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
That is acceptable reasoning. It can be argued that the AK is a better gun than the M16 because it is more reliable, easier to use, etc... But you cannot argue that the North won because it used the AK. There are SO many other factors involved...
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?
This is the quote I have a problem with. Its a fallacy... It's like saying "during the American Civil War, the North wore blue and the South wore grey. And who won?" as proof that blue is a better color than grey.
I know I exaggerate with my example, but attributing the entire Vietnam war victory to the AK is naive. It was a contributing factor, sure, but not the reason for the win.
I would not go as far as saying either side won or lost. It is all about the aims of both sides were. The US wanted to halt the spread of communism in South East Asia and they failed, with the North taking over the South.
Well if you are going to say it like that, No one ever really wins a war. But the US did win it's military victory. It just lost it's political and moral war. But this is talking about the weapons used, so I would say that the US Won in this instance.
But this is talking about the weapons used, so I would say that the US Won in this instance.
I would agree with that. The M16s did prove to be exellent weapons in this conflict. Something like 1 tenth of the North Vietnamese population was a casulaty of that war showing how devastating the weapons were.
Well if you are going to say it like that, No one ever really wins a war
I wouldn't say that is true. There are many wars that are won both militaruily and on the aims of the winning side. Vietnam is comparable to the current Middle Eastern conflicts going on at the moment. Militarily we are inflicting heavier losses on the enemy, and yet our aim of bringing peace and Western values to the Middle East is not fulfilled.
Well first of all the North wouldn't be able to train so quikly and get their hands on so many other rifles. And i do think i've provided enough reasoning as to why the AK-47 was responsable for the other reasons why we lost the "moral" war in Vietnam. They could keep their tropps armed for quite a long time using this easy to get/handle weapon.
It takes a nation that is more than well supported or is a text book super power like the United States, Nazi Germany Soviet Union, The People's republic of China ect. ect. to actually keep up with producing an M-16 and maintaining it long enough to support a conflict which lasted from around 1959-1975.
I don't think that the VC guerrilla movement would have been as succesful with out the AK-47. Just for cost and upkeep purposes.
And if you're going to argue why the United States pulled out of Vietnam make a new thread about it, i'll be happy to copy and paste everything I just wrote.
Well, the Ak-47 may be easier to maintain, and it does not require weeks of training, but it is not NEARLY as effective as are weapons. For example the M-16 has a longer range and more piercing power.
By the way the British army is the best.
LMFAO
Dude, the Mexican Army would last decently long in a fight against Britain. The Chinese and the Russians and of course us, the U.S., would all kick Britain's ass. The swiss might even win. Keep dreaming XD
...bringing peace and Western values to the Middle East is not fulfilled.
The current goal in the Middle East is not this. All we are doing is removing the threat and setting up a system so they do not come into power.
The M16 and M4 are a point and shoot riffle. There is no real training needed to use them as they are not complicated. Even the Army only spends a weak training new soldiers. I'm not sure were you people are getting half your arguments from. The AK-47 is NOT the best weapon. It's not cheap to replace all of the existing weapons, It's higher caliber is NOT needed for personal use. It is heavy and long compared to the M4. It's not going to happen, the AK47 is NOT going to be used by the US Army. There really isn't a discussion here anymore.
i think that since the iraq army makes ak-47 the us should not make them because the iraq army knows its secrets and the us is doing fine at war in pakistan but is doing just ok in iraq. anyways as long as we have weapons it going fine
The M4/M16 is a fine weapon, as is the AK-47. However, can you imagine, for starters, the cost of replacing the entire U.S. arsenal of M4/M16s with AK-47s? The cost alone defeats this idea. And what is so wrong with the M4/M16. When properly maintained, it is a fine weapon for combat use, as is the AK-47. While the AK-47 is more reliable, the U.S. armed forces can easily equip soldiers with pleanty of cleaning kits and spare parts to render this a moot point. The M4/M16 is more accurate then the AK-47 and our troops know how to use them and maintain them, and going back to cost, imagine the cost to retrain the entire United States Armed Forces with a new weapon. The M4/M16 also comes with a long list of accessories, including the M203 grenade launcher. While the AK-47 or 74 can also mount a grenade launcher, you would still have to replace a great number of M203s. And say we did do all this, what would happen to the old M4/M16s and M203s that millions of tax dollars have been spent on? Some of the M4/M16s would probably be made into semi-automatic AR-15s and sold on the civilian market at quite a loss, while many more would find their way into foreign arsenals alongside the M203s, and many more would end up missing in the hands of rebels and terrorist organizations. These facts alone make it more financially and tactically sound to retain the M4/M16 instead of replacing it with the AK-47. Now, if we wanted to replace the M4/M16, why would we use the AK-47? There are many better options out there, including the new Israeli Tavor, the Steyr in use with Austria and Ireland, and the Swiss Sig 550, all of which fire the 5.56x45mm/.223 cartridge so we wouldn't have to waste money buying new ammunition. The Sig for example is highly reliable and accurate, as is the Tavor and most likely the Steyr.
Not to go off topic but i cannot in good conscience abandon the defence of my nation
Dude, the Mexican Army would last decently long in a fight against Britain. The Chinese and the Russians and of course us, the U.S., would all kick Britain's ***. The swiss might even win. Keep dreaming XD
First of all that persons opinion doesnt represent the feelings of an entire nation.
We in the British armed forces pride ourselves on being a proffessional, small well trained and well equipped military. We do not reckon ourselves worldbeaters as we have neither the resources nor the manpower to be one.
However that does not negate the fact that we undoubtedly have some of the finest soldiers in the world. From US military personnel serving over here i have nothing but glowing reports about us. It shows in exercises too. Our special air service regiments and special boat service regiments routinely win international exercises. The only other special forces that come close are the Aussie SAS who do occasionally win.
Also when you consider the number of conflicts we have engaged in the past 100 years eg Boer War WW1,WW2,Korea,Falklands,Northern Ireland,Sierra Leone, Brunei, Belize and of course Iraq and Afghanistan, we have gained many many experienced servicemen compared to many of the countries you listed.
I am not naiive. I dont belive that the UK could defeat China, Russia or the USA alone. But why would it? I wish all the US vs UK rivalry could cut out the BS. We are allies and will continue to be, so why dont we all just get along.
AK-47 are extremely reliable and rugged guns which are more resitent to jams and overheating. The M-16 fires a slightly smaller round, but is nearly equal in penetration. The Ak-47 is cheaper and more reliable then the M16, but I guess America wants to use their weapons instead of supporting the Russian.
Also keep in mind, the weapon is only as good as the soldier using it. Yeah of course the AK would be great in the hands of a US soldier, because US soldiers are some of the world's best trained (in terms of average military infantryman).
