| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Afghan troops told to lay down trusty AK47s |
| 2008-04-16 |
| For a country with a fighting history such as Afghanistan, where invading forces have so often been humbled, there could be no greater indignity than to be told to hand over your guns and fight with the weapon of the infidel. Yet the new recruits to the Afghan National Army (ANA) are being asked to swap their beloved Kalashnikov AK47, probably the most famous weapon in the world, for the American M16. To judge from the bewildered and disapproving faces of the Afghan soldiers yesterday at Camp Tombstone, the training facility in the middle of Helmand province where the Americans and British train the ANA, the decision to scrap the AK47s for the M16 was not going down too well. The reason for this dramatic change in the fighting culture of the average Afghan soldier is not to boost the coffers of the American manufacturer of the M16 —- although it undoubtedly will. Rather, it is designed to improve the efficiency of the ANA and teach its soldiers how to preserve ammunition to ensure that, when a battle is fought, the enemy is defeated before the bullets run out. Traditionally, the Afghan will fire his Kalashnikov from the hip as he advances, spraying the enemy in all directions on automatic mode until every bullet has been expended. But that is not the way of the British or American soldier who uses his ammunition stocks with greater husbandry and fires to kill, rather than to deluge the enemy with a wall of bullets. The M16 is fired automatically but in triple bursts, not a constant stream, and never from the hip but with aimed shots from the shoulder. It is against the very nature of warfare as practised by an Afghan soldier, but at Camp Tombstone the first attempts are being made to consign the AK47 to history. The reaction of the soldiers of the ANA's No 3 Kandak (battalion) of the Afghan 4th Brigade, normally based in the southern province of Uruzgan and now spearheading the switch to the M16, said it all. “This is made of plastic, it will break,” one cried. They held up the M16 in ridicule. Same comment when we gave up our M-14s, Matel toy! But the powers that be, including these soldiers' own commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Abdul Hai Neshat, believe that the future is M16, and the AK47, however well loved, is the past. Yesterday at Camp Tombstone was the first time that No 3 Kandak had laid its hands on the US weapon. A key part of the British Army's job at the base is to instruct their Afghan counterparts how to fire the M16, but officers admit that convincing them to adopt the gun could be tough. “The Kalashnikov is cleaned just by covering it in diesel. It comes out looking spotless,” Major Robert Armstrong, the Royal Irish Regiment officer responsible for training the Afghan soldiers, said. “But we tell them that the M16 is lighter and more accurate than the AK47 and I think they'll come round. There's no question, though, that the AK47 is a good rifle. You can bury it in the sand for 100 years, dig it out and it'll fire first time.” Sergeant Rab McEwan, of the 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland, had the task of introducing the Afghan soldiers to the M16. “I'm happy with the way it has gone so far but for the Afghans, the Kalashnikov is a cultural thing —- they'll take time to get used to the M16,” he said. Colonel Neshat had one reservation. “I'm concerned whether there will be enough ammunition with the M16. My soldiers are used to firing hundreds of bullets.” |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #20 RD, remember that Scottish unit down in Basra that ran out of bullets, then charged the enemy with fixed bayonets? And won the engagement? It still happens occasionally. I do now that you mention it TW.. I need some memory tea plz! ~:) |
| Posted by: RD 2008-04-16 23:54 |
| #19 Heck, I think we should give 'em M-14's. M-14s are coveted now - refurbed and deployed for sharpshooter use. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-04-16 22:43 |
| #18 I know.. I know.. and how many, "FIX BAYONETS" orders will a war fighter hear today. :) RD, remember that Scottish unit down in Basra that ran out of bullets, then charged the enemy with fixed bayonets? And won the engagement? It still happens occasionally. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-04-16 20:22 |
| #17 Try Butt-Stroking some guy during hand to hand with a M16A4 [Marine]. The American Soldier or Marine full of adrenaline and using a M-14 or the M-1 will cave the thickest enemy skull in even if he's wearing his helmet. HA! I know.. I know.. and how many, "FIX BAYONETS" orders will a war fighter hear today. :) |
| Posted by: RD 2008-04-16 17:12 |
| #16 they will now have too learn how too aim at the target |
| Posted by: sinse 2008-04-16 16:52 |
| #15 Don't knock the venerable M-14, guys. Heavy, sure, but it fires a thoroughly non-pansy .308 slug very accurately, and will rock-and-roll as well. I don't know about you, but that's what I look for in a non-hunting rifle. |
| Posted by: Chief Running Gag 2008-04-16 16:34 |
