Branding Iraq

“On behalf of all my brethren who died in the anti-American
war to liberate our country, we thank you for inventing this weapon,”
--Senior Col. To Xuan Hue, Defense Attaché from Vietnam,
to Mr. Kalashnikov at one celebration

"People ask, 'How can you sleep? Your weapon has killed so many
people. And I say, 'I sleep sound. It's the politicians
who are to blame that they can't agree peacefully
and resolve their problems without using arms.'"
--Mikhail Kalashnikov

Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal,
nothing was more profitable than Avtomat
Kalashnikova model of 1947.
More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov.
It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love.
An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel
and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat.
It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand.
It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do.
The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag.
Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become
the Russian people's greatest export.
After that comes vodka, caviar.
One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars.
--Lord of War (2005)

________

This post will examine the purpose and intent behind current sales of M-16's and M-4 carbines to the Iraqis to replace their AK-47's, a move the L.A. Times calls the "Americanization" and Gen. Petraeus calls the "de-Baathification" of Iraq (NPR interview, 12/04/07), which sounds a lot like "Vietnamization."

As for the potential success of this latest gambit, it is instructive to remember that the South Vietnamese army and police forces both had M-16 rifles, and the last time Ranger checked, Vietnam is still a Communist nation.

But first some minutiae about the weapons themselves.

A 10/08/07 report by the Wall Street Journal, "Plan to Sell Iraqis M-16s Triggers New Controversy," (via thehighroad.org) states the M-16 has been "the main rifle for U.S. soldiers for more than 50 years." This is untrue, as the M-14 became the standard issue rifle ca. 1956, firing a 7.62, 153 gr. Nato versus the AK's 7.62 x 39 mm, 122 gr. round.

Combat divisions were issued the M-16s, which today fire a 63 gr. round designed to penetrate body armor. All three rifles have an effective range of 460 meters, so the effectiveness of the shot is determined more by the skill of the shooter than the actual weapon rendered. The 7.62 Nato and 7.62 x 39 AK are more effective in chopping up bunkers, walls and other hasty fighting positions than targeting individuals.

The maximum effective range of the weapons is irrelevant since most of the fighting in Iraq is done in urban environments. Ranger thinks the foot-pounds delivered to the target a more important figure. This favors the AK round.

In close quarters combat a soldier would be well-advised to fire quick-kill or instinctively, and totally disregard the sights. Accuracy and precision sights in such an environment are irrelevant when life or death is measured in milliseconds.

The WSJ continues:

"An M-16 round spins much faster and tumbles when it makes contact with the enemy so that 'it causes mass casualty in the body' [according to defense contractor instructor Jeffrey Goodman, of Military professionals Resources Inc.]."

Today's M-16 rounds do not tumble and cause gross tissue damage. In the 1991 fight at Mogadishu, the Rangers realized their heavier M-16 armor-piercing rounds passed right through their Somali adversaries, leaving them standing. In that fight, the 7.62 Nato round was found to be more effective, as it would knock down with a one-round hit. Most U.S. sniper rifles are 7.62 Nato.

The M-16 does not spin much faster. The M-16 twist is 1:9; the AK will be between 1:10 - 1:14,which is not appreciably slower than the M-16.

"The Iraqis received their first shipment, of 20,000 guns, earlier this year. Another 21,000 are due to arrive this fall. So far, the U.S. has distributed about 2,400 of the firearms, issuing them only after Iraqis have completed a short training course on the weapon's use and maintenance."

If the Iraqis are buying and paying for the weapons, then why is the U.S. military issuing them?

"The M-16 is a far more complex weapon than the AK-47 -- with its many springs and pins -- and requires regular upkeep and cleaning or it will cease firing. A stockpile of spare parts must be kept on hand, adding to the strain on the Iraqi army's troubled supply system."

The issue of maintenance is a red herring. All armies have company level armorers who maintain the weapons at the 2nd echelon of maintenance. The rifleman is only responsible for cleaning, use and reporting problems to the armorers. The M-16 and the AK require the same armorer support. All weapons need maintenance.

The issue of regular cