PDA

View Full Version : US Arms



Clippy
6th August 2007, 20:57
The Americans incompetance (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2210735.ece) in losing 19, 000 weapons not withstanding, I noticed the weapons lost were AK47's.

Now, I know the AK is the world's most popular weapon, but surely the yanks should be showing faith in the Iraqi security forces capability by providing them with US weapons (M16's).

Also, I would imagine that this is a significant amount of change that has been spent with a third-party supplier as opposed to a good old redneck weapons manufacturer.

What gives - do they know the Iraqi security forces are useless and don't want their boys shot at with their own weapons or do you think they charged them M16 prices and gave them AK's.

P.S. I believe this is standard US practise when arming ne'r do wells ie. give them commie hardware.

sasguru
6th August 2007, 21:17
I think you'll find that they had to use the old Iraq army weapons? And why not - waste not want not, what?

Paddy
6th August 2007, 21:33
Now, I know the AK is the world's most popular weapon, but surely the yanks should be showing faith in the Iraqi security forces capability by providing them with US weapons (M16's).

.

M16 v ak47 (http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0)

realityhack
6th August 2007, 22:03
:spel
It's very unfortunate that you misspelled the word incompetence and underlined it like that, in a different colour and everything. ;)

Clippy
6th August 2007, 22:19
:spel
It's very unfortunate that you misspelled the word incompetence and underlined it like that, in a different colour and everything. ;)

You know what, I spotted that after I posted but couldn't be bothered to change it - incompetent and lazy. :tongue

Moscow Mule
7th August 2007, 07:13
AK47 is ideal for lazy feckless troops.

Swiss Tony
7th August 2007, 07:38
I recon it has more to do with the ammunition that’s lying around. Troops need to be well equipped or at least have something to shoot rather than throw rocks. With the ruckus in the area and the AK being a dominant weapon in the region it would make more sense to use it. Plus I’m sure that it is cheaper on a cost front, and economics tends to run more wars than the commanding officers!

The Lone Gunman
7th August 2007, 08:28
AK-47, when you absolutely, positively have to kill every mother****** in the room, accept no substitute.

The AK is a much more robust weapon. Weapon of choice for most non state sponsored armies the world over. It takes all kinds of knocks and will stand regular sustained use with less servicing requirements.
(Not sure here but I seem to recall) It is tolerant of a wider range of ammo if an exact fit cant be found/manufactured.

What I dont understand is: The AK sings a very distinctive song, a clear warning to US and our troops that they are being fired upon. By issuing these weapons to "friendlys" our guys will no longer have that warning.