As some of you know, the AK-47 is among the easiest of fire arms to produce, the most invunerable to jammming, and extremely easy to maintain. It would cost far less for the U.S to use the AK-47 than it would for them to use the M-16 or the M4 carbine, both of which need special cleaning kits to ensure long-term use. And they both require weeks of training for soldiers to use them correctly
After all, Vietnam is the best example of how effective the ak-47 is. The south used the M16, the north used the AK-47. And who won?
You didn't mention Viet Cong; my bad. But what is this quote from you supposed to imply?
You have not addressed my point of symbolism. Furthermore, an AK-74 is not "just an AK-47"; while their basic designs are the same, they have many differences. Furthermore, while the AK-47 is more reliable under harsh conditions, the M16 family is more ergonomic, more accurate, comfortable to fire, reliable when well-maintained, and most importantly, more customizable.
There were sooo many other more important factors to the success of the North Vietnamese other than the AK which i will not even begin to list as they are so numerous.
I definitely agree on Parsat's point of symbolism.
You have not addressed my point of symbolism. Furthermore, an AK-74 is not "just an AK-47"; while their basic designs are the same, they have many differences
In that sence then you only must compare the original AK-47 with the original M16, because you're basically saying that an M16A2 isn't an upgraded M16 and an AK-74 isn't an upgraded AK-47, just two different rifles with common traits
And this thread isn't about "AK-47 Vs. M16" it's about an AK-47 replacing some of America's front line assault rifles with the Ak series of rifles.
Then again a debate over which one may be needed...
There were sooo many other more important factors to the success of the North Vietnamese other than the AK which i will not even begin to list as they are so numerous.
Then you're saying if we used the AK-47 and they ( the North ) used the M16 there would still be a divided north Vietnam?
The NVA and the VC can credit their victory not just on political troubles they caused in the U.S and not just because they were very successful geurrillas, but because they were using a weapon so effective, so reliable and yet so easy to get that the RAVN captured so many AK-47s from North Vietnamese stock piles and corpes that they were able to sell them to bordering neigbors.
And I doubt that the NVA and the VC would have been able to arm them sleves and get themselves trained so easily if they had been using soomthing like the Stg44. It is the ease to get an Ak and AK's ability to fire until the person shooting is dead that set all of those other reasons why the U.S pulled out of Vietnam.
And I was talking about the North's victory over the RAVN not their "victory" over the U.S. And they almost wiped out the RAVN using AK-47s.
In that sence then you only must compare the original AK-47 with the original M16, because you're basically saying that an M16A2 isn't an upgraded M16 and an AK-74 isn't an upgraded AK-47, just two different rifles with common traits
And this thread isn't about "AK-47 Vs. M16" it's about an AK-47 replacing some of America's front line assault rifles with the Ak series of rifles.
Whatever you say. The points I have brought up speak for the family of weapons. Besides, it is inevitable that the argument about which is better be brought up; why would the US drop a perfectly fine rifle family to replace it with another? One must be markedly superior in order to do so.
The NVA and the VC can credit their victory not just on political troubles they caused in the U.S and not just because they were very successful geurrillas, but because they were using a weapon so effective, so reliable and yet so easy to get that the RAVN captured so many AK-47s from North Vietnamese stock piles and corpes that they were able to sell them to bordering neigbors.
Military history is determined in terms of men, not weapons. You can have a murderous, reliable weapon like the AK-47, but if men are untrained, if tactics are incorrect, or if the front is stretched too thin, the weapons superiority is moot. North Vietnam and the Viet Cong did not even kill as much as we did with their AK-47s.
The problem is that you grossly misunderestimate what is needed to win a battle, or a war for that matter. In this case, their use of propaganda, their defensive position (all they needed to do was fight defensively so the US and allies would quit), and manipulation of how we botched things up helped them win the war. As Mao, a genius of guerrilla warfare and the psychology of war, stated:
Unquestionably, victory or defeat in war is determined mainly by the military, political, economic and natural conditions on both sides. But not by these alone. It is also determined by each side's subjective ability in directing the war.
The NVA and the VC were in effect fighting a war of attrition. They were better trained than the ARVN; they could have easily overtaken them if the Allies weren't there. So all they had to do was wait, inflict enough casualties for them to bail out, then take South Vietnam.
Symbolism is like religion, and look at what religion has done to millions of lives in the past.