| #14 The difference between an army that uses a AK-47 and one that uses an M-16, is the presence of real NCOs. If you don't have that it won't make any difference regardless. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-04-16 15:12 |
| #13 Traditionally, the Afghan will fire his Kalashnikov from the hip as he advances, spraying the enemy in all directions on automatic mode until every bullet has been expended. Same as most African troops, except the Afghans keep their eyes open. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-04-16 14:57 |
| #12 Perhaps having to manage their M16s will instill some discipline in them. Up to this point I can't imagine anything that the coalition has done that might help in this regard. They have only given cultural concession after cultural concession that have done nothing but reinforce their cultural habits in this regard. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-04-16 14:54 |
| #11 FN makes a few guns that ANA might be able to use. Can't see them sticking with the M16 for very long. That being said, when you pick up an M16 or AR15 you can feel the difference in quality before even firing it. The AK is simpler, but a lot more sloppy of a gun in fit and finish. |
| Posted by: Thrick the Great3539 2008-04-16 14:09 |
| #10 Possibilities: 1 - Different sounding report when fired. Easier to tell if you're hearing bad guys firing. 2 - Mebbe we're having a fire sale of existing stocks ahead of FINALLY giving our guys something better. 3 - Recoup a few cents on all the dollars we have spent there. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2008-04-16 14:00 |
| #9 One additional advantage of the M16 family is that it rapidly becomes useless unless maintained by a disciplined army. Another advantage is cultural and psychological, in that precision and marksmanship are rewarded over spray n' pray. That being said, tactically from a grunt's perspective in the field, there are better choices than the M16. |
| Posted by: Hector 2008-04-16 13:46 |
| #8 My favorite Sharps 50 story: Billy Dixon scouted the Texas Panhandle for the Army, hunted buffalo for the train companies, and defended the Adobe Walls trading post against a Comanche attack with his legendary (Sharps.50) buffalo hunting rifle. In June, 1874, Dixon and a group of 28 men and one woman occupied the five building outpost of Adobe Walls on the Canadian river north of Amarillo. The group was attacked that year by a band of more than 250 Comanches led by chief Quanah Parker, and that is when Dixon went into the history books for firing "The Shot of the Century." On the third day of the stand-off, a group of Indians was noticed about a mile east of Adobe Walls. It is said that Dixon took aim with his Big 50 Sharps rifle and fired, knocking an Indian off his horse almost a mile away. The Indians left the settlement alone after that. |
| Posted by: GK 2008-04-16 13:42 |
| #7 I'm still not convinced the M-16 is "the weapon of the future", but it does have some good points. It's ideal for fighting against an enemy at close range, or in an urban environment. I've seen enough people spray a whole clip of ammo at once, but with only about 18 rounds, it's not like emptying a 70-round banana clip from an AK-47. The biggest problem with most of the armies in that part of the world is that they "spray and pray", instead of aiming. When they come up against a well-disciplined army that shoots to kill, they die like flies. That's the reason the Arab armies always lose against the Israelis, and why the Indians repeatedly mop the floor with the Pakis. Fire discipline isn't just to preserve ammo, but is also to increase enemy body count. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-04-16 13:31 |
| #6 Heck, I think we should give 'em M-14's. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-04-16 13:13 |
| #5 The Iraqi's also... Iraqi Army to Ditch AK-47s for M-16s http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,162878,00.html |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-04-16 12:27 |
| #4 Forget the AKs and M16s and give them single shot Sharps .50 cal. buffalo guns. Worked for the buffalo, should do the Taliban quite nicely. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-04-16 12:27 |
| #3 Is this an attempt to keep the black market from recycling ammunition stocks out of ANA stockpiles into the hands of the enemy? Afghanistan & the Afghan Army seem like a poor place to introduce a finicky contraption like the M-16. If you're worried about spray-and-pray, give them modified semi-automatic AKs. There must be enough of them floating about, and the back-conversion kits can't be that much more expensive than converting to the pricy M-16. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2008-04-16 12:15 |
| #2 Not to mention than besides the russian design of "their" guns, most of them probably are chinese knock-offs. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-04-16 12:00 |
| #1 there could be no greater indignity than to be told to hand over your guns and fight with the weapon of the infidel. Because, you know, the ruskies were dark-eyed afghans, and the USSR was a pure sharia-following islamic state, very friendly to afghanistan, yup, yup, yup. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2008-04-16 11:58 |