $00.02
...I will point out that the M16 and AK-47 aren't really contemporaries. I mean, sure, variants of both have been used since the 60's, BUT....
The AK-47 design has about ten or eleven years on the M16. It is based on the Nazi MP-44 of World War II. So, essentially, the bare-bones, basic design of the AK-47 has been around for over fifty years, and is still aces today. Not bad.
Not that the M16's record is shabby. It's been in constant production since the mid-60's, and is used 'round the world.
NOW, my personal experience with the M16 is limited to my beater A1 I have in the National Guard (we're talking golden oldie here) and the beater A2 I used in boot camp.
I've never fired my A1 with regular ammunition. For qualification, we only have a pistol range near our armory, so we have to use a special bolt and platic frangible ammunition (blue tip). Most of the time, said ammo works reasonably well, but lemme tell you, it fouls up the barrel like you wouldn't believe. The other ammo I've used is blanks, and let me tell you, if the M16 performed as well with live rounds as it does with blanks, I'd sooner drop it in the lake and take a damned .30-30. It can scaracely fire a full magazine on semi without becoming a single shot rifle (with blanks). I've never fired my A1 on full auto with live rounds. I got to qualify with the SAW last summer, "qualification" was having us shoot SEVEN round belts at a paper target 10 feet in front of us. Had to haul the spare barrels, too, although not only did we not need them, I wasn't issued the oven mits needed to change the barrel.
In boot camp, I had an A2, which worked well for me. It only jammed on the range once or twice, during the three weeks of Basic Rifle Marksmanship. (we didn't fire them much after that) I only fired like two magazines on burst fire. I noticed that "three" round burst was more like one, then three, then two, then four round burst, but hey, who am I to tell the brass any different?
Considering the AR design lacks a gas piston and sprays barrel spooge right back into the chamber (VERY dirty!) it works rather well, actually. It could be worse (see original M16).
I currently own a semi AK clone, so I have experience with that as well. Here are my recommendations for each.
AR-15
-Losen up tolerances
-Make front sight easier to adjust
-If possible, redesign the bolt to not have so many small pieces
-Lose the three round burst. Full auto fire in a rifle is limited in its uses; 3RB has no combat function whatsoever, that I can see.
-Make the #*$@%# handguards easier to take off.
-Start giving M4s to Combat Engineers!
D)-Shorten the selector switch just a bit, so when it's on semi it doesn't bug the trigger finger of us lefties
-Ambidextrious selector switch (although I'd still use my left thumb to move it)
Avtomat Kalashnikov
-Push Button Magazine release
-Make the front sight easier to adjust
-Leave the adjustment of the rear sight as is (it's so quick) but replace the sight itself with a peep sight
-If possible, incorporate a non-reciprocating charging handle (ever get smacked in the thumb by that sucker?)
-Use of carbon fiber and synthetics to lighten the weight
-Ambidextrious sling loops
-Thicker pistol grip (my personal desire, anyway)
-Better trigger (you can feel the recoil of the AK in the trigger...my finger got tingly, today, after 100 rounds...was kind of unpleasant)
-Make the recoil buffer standard issue (makes it last longer)
Just my $00.02
Edmund Rowe
New member
CAR-15 vs the AK
The following is a quote from "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster from Paladin Press. I don't claim that this is the final word on the AK vs M-16 debate, but the discussion is interesting. Note that I'm sure this quote from the book does not speak for ALL SOG veterans.
...and if you ever get to buy this book, it's pricey but packed with incredible history of covert special forces missions in South East Asia.
Begin quote:
THE CAR-15 VS THE AK
Because SOG men frequently carried AKs in Cambodia, and trained with AKs almost as much as with CAR-15s, their experience with both weapons allows a valid comparison. The criteria below are listed in order they influenced a life-and-death SOG recon gunfight.
ERGONOMICS: Generally both weapons are handy and readily manipulable, but the CAR-15 points a bit more naturally. A tie.
RELOADING: The AK bolt doesn't lock to the rear after firing the last round, adding another step and turning it into a two-hand exercise. The CAR-15 bolt locks to the rear and slams shut with a slap of the left palm against the receiver. The CAR-15 is twice as fast to reload. The CAR-15 wins.
READYING TO FIRE: The shooting hand never leaves the CAR-15s grip, but you cannot place an AK off safety without taking the shooting hand off the grip. The CAR-15 wins.
FIRING: The lower recoil on the CAR-15 enables its 3-to-5 round bursts to stay closer to the intended impact point. The CAR-15 can switch between semiauto and full auto without taking the shooting hand off the grip. The CAR-15 wins.
