AK47 assault rifle designer Kalashnikov dies at 94

[folium]

The army loved this about the M-16 and the army loved that about the M-16 but the army ignored that after some dirt and crap in the weapon it regularly ceased to function. A grunt is in the middle of a firefight and his primary weapon fails. What's a grunt without a functioning weapon? He's a free target to the enemy and he's a loss of firepower to his own unit under enemy fire. When this happens to one or more grunt in your unit, everyone's life is at a greater risk as is the mission itself, the mission being the primary concern of any commander and his troops.

Bad also is the grunt leaving base camp on a mission knowing he has a weapon, the M-16, that coming from the manufacturer fails on the field of battle under normal combat circumstances, i.e,, it collects some dirt or mud, or both, a few leaves etc.

Wasn't this more of a factor of improper ammunition with the initial use of M16s in VN? I "heard" they tested the M16 with a clean burning powder in the states and then ordered cheaper ammunition which fouled the chamber causing the jams. Plus, since it supposedly didn't need cleaning most of them didn't even have cleaning kits. A total screw up for sure.

I have an early M16 in the A1 form issued to the grunts in VN. When using quality military ammo I have zero functional issues. Of course my rifle, which is worth about $15,000 on the open market, doesn't get dropped in the mud nor exposed to crummy weather. I don't shoot in crummy weather. Plus it is cleaned after each trip to the range.

Having fired some commbloc weapons like AKMs and AK47s at the range I prefer the M16 platform. The commbloc stuff is inelegant and inaccurate in my experience, No idea how I would feel if i had to carry one and depend on it. Perhaps if they had made the gas-piston version M16 which is available today and doesn't spit exhaust gas back into the chamber they would have worked better,

And there's the crunch. Wars are unfortunately not fought on ranges.

Great technology cannot compensate for a lack of motivation. A motivated enemy with basic technology will in the long run trump a superbly equipped, but poorly motivated opponent. The Vietcong believed they were fighting to liberate their country. US soldiers were fighting to get home in one piece at the end of their tour of duty.

[thailiketoo]

The army loved this about the M-16 and the army loved that about the M-16 but the army ignored that after some dirt and crap in the weapon it regularly ceased to function. A grunt is in the middle of a firefight and his primary weapon fails. What's a grunt without a functioning weapon? He's a free target to the enemy and he's a loss of firepower to his own unit under enemy fire. When this happens to one or more grunt in your unit, everyone's life is at a greater risk as is the mission itself, the mission being the primary concern of any commander and his troops.

Bad also is the grunt leaving base camp on a mission knowing he has a weapon, the M-16, that coming from the manufacturer fails on the field of battle under normal combat circumstances, i.e,, it collects some dirt or mud, or both, a few leaves etc.

Wasn't this more of a factor of improper ammunition with the initial use of M16s in VN? I "heard" they tested the M16 with a clean burning powder in the states and then ordered cheaper ammunition which fouled the chamber causing the jams. Plus, since it supposedly didn't need cleaning most of them didn't even have cleaning kits. A total screw up for sure.

I have an early M16 in the A1 form issued to the grunts in VN. When using quality military ammo I have zero functional issues. Of course my rifle, which is worth about $15,000 on the open market, doesn't get dropped in the mud nor exposed to crummy weather. I don't shoot in crummy weather. Plus it is cleaned after each trip to the range.

Having fired some commbloc weapons like AKMs and AK47s at the range I prefer the M16 platform. The commbloc stuff is inelegant and inaccurate in my experience, No idea how I would feel if i had to carry one and depend on it. Perhaps if they had made the gas-piston version M16 which is available today and doesn't spit exhaust gas back into the chamber they would have worked better,

I shot both in Vietnam. The video below is a good representation of both weapons.

Either one at normal combat ranges will kill accurately however the AK-47 busts through jungle branches better in my experience.

[thailiketoo]

The army loved this about the M-16 and the army loved that about the M-16 but the army ignored that after some dirt and crap in the weapon it regularly ceased to function. A grunt is in the middle of a firefight and his primary weapon fails. What's a grunt without a functioning weapon? He's a free target to the enemy and he's a loss of firepower to his own unit under enemy fire. When this happens to one or more grunt in your unit, everyone's life is at a greater risk as is the mission itself, the mission being the primary concern of any commander and his troops.

Bad also is the grunt leaving base camp on a mission knowing he has a weapon, the M-16, that coming from the manufacturer fails on the field of battle under normal combat circumstances, i.e,, it collects some dirt or mud, or both, a few leaves etc.

Wasn't this more of a factor of improper ammunition with the initial use of M16s in VN? I "heard" they tested the M16 with a clean burning powder in the states and then ordered cheaper ammunition which fouled the chamber causing the jams. Plus, since it supposedly didn't need cleaning most of them didn't even have cleaning kits. A total screw up for sure.

I have an early M16 in the A1 form issued to the grunts in VN. When using quality military ammo I have zero functional issues. Of course my rifle, which is worth about $15,000 on the open market, doesn't get dropped in the mud nor exposed to crummy weather. I don't shoot in crummy weather. Plus it is cleaned after each trip to the range.

