AK-47 'War-master' & the History of 'Cheap War'

[IrishArmenian]

I have one in the room, believe it or not. It is in the closet, no but a meter away.
One has to be awed by all the deviations on it. They have made submachine guns, light machine guns and my baby... the Dragunov SVd.

[Lorenzo_H]

A lot of the worlds violence would be solved if we didn't have AK-47 so widely availible.

[yesdachi]

A lot of the worlds violence would be solved if we didn't have AK-47 so widely availible.

That’s debatable.

[DemonArchangel]

Nah, it's not about hardware. They'd go at it with machetes if they didn't have guns.

[Oleander Ardens]

How will increasing effectiveness of body armor influence the assault rifles? Dragonskin is supposed to stop the current military standard ammunition with relative ease --> http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php

Are we back to the Medieval in terms of effectiveness?

[Watchman]

More likely more solid penetrators with more energy and so on. Although, given that apparently one reason for the griping about the lack of stopping power with the M-16 one reads of is the use of a standard-issue round originally designed to defeat Soviet body armour which duly over-penetrates against "soft" targets...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....ah a classic argument:

AK-47

Advantages: durability, ease of operation, good stopping power, cheap

Disadvantages: somewhat heavy compared to M16, ammo heavier

M-16

Advantages: can carry lots more ammo per pound, slightly better effective range than AK-47

Disadvantages: more prone to jamming (especially older models), rounds have little stopping power


Assault rifles are designed to combine the advantages of the machine pistol and the rifle for:

normal infantry engagement ranges, as in <150m -- if you're reliably hitting things at 400m with the basic version of either one, you'll find yourself equipped with a different weapon soon, you're wasted on an assault rifle

hosing lots of bullets down range -- make 'em duck so that you can advance while they're not shooting. The vast majority of bullets are mever intended to hit. (By the way, I would venture to say that both rifles will make you duck if they're hosing bullets more or less your way)

working in combo with other weapons as a fire team -- Bolt or semis for ranged work and MG/GL stuff for dishing out hurt


Side Note: Ma Deuce rules. Browning was a genius.

[Papewaio]

How many rooms measure 500m across?
How many streets are 500m wide?
How many streets are clear of cover for a distance of 500m (which includes junctions, alleys, doorways, windows)?

So pray tell what is the use of having range and accuracy to 500m within an urban environment.

I can understand having an accurate weapon of such a nature getting to a city. However once within, wouldn't it be better to use shotguns, CAWs and other weapons of a short range nature.

[DemonArchangel]

Pape, you might want to take a look at the following page: http://www.savvysurvivor.com/survival_environment.htm

This photo taken during a "block battle" in Lebanon shows how this engagement was at a fairly long distance for what many would consider "urban". It is a common misconception that all urban engagements are at close distances that are sufficiently covered with pistols and submachineguns. Typically around 150 yards until one group or another attempted to assault and take over a building. This would then transition to brutal close combat. Interestingly, the individual who supplied this picture remarked about the relative inefficiency of handguns in this environment against well equipped shock troops. The main reason for this became the more common use of body armor by troops on all sides of the Lebanon conflict. Normal personal protection and security situations in lower threat level scenarios are probably sufficiently covered with shorter range weapons like pistols, shotguns and submachineguns because it is extremely difficult to determine hostile intent until an adversary is fairly close. While "flack jackets" would not protect much against full power rifles, they would protect fairly well against handguns and submachineguns. Even multiple hits from an assault rifle would not guarantee that a wounded and dying combatant would be unable to return fire before he succumbed to his wounds.

[Oleander Ardens]

As far as I know it is far more difficult to cover a lot of the torso with the armor plates needed to stop a 7.62x54 at point blank range than against the 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 which is also doable with thinner and lighter overlapping plates as done in the Dragonskin armor by Pinnacle. The .308 forces the enemy to wear heavier armor with fewer bodysurface covered.

On the other hand a assault rifle chambered for a powerful cartridge like the .308 is heavier, but fully controllable in auto. fire when well constructed and fitted with a sound suppressor. Certainly ideal as a supplement to the standard assaultrifles of a squad, well suited for LR engagements and more armored targets when used by a good marksman.

Still it is just one of the many ways one can kill and die in a "modern" conflict, which makes me think of all the vicitims and does cause me to make a posting break in this thread...

Cheers
OA

[Vladimir]

Something I was thinking about a while ago: I really have to hand it to the Fins for using their version of the AK. It really seems to fit their terrain, weather, and military much better than an M-16 type weapon. I don’t think they’ll have to change rifles for a long time.

[Watchman]

Well, the Soviet original already fit most of the required specs and reinventing the wheel is really a bit pointless with a little-country budget. The potential ability to use ammo looted from the only realistically likely invader was obviously a bonus...

[Kraxis]

Ahhh... The soon-to-be-ageold debate of AK-47 vs M-16.

It all coems down to philosophy... of engagements, troops and wars.

The US, and generally western philosophy is one of one-shot-one-kill, trained and wars to won by quick overpowering (so no need to replace weapons that fast). You can see that in the tanks and aircrafts as well.
I'll bet you that is either Russia or China held out for a couple months of intensive war against the west (at which point we must assume both sides has used up their initial stockpiles of tanks and planes) we would be in trouble as we couldn't produce our weaponry as fast at that point.

So the western rifleman (assault-rifleman if you like), is a trained individual who knows his weapon (at least that is what is assumed of him). He is expected to hit often and not spray. Hence the reason that most of the western assault rifles have the single-shot setting right after 'safe' (if they have it), and only then burst or auto. Meanwhile the eastern (since it is really that when you count in China and all the rogue states) rifles often have auto/burst before single-shot (again if they have it).

Eventhough the eastern weapons can hit at the shorter ranges, they are still not certain (unless we consider the more recent versions). Their barrelwobble is considerable, especially so for the venerable AK-47, and the recoil is more pronounced, so 'spray and pray' is needed. And that is another difference. The western soldier is 'priceless', so we want him to be able to hit where he aims to make sure he survives. Meaning, that he most certainly shouldn't die because his weapon misses, but rather because he does. I believe the M-16, is so accurate barrelwise that it should hit more than 1km away if there was no winds ect. Meanwhile the AK has barely any certainty above 100 meters.

As long as wars are as short as they have been, or small enough for the professional armies to deal with over time, then the western philosophy does itself justice.
But should we need to replace our troops rapidly, it might fail... Not a pretty picture.

Technically speaking the early M-16 is a better weapon than the AK-47, but is it more effective (much like the old Panther vs T-34 debate)? Well, that is up to the individual to find out. An since I haven't tried either, I will not go so far as to say which one is better.