ACCURACY: Both have almost identical sight planes, but the CAR-15 has superior sights. The CAR-15 wins.
BALLISTIC EFFECTIVENESS: Both have similar maximum effective ranges and both will kill equally by proper shot placement at typical SOG engagement ranges of 50 meters or less. A toss-up.
MAGAZINES AND AMMO LOAD: The 5.56mm cartridge and magazines were about half the bulk and weight of AK magazines and rounds. Although inherently a CAR-15 advantage, this was not so decisive since SOG men had to carry in all their ammo while NVA could be resupplied in minutes from nearby units or ammo stockpiles. Still, the CAR-15 wins.
RELIABILITY: This is listed last because seldom did a weapon malfunction. Like the M-16, the CAR-15 had to be kept clean, but SOG men took it a step further, firing up their entire basic load before each operation so they would have tested each magazine--and replaced any mags that failed--and reloaded with completely fresh ammo. Using this procedure, my CAR-15 malfunctioned perhaps three times during practice fire but never once in a real gunfight. Yet, I have never seen an AK malfunction. EVER. The edge goes to the AK.
In summary, the CAR-15 points more naturally and is faster to get off safety, easier to fire, faster to reload, essentially as reliable, and superior overall to the AK. For those whose lives depended on it, their almost universal choice of the CAR-15 over the AK tells it all.
End quote.
Next, the Edmund final answer
The following is a quote from "SOG: A Photo History of the Secret Wars" by John Plaster from Paladin Press. I don't claim that this is the final word on the AK vs M-16 debate, but the discussion is interesting. Note that I'm sure this quote from the book does not speak for ALL SOG veterans.
...and if you ever get to buy this book, it's pricey but packed with incredible history of covert special forces missions in South East Asia.
Begin quote:
THE CAR-15 VS THE AK
Because SOG men frequently carried AKs in Cambodia, and trained with AKs almost as much as with CAR-15s, their experience with both weapons allows a valid comparison. The criteria below are listed in order they influenced a life-and-death SOG recon gunfight.
ERGONOMICS: Generally both weapons are handy and readily manipulable, but the CAR-15 points a bit more naturally. A tie.
RELOADING: The AK bolt doesn't lock to the rear after firing the last round, adding another step and turning it into a two-hand exercise. The CAR-15 bolt locks to the rear and slams shut with a slap of the left palm against the receiver. The CAR-15 is twice as fast to reload. The CAR-15 wins.
READYING TO FIRE: The shooting hand never leaves the CAR-15s grip, but you cannot place an AK off safety without taking the shooting hand off the grip. The CAR-15 wins.
FIRING: The lower recoil on the CAR-15 enables its 3-to-5 round bursts to stay closer to the intended impact point. The CAR-15 can switch between semiauto and full auto without taking the shooting hand off the grip. The CAR-15 wins.
ACCURACY: Both have almost identical sight planes, but the CAR-15 has superior sights. The CAR-15 wins.
BALLISTIC EFFECTIVENESS: Both have similar maximum effective ranges and both will kill equally by proper shot placement at typical SOG engagement ranges of 50 meters or less. A toss-up.
MAGAZINES AND AMMO LOAD: The 5.56mm cartridge and magazines were about half the bulk and weight of AK magazines and rounds. Although inherently a CAR-15 advantage, this was not so decisive since SOG men had to carry in all their ammo while NVA could be resupplied in minutes from nearby units or ammo stockpiles. Still, the CAR-15 wins.
RELIABILITY: This is listed last because seldom did a weapon malfunction. Like the M-16, the CAR-15 had to be kept clean, but SOG men took it a step further, firing up their entire basic load before each operation so they would have tested each magazine--and replaced any mags that failed--and reloaded with completely fresh ammo. Using this procedure, my CAR-15 malfunctioned perhaps three times during practice fire but never once in a real gunfight. Yet, I have never seen an AK malfunction. EVER. The edge goes to the AK.
In summary, the CAR-15 points more naturally and is faster to get off safety, easier to fire, faster to reload, essentially as reliable, and superior overall to the AK. For those whose lives depended on it, their almost universal choice of the CAR-15 over the AK tells it all.
End quote.
Next, the Edmund final answer
Edmund Rowe
New member
The Edmund final answer
Another quote, this time from "Walking Point" by Chief James "Patches" Watson, a Navy SEAL veteran of Viet Nam:
(can you tell I like to read up on this stuff?? )
This is from the "Equipment for Operations" chapter.
One man in his unit carried an M-60 machine gun with a huge amount of ammunition as well as hand grenades, knives, a special harness for the ammo belt to feed into the M-60, and such that he looked like something out of a cartoon.
"The one time I said something to Hyde about the amount of gear he carried, he came back with an answer I couldn't argue with. 'Chief,' he said, 'when I can't keep up with you, then you can tell me what I can't carry."
"And I learned from that. Hyde had no apparent difficulty keeping up with the patrol. Whether it was moving fast and hard or slow and quiet, he would always be right where he was supposed to be. If that equipment was what he wanted to carry, no problem. The answer for the leader was, don't piss your troops off; let them carry what they're comfortable with."
"As a platoon chief, I preferred leaving the choice of what weapon a man wanted to carry up to the individual whenever possible. If a man wanted to use a Stoner, and I knew the man was competent with the weapon and would take care of it, I didn't tell him, 'No, I want you to carry an M16.'"
(partial paragraph deleted)
"The men carry what they want, which helps increase their confidence, a very important point in a combat situation."
....and that is the Edmund final answer. Carry what you're comfortable with and have trained with. I'd rather pick 5 good men and leave their choices to themselves if I know they've practiced hard under professionals than have 30 men with "standardized equipment" and minimal training.
Edmund
Another quote, this time from "Walking Point" by Chief James "Patches" Watson, a Navy SEAL veteran of Viet Nam:
(can you tell I like to read up on this stuff??
)This is from the "Equipment for Operations" chapter.
One man in his unit carried an M-60 machine gun with a huge amount of ammunition as well as hand grenades, knives, a special harness for the ammo belt to feed into the M-60, and such that he looked like something out of a cartoon.
"The one time I said something to Hyde about the amount of gear he carried, he came back with an answer I couldn't argue with. 'Chief,' he said, 'when I can't keep up with you, then you can tell me what I can't carry."
"And I learned from that. Hyde had no apparent difficulty keeping up with the patrol. Whether it was moving fast and hard or slow and quiet, he would always be right where he was supposed to be. If that equipment was what he wanted to carry, no problem. The answer for the leader was, don't piss your troops off; let them carry what they're comfortable with."
"As a platoon chief, I preferred leaving the choice of what weapon a man wanted to carry up to the individual whenever possible. If a man wanted to use a Stoner, and I knew the man was competent with the weapon and would take care of it, I didn't tell him, 'No, I want you to carry an M16.'"
(partial paragraph deleted)
"The men carry what they want, which helps increase their confidence, a very important point in a combat situation."
....and that is the Edmund final answer. Carry what you're comfortable with and have trained with. I'd rather pick 5 good men and leave their choices to themselves if I know they've practiced hard under professionals than have 30 men with "standardized equipment" and minimal training.
Edmund
O.K., Edmund, lets go...
Did you ever see any special units training like the paratroopers you mentioned, Spetsnaz, Razvedchiki (scouts), Raydoviki (raiders), or Vysotniki (deep penetration units)?
First of all, I've never heard about Raydoviki and
Vysotniki. Those are Russian words indeed, but nobody
in Russia uses them to describe special purpose military units. It seems that these names are creations of some Western expert. But I may be wrong. 'cause I left Russia
10 years ago and may be missing some newly developed
slang.
I did not see live paratrooper training, but Russian TV
used to show programs on their training and tactics.
In general, paratroopers and russian marines are trained
much much better than regular infantry, they get lots of physical training, hand-to-hand combat, weapons training
and stuff...They considered to be elite troops and far ahead
of other troops in speed of deployment and combat readiness.
But regular infantry in Russia is nothing to be excited about, to tell you the truth. To my knowledge, most of the
combat soviet forces in Afganistan were paratroopers, who replaced regular infantry after infantry got into serious trouble and suffered heavy casualties due to lack of training.
Spetznaz is not a military force, it's a special militarized
branch of the ministry of Internal Affairs, more like a huge SWAT team, but much more aggresive in tactics. They are trained very well, particularly in hand-to-hand combat, because they are often called to deal with demonstrators w/o use of firepower. But they can be armed to the teeth when reqiured to take part in some street firefight or local conflict.
The most famous and best trained russian special force is
called Alpha, which is unit of Army Intelligence Branch (GRU). I've seen those guys on TV and read some articles about them. There are only about 150 or 200 of them, but
all of them are officers/sergants, as a rule, with a good level of intelligence, at least 6 feet high, everybody is some kind of sportsman and required to be an excellent marksman with any weapons. Their training is something
special. Anyway, they are able to scare the hell out of anybody who opposes them just by showing up. It's not a legend. You can probably find more info about them on the Net.
Did you ever see any special units training like the paratroopers you mentioned, Spetsnaz, Razvedchiki (scouts), Raydoviki (raiders), or Vysotniki (deep penetration units)?
First of all, I've never heard about Raydoviki and
Vysotniki. Those are Russian words indeed, but nobody
in Russia uses them to describe special purpose military units. It seems that these names are creations of some Western expert. But I may be wrong. 'cause I left Russia
10 years ago and may be missing some newly developed
slang.
I did not see live paratrooper training, but Russian TV
used to show programs on their training and tactics.
In general, paratroopers and russian marines are trained
much much better than regular infantry, they get lots of physical training, hand-to-hand combat, weapons training
and stuff...They considered to be elite troops and far ahead
of other troops in speed of deployment and combat readiness.
But regular infantry in Russia is nothing to be excited about, to tell you the truth. To my knowledge, most of the
combat soviet forces in Afganistan were paratroopers, who replaced regular infantry after infantry got into serious trouble and suffered heavy casualties due to lack of training.
Spetznaz is not a military force, it's a special militarized
branch of the ministry of Internal Affairs, more like a huge SWAT team, but much more aggresive in tactics. They are trained very well, particularly in hand-to-hand combat, because they are often called to deal with demonstrators w/o use of firepower. But they can be armed to the teeth when reqiured to take part in some street firefight or local conflict.
The most famous and best trained russian special force is
called Alpha, which is unit of Army Intelligence Branch (GRU). I've seen those guys on TV and read some articles about them. There are only about 150 or 200 of them, but
all of them are officers/sergants, as a rule, with a good level of intelligence, at least 6 feet high, everybody is some kind of sportsman and required to be an excellent marksman with any weapons. Their training is something
special. Anyway, they are able to scare the hell out of anybody who opposes them just by showing up. It's not a legend. You can probably find more info about them on the Net.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
A week ago on the History Channel, they had an hour devoted to the AK and Kalashnikov. There was also some footage of a meeting between Kalashnikov and Stoner, with some teasing by Kalashnikov.
Two different design philosophies, for two different types of industrial capability, and two different types of military tactics.
Kalashnikov worked at simplicity and reliability. Period. Stoner worked at a design which could, basically, not be produced in Russia's plants. Too precise tolerances, for instance; beyond Russia's ability for BOTH quality and quantity. The "looseness" inside the AK was deliberate.
Soviet tactics called for massive artillery barrages, followed by infantry-supported tanks. The infantry would not be called upon to fire until within close range of opponents' front lines/foxholes/bunkers. They would then need massive, suppressive fire as they got in close. It was needed that there be any precision accuracy...
The U.S. wants reasonable accuracy to some 300 yards, plus suppressive fire capability while calling on Arty or Air. The radio is the U.S.'s primary weapon. On average, the U.S. Infantryman was always better trained (and more trusted) than the Soviet "cannon fodder".
On paper, each system works.
If you want aimed fire at 200 to 500 yards, the M-16 will generally perform better. Generally. Up close and personal in mud and goo, the AK is more suitable. Generally.
FWIW, Art
Two different design philosophies, for two different types of industrial capability, and two different types of military tactics.
Kalashnikov worked at simplicity and reliability. Period. Stoner worked at a design which could, basically, not be produced in Russia's plants. Too precise tolerances, for instance; beyond Russia's ability for BOTH quality and quantity. The "looseness" inside the AK was deliberate.
Soviet tactics called for massive artillery barrages, followed by infantry-supported tanks. The infantry would not be called upon to fire until within close range of opponents' front lines/foxholes/bunkers. They would then need massive, suppressive fire as they got in close. It was needed that there be any precision accuracy...
The U.S. wants reasonable accuracy to some 300 yards, plus suppressive fire capability while calling on Arty or Air. The radio is the U.S.'s primary weapon. On average, the U.S. Infantryman was always better trained (and more trusted) than the Soviet "cannon fodder".
On paper, each system works.
If you want aimed fire at 200 to 500 yards, the M-16 will generally perform better. Generally. Up close and personal in mud and goo, the AK is more suitable. Generally.
FWIW, Art
Someone posted that the AK action was based on the German STG44. Not so! The AK may externally resemble the sturmgewehr, but the innards are different. The Ak uses a rotating bolt and a Garand type trigger system. The bolt lockup on the German weapon is more like a SKS, FN FAL or even some Browning designed weapons,ie., no rotation, but the end of the bolt getting pushed into a locking recess.
The lockup on the Stoner designed weapons is taken from the Johnson semiauto of the 30's and early 40's.
The lockup on the Stoner designed weapons is taken from the Johnson semiauto of the 30's and early 40's.
Not so!
I read where s/o said Kalashnikov was based on German StGw44 design. It appears to me to be based on a combination of Garand M1 receiver and Browning Automatic Rifle type gas cylinder. Kalashnikov just rearranged those components to make his little AK.
The German weapon was completely different than a Kalashnikov. Only the gas tube above bbl, large magazine, and general outline of weapons are similar, imho.
Great thread!
I read where s/o said Kalashnikov was based on German StGw44 design. It appears to me to be based on a combination of Garand M1 receiver and Browning Automatic Rifle type gas cylinder. Kalashnikov just rearranged those components to make his little AK.
The German weapon was completely different than a Kalashnikov. Only the gas tube above bbl, large magazine, and general outline of weapons are similar, imho.
Great thread!
Edmund,
Last three posts were very interesting and informative.
Your following post.
""""In David Isby's "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army", he points out how many American soldiers used captured AKs in preference to their M-16s."""""
I know from my tenue in RVN you were not allowed to use any captued weapon period. I really don't think it was that wide spread. It wasn't until years later I read where one of the reasons for this was SF teams (Vietnames members) were planting in NVA ammo dumps 7.62x39 rounds loaded with C-4. Talk about your rifle going bang. I know the US made 7.62x39 during the war but I don't know if the Recon Teams carrying the AK's were using that ammo or captured?
Years back I talked with a SF member that ran those over the border ops. He stated to me the main reason they carried the AK was while in Rome do as the Romans. From a distance if the NVA spotted them they wanted to look more like NVA than American Recon Team.
Also concerning carrying the weapon ones comfortable and proficient with is great for a small RT unit like the Seals but when it comes to larger units logistic means a great deal. Also I wonder what the Chief would of done if each member want to carry a different caliber of rifle. The 16 versus the Stoner would be a good trade off due to both weapons using the same caliber and magazine. Those deep penetration Recon Teams had their butts hanging on a string and being able to use other members mags/ammo must have been very desirable.
Turk
Last three posts were very interesting and informative.
Your following post.
""""In David Isby's "Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army", he points out how many American soldiers used captured AKs in preference to their M-16s."""""
I know from my tenue in RVN you were not allowed to use any captued weapon period. I really don't think it was that wide spread. It wasn't until years later I read where one of the reasons for this was SF teams (Vietnames members) were planting in NVA ammo dumps 7.62x39 rounds loaded with C-4. Talk about your rifle going bang. I know the US made 7.62x39 during the war but I don't know if the Recon Teams carrying the AK's were using that ammo or captured?
Years back I talked with a SF member that ran those over the border ops. He stated to me the main reason they carried the AK was while in Rome do as the Romans. From a distance if the NVA spotted them they wanted to look more like NVA than American Recon Team.
Also concerning carrying the weapon ones comfortable and proficient with is great for a small RT unit like the Seals but when it comes to larger units logistic means a great deal. Also I wonder what the Chief would of done if each member want to carry a different caliber of rifle. The 16 versus the Stoner would be a good trade off due to both weapons using the same caliber and magazine. Those deep penetration Recon Teams had their butts hanging on a string and being able to use other members mags/ammo must have been very desirable.
Turk
For a combat rifle, I'm pretty much of the opinion that any centerfire rifle round will work just fine for use on unarmored adversaries. If one plans to fire through obstacles, the equation changes.
I would pick an AK for the additional reliability. I definitely agree the AR has better ergonomics. I have an M1 Carbine next to my bed, which gives me reliability with a nice American peep sight and ergonomics.
In 'Nam, given the choice, I would have carried an M2 Carbine.
--------
Oh, Aristophanes, thoughtful of you to discount those of us who haven't served a hitch. I suppose I should discount YOU because of the many ex-mil types I've met who didn't even know what caliber rifles they had used? I also note you don't list your email address...
I would pick an AK for the additional reliability. I definitely agree the AR has better ergonomics. I have an M1 Carbine next to my bed, which gives me reliability with a nice American peep sight and ergonomics.
In 'Nam, given the choice, I would have carried an M2 Carbine.
--------
Oh, Aristophanes, thoughtful of you to discount those of us who haven't served a hitch. I suppose I should discount YOU because of the many ex-mil types I've met who didn't even know what caliber rifles they had used? I also note you don't list your email address...
Jamie Young
New member
I'd chose either one depending on the Situation or mission.