Having fired some commbloc weapons like AKMs and AK47s at the range I prefer the M16 platform. The commbloc stuff is inelegant and inaccurate in my experience, No idea how I would feel if i had to carry one and depend on it. Perhaps if they had made the gas-piston version M16 which is available today and doesn't spit exhaust gas back into the chamber they would have worked better,

And there's the crunch. Wars are unfortunately not fought on ranges.

Great technology cannot compensate for a lack of motivation. A motivated enemy with basic technology will in the long run trump a superbly equipped, but poorly motivated opponent. The Vietcong believed they were fighting to liberate their country. US soldiers were fighting to get home in one piece at the end of their tour of duty.

Nonsense. The atomic bomb stopped WWII in the Pacific. Technology plain and simple. If the North Vietnamese had been equipped with a single shot rifle instead of the AK-47 they would not have prevailed.

If Custer had brought his Gatling guns he would have won the battle of Little Big Horn instead of it being his last stand.

Technology always wins wars. The English long bow won Battle of Agincourt.

[jimmybcool]

The army loved this about the M-16 and the army loved that about the M-16 but the army ignored that after some dirt and crap in the weapon it regularly ceased to function. A grunt is in the middle of a firefight and his primary weapon fails. What's a grunt without a functioning weapon? He's a free target to the enemy and he's a loss of firepower to his own unit under enemy fire. When this happens to one or more grunt in your unit, everyone's life is at a greater risk as is the mission itself, the mission being the primary concern of any commander and his troops.

Bad also is the grunt leaving base camp on a mission knowing he has a weapon, the M-16, that coming from the manufacturer fails on the field of battle under normal combat circumstances, i.e,, it collects some dirt or mud, or both, a few leaves etc.

Wasn't this more of a factor of improper ammunition with the initial use of M16s in VN? I "heard" they tested the M16 with a clean burning powder in the states and then ordered cheaper ammunition which fouled the chamber causing the jams. Plus, since it supposedly didn't need cleaning most of them didn't even have cleaning kits. A total screw up for sure.

I have an early M16 in the A1 form issued to the grunts in VN. When using quality military ammo I have zero functional issues. Of course my rifle, which is worth about $15,000 on the open market, doesn't get dropped in the mud nor exposed to crummy weather. I don't shoot in crummy weather. Plus it is cleaned after each trip to the range.

Having fired some commbloc weapons like AKMs and AK47s at the range I prefer the M16 platform. The commbloc stuff is inelegant and inaccurate in my experience, No idea how I would feel if i had to carry one and depend on it. Perhaps if they had made the gas-piston version M16 which is available today and doesn't spit exhaust gas back into the chamber they would have worked better,

And there's the crunch. Wars are unfortunately not fought on ranges.

Great technology cannot compensate for a lack of motivation. A motivated enemy with basic technology will in the long run trump a superbly equipped, but poorly motivated opponent. The Vietcong believed they were fighting to liberate their country. US soldiers were fighting to get home in one piece at the end of their tour of duty.

I have to admit, I was very close to the age of visiting VN during the war. The draft ended the year I turned 18 negating my participation. Thank goodness. As you say, our guys were only trying to stay alive.

But I blame that on the politicians. They didn't fight to WIN. If they had allowed the military to WIN the war they might have done so. But just fighting to maintain a status quo which the other side violates whenever they life is a losing proposition.

[jimmybcool]

The army loved this about the M-16 and the army loved that about the M-16 but the army ignored that after some dirt and crap in the weapon it regularly ceased to function. A grunt is in the middle of a firefight and his primary weapon fails. What's a grunt without a functioning weapon? He's a free target to the enemy and he's a loss of firepower to his own unit under enemy fire. When this happens to one or more grunt in your unit, everyone's life is at a greater risk as is the mission itself, the mission being the primary concern of any commander and his troops.

Bad also is the grunt leaving base camp on a mission knowing he has a weapon, the M-16, that coming from the manufacturer fails on the field of battle under normal combat circumstances, i.e,, it collects some dirt or mud, or both, a few leaves etc.

Wasn't this more of a factor of improper ammunition with the initial use of M16s in VN? I "heard" they tested the M16 with a clean burning powder in the states and then ordered cheaper ammunition which fouled the chamber causing the jams. Plus, since it supposedly didn't need cleaning most of them didn't even have cleaning kits. A total screw up for sure.

I have an early M16 in the A1 form issued to the grunts in VN. When using quality military ammo I have zero functional issues. Of course my rifle, which is worth about $15,000 on the open market, doesn't get dropped in the mud nor exposed to crummy weather. I don't shoot in crummy weather. Plus it is cleaned after each trip to the range.

Having fired some commbloc weapons like AKMs and AK47s at the range I prefer the M16 platform. The commbloc stuff is inelegant and inaccurate in my experience, No idea how I would feel if i had to carry one and depend on it. Perhaps if they had made the gas-piston version M16 which is available today and doesn't spit exhaust gas back into the chamber they would have worked better,

I shot both in Vietnam. The video below is a good representation of both weapons.

Either one at normal combat ranges will kill accurately however the AK-47 busts through jungle branches better in my experience.

I don't have jungle branches on the range

Tell the truth the most fun full auto I ever had was an MP5. Limited range with 9mm but absolutely smooth. Surprisingly an M60 I fired was also very controllable on full auto. M16 is easy to manage. The FN Fall was a waste of time and I haven't fired a full auto AK47.

I know a guy who has served in a few combat zones as a combat specialist who swears by the AK47 versus M16. I'll take his word for it. At my age I seriously doubt I'll be in any combat zones soon,

[folium]

The army loved this about the M-16 and the army loved that about the M-16 but the army ignored that after some dirt and crap in the weapon it regularly ceased to function. A grunt is in the middle of a firefight and his primary weapon fails. What's a grunt without a functioning weapon? He's a free target to the enemy and he's a loss of firepower to his own unit under enemy fire. When this happens to one or more grunt in your unit, everyone's life is at a greater risk as is the mission itself, the mission being the primary concern of any commander and his troops.

Bad also is the grunt leaving base camp on a mission knowing he has a weapon, the M-16, that coming from the manufacturer fails on the field of battle under normal combat circumstances, i.e,, it collects some dirt or mud, or both, a few leaves etc.

Wasn't this more of a factor of improper ammunition with the initial use of M16s in VN? I "heard" they tested the M16 with a clean burning powder in the states and then ordered cheaper ammunition which fouled the chamber causing the jams. Plus, since it supposedly didn't need cleaning most of them didn't even have cleaning kits. A total screw up for sure.

I have an early M16 in the A1 form issued to the grunts in VN. When using quality military ammo I have zero functional issues. Of course my rifle, which is worth about $15,000 on the open market, doesn't get dropped in the mud nor exposed to crummy weather. I don't shoot in crummy weather. Plus it is cleaned after each trip to the range.

Having fired some commbloc weapons like AKMs and AK47s at the range I prefer the M16 platform. The commbloc stuff is inelegant and inaccurate in my experience, No idea how I would feel if i had to carry one and depend on it. Perhaps if they had made the gas-piston version M16 which is available today and doesn't spit exhaust gas back into the chamber they would have worked better,

And there's the crunch. Wars are unfortunately not fought on ranges.

Great technology cannot compensate for a lack of motivation. A motivated enemy with basic technology will in the long run trump a superbly equipped, but poorly motivated opponent. The Vietcong believed they were fighting to liberate their country. US soldiers were fighting to get home in one piece at the end of their tour of duty.

Nonsense. The atomic bomb stopped WWII in the Pacific. Technology plain and simple. If the North Vietnamese had been equipped with a single shot rifle instead of the AK-47 they would not have prevailed.

If Custer had brought his Gatling guns he would have won the battle of Little Big Horn instead of it being his last stand.

Technology always wins wars. The English long bow won Battle of Agincourt.

Actually the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Army in combination with the atomic attacks led to the capitulation of Japan. See below:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Tsuyoshi-Hasegawa/2501

Up until the early 1970's many VietCong and NVA soldiers were carrying an assortment of weaponry that happened to include the AK series. This was a combination of French, Japanese, Russian and even WW2 German weaponry (courtesy of the Soviets). Many of these were indeed single-shot weapons such as the SKS in either Soviet or Chinese format. The AK did not win the Vietnam War for the VC/NVA... They would probably have won it equipped with Martini-Henry's.

Custer and the Gatlings is a classic "what if" playground. What we do know is that Custer broke almost every rule in the tactics book based on the assumption that the Native Americans would break on contact with an offensive action. Custer chose not to to take the Gatling troop with him so we will never know what its impact might or might not have been.

Agincourt 1415 was indeed an English victory enabled by the longbow and facilitated by the inept tactics of the French. Sadly (from an English POV) the 100 Years War was lost by 1453 as we were swept out of almost all of France, the longbow notwithstanding. The English lost the war despite possessing the better technology. Sounds familiar... Technology can win battles but cannot guarantee winning wars.

[thailiketoo]

I really don't know that we should re fight the American Indian wars, Civil war and WWII but I did bring up that technology wins wars.

It will not be in the too distant future that wars are fought by technology alone as in drones and robots. I think that the overwhelming evidence is that defense budgets spending far more for technology than personal speaks to the truth of what I am saying.

If you want to believe that the atomic bomb did not end WW II or the AK-47 didn't win Vietnam OK. You do realize those are contrary beliefs to what is being taught in most Western universities. How did the AK-47 get a reputation for working so well in jungle conditions in Vietnam? Because it worked well in jungle conditions in Vietnam.

Could the Americans have produced a better weapon? Yes. Would it have made any difference? Not unless they were willing to nuke the place. So in that respect I agree with you.

Edited January 4, 2014 by thailiketoo