The US army doesn't care what you think in this regard; in fact, this is such a dangerous belief that I'm unclear why you insist on arguing this. An army must have a sort of cohesion with the people to operate proficiently. Morale is very important in this regard. If the army is representative of the state, it must retain patriotism. Why do we pledge allegiance to the flag? Why are our dollar bills adorned with the portraits of Presidents? Why does every country have some sort of symbol? That is the power of symbolism.
Also, if we are to follow your logic, we could also say, "Symbolism is like the lack of religion (aka Communism). Look at what it did to millions of people." Using religion in this regard can backfire.
Yes as a matter of fact it was. It used the same technology in terms of what they could use in world war 2 and quite frankly if you can't produce a lot of somthng in any one place at any one time, how can you win a war?
BUT THAT IS ANOTHER DEBATE.
The AK-47 was in the perfect spot against the M16.
LOL again. You are comparing US industry to German industry in the waning months of the war. The Tiger was still a better tank than the Sherman, no contest.
And yes its another debate, but the point is it invalidates the above Vietnam War example of why the AK is better than the M16.
If you can produce more and kill with out having your gun jam, you'll probably be on the winning side, and you can't shut out what the past has been teaching us. I think that more U.S soldiers would still be alive if either they were using the AK-47 ( because many M16 were jamming ) or if the somthing like the AK-47 was never invented. The NVA and the VC had to get somthing they could afford and somthing they could easily make themselves. it turned out the Ak-47 was the solutin to almost all of their problems; they now had enough weapons which meant they could fight, if they could fight they could eventualy make the U.S pull out of Vietnam, and if their guns were cheap enough they could also purchase more Soviet aircraft like the MiG-21 and the MiG-17 which helped down many U.S bomber planes.
If the North was not using the AK47 they would have lost and their would be a north and south vietnam still. That is why, spliced with U.S upgrades and perks, they AK-47 and its cousins like the AK-74M, AK-101 ect ect would be the perfect tool for the U.S army because they would know that their weapon would never jam.
Yes symbolism would be the only problem, but, look at pop culture. In the latest Rambo film many of Rambo's comrades were using the AK-47 to shoot the bad guys. And ( f you've seen the film) the rebels who fought for good were mostly using the AK-47. All of the other rifles the main characters were using didn't seem to be helping them too terribly much. And there are still many other films that depict he AK-47 as being in the hands of the good guy. Symbolism may effect the veterans but the newest recruits may not have a problem with it.
If the North was not using the AK47 they would have lost and their would be a north and south vietnam still. That is why, spliced with U.S upgrades and perks, they AK-47 and its cousins like the AK-74M, AK-101 ect ect would be the perfect tool for the U.S army because they would know that their weapon would never jam.
Look, let's make this clear. AK-47s can still jam. Every firearm, no matter how reliable, jams. Your notions that
A) if we used AK-47s, we would have won B) if they hadn't used AK-47s, they would have lost
all ignore the basic tenets of warfare. By your logic, what would the point of tactics and terrain, or logistics and fortification matter? All you need is a good gun. And that is incredibly flawed. Your presuppositions assume too much. Not only that, but you can't just strap on a M203 onto an AK. Guns don't work that way. You can't strap on M16 accessories onto an AK.
if their guns were cheap enough they could also purchase more Soviet aircraft like the MiG-21 and the MiG-17 which helped down many U.S bomber planes.
As history has shown, war produces deficit spending. Vietnam wasn't exactly known for a stellar economy.
it turned out the Ak-47 was the solutin to almost all of their problems; they now had enough weapons which meant they could fight, if they could fight they could eventualy make the U.S pull out of Vietnam
It matters little with what weapons they got. If Russia had sent them PPSH-41s instead of AK-47s, North Vietnam could still kill with their use of guerrilla tactics and recruitment. All they needed was a stalemate.
Yes symbolism would be the only problem, but, look at pop culture. In the latest Rambo film many of Rambo's comrades were using the AK-47 to shoot the bad guys. And ( f you've seen the film) the rebels who fought for good were mostly using the AK-47. All of the other rifles the main characters were using didn't seem to be helping them too terribly much. And there are still many other films that depict he AK-47 as being in the hands of the good guy. Symbolism may effect the veterans but the newest recruits may not have a problem with it.
These are a few commandos in Vietnam. You are talking about the whole army, the representative of the entire state, the epitome of the most able-bodied of the nation. Why else would each super power use a weapon of local manufacture: Russia with the AK-74, America with the M16, China with the QBZ-95?
