The real weapon of mass destruction
In the grand narrative of World War II, the Battle of Bryansk is a minor conflict, barely deserving of a footnote. But Bryansk has another place in history. It was there that a then-unknown tank commander named Mikhail Kalashnikov decided that his Russian comrades would never again be defeated.
In the years following the Great Patriotic War, as Soviet propagandists dubbed it, he was to conceive and fabricate a weapon so simple, and yet so revolutionary, that it would change the way wars were fought and won. It was the AK-47 assault rifle.
The AK-47 has become the world’s most prolific and effective combat weapon, a device so cheap and simple that it can be bought in many countries for less than the cost of a live chicken. Depicted on the flag and currency of several countries, waved by guerrillas and rebels everywhere, the AK is responsible for about a quarter-million deaths every year. It is the firearm of choice for at least 50 legitimate standing armies and countless fighting forces from Africa and the Middle East to Central America and Los Angeles. It has become a cultural icon, its signature form – that banana-shaped magazine – defining in our consciousness the contours of a deadly weapon.
The AK is also the weapon of choice in the latest “small war” that a superpower believed would be brief and painless: Iraq.
Although coalition bombing in 1991 destroyed much of Iraq’s air force, Scud missiles and tanks, Saddam Hussein’s regime retained its small weapons, including AKs. By March 2003, when Operation Iraqi Freedom began, Iraqi arsenals included 7- to 8-million small arms. These weapons – which U.S. planners did not consider a major threat when the invasion began – would prove deadly for American troops once major hostilities ended. During the chaos that followed the swift victory, millions of small weapons (mainly AKs) were looted from Hussein’s armories. They landed in the hands of nervous law-abiding citizens, but also in the hands of Baathist loyalists and other opponents of the U.S. occupation.
In Iraq, the AK had taken on symbolic power. Hussein had been so enamored with the weapon that he had built a mosque sporting minarets in the unique shape of AK barrels. His son Uday commissioned gold-plated AKs. And when Hussein was captured, two AKs were found in his underground hideout.
The story of the RPG-7 runs parallel to the AK47. Vastly superior to anything produced in the US for decades, the RPG was used in such quantities and had enough accuracy that it was used in VietNam against individual soldiers — in addition to the expected rolling hardware.
You can see the frustrating tale of science advisors who were stonewalled by American vendors and ordnance “experts” in the Pentagon at http://www.junglesnafus.com/chapter8.htm .
Last time I checked, RPG rounds were selling in souks for $25-40 a pop. A bit less than, say a Hummer or an Abrams sardine can.
In much of the world the AK47 is reveared as a weapon of liberation…
Ack! The pic of that girl makes me want to hurl.
Then Mike get ready to spew….
http://www.alex-in-wonderland.com/GirlsWithGuns/Pictures/index.html
I don’t care about the rifle; I don’t think she is at all attractive.
There’s a C-SPAN Book-TV special that covers that story of the AK-47 and how it became the most influential weapon in history. http://www.booktv.org/afterwords/index.asp?segid=7781&schedID=466
re #1.
Your comment is more revealing than you know. In the last 50 years the US has tended to follow the (WWII)German policy of higher tech = better weapon. In many cases thats true (such as aerial combat and more recently heavy armor), but on the battle field its not necessarily true. The RPG and AK are just two examples. I still don’t think we have anything as cost effective as the RPG yet (correct me if someone knows different).
On a side note does anyone have any info on how well the M4 has done in Iraq? I’d like to know.
There’s an interesting story from Alan Clark’s “Operation Barbarossa” book on the invasion of Russia where after encountering the T-34, the German generals and troops were so impressed that they lobbied for its production in Germany, with a few bells and whistles (slightly different turret, radios in each tank, use of the PAK 42 75mm gun etc.). The German tank industry instead claimed they could come up with a better tank and in about 2 years they did – at least a little better tank – the Panther – which then required about an additional 10 months of bug fixing before it got somewhat reliable. If the Krauts had just manufactured T-34’s with the captured Russian industrial equipment they’d done much better – particularly since their operational doctrine was so superior.
Sounds the Alarm – It depends on what you consider “cost effective.” The Marines have recently been using the SMAW in Iraq with exceptional success whenever it is deployed. However, the low level of house to house fighting limits the use of the weapon but in some situations, such as the Battle of Fallujah, the weapon was effective at destroying enemy buildings. The weapon and ammunition is exceptionally expensive but if it saves Marines from breaching and clearing heavily occupied houses it seems to be cost effective. As far as the M-4 goes I haven’t heard any direct reports, but I’m assuming it is a more combat effective weapon given the situation. Substituting maneuverability for long-range accuracy seems to be beneficial as the M-4 is easier to wield when exfilling a vehicle, and clearing houses.
Re #9.
What I meant by cost effective as to the RPG is how good is it vs. cost of the round in its intended roll – bunker busting, anti-vehicle etc. – Stuff I’d of used the LAWS for back when I could actually run a mile; which sadly has been a long time.
Thanks for the info.
good article there
I own a Romanian AK-47 and have to say, it is THE most reliable weapon I’ve ever owned. It has had over 3,000 rounds through it and has never been cleaned. I have also shot an M-4 and have to say that it jammed up on me hard. The M-4 is an oil sucking fool whereas the AK-7 uses very little oil. The AK shoots a a 124 grain 30 cal bullet versus the M-4 which shoots a 55-62 grain 22 cal bullet. Either gun is equally accurate in the hands of a trained shooter. If I were in an urban battle scenario I’d rather have the AK.
re 12.
Have to challenge you there my AK is much less accurate than the AR I have.
It does like the lube – you’re right about that.
#12 & #13 – Newman you got the right idea about the raw power (force) of the AK-47 round when shooting in urban environments. During the C-Span segment I posted in #7, the author makes the argument that in certain battles in Iraq the AK had a few advantages, mainly the 7.62 caliber round being able to pierce walls & doors and continue traveling. The M-16/4 has trouble piercing walls & doors however when impacting a human target the high velocity round does considerably more damage in terms of fragmentation. I’ve shot both an AK-47 and a AR-15 and I enjoyed the latter in terms of shooting at a small target, with the help of a dot scope, and almost always hitting the target. The AK-47 was decent, but I find it truly astonishing when the gun was augmented to receive 12 gauge shotgun rounds. I liked the AK better than the Bennelli tactical shotgun I shot later.
Now 85, tiny, feeble, nearly deaf, his right hand losing control because of tremors, Kalashnikov is often haunted by the killing machine he has bestowed upon the world. “I wish I had invented a lawnmower,” he told the Guardian in 2002.
’nuff said.
#16,
Kalashnikov doesn’t make a dime off of his invention. He did it for the State, AKA, mother Soviet Union.
At least a sword could be beat into a plowshare. But a Kalashnikov would take a lot of work to become a lawn mower.
the AK” is jus a plain badd mother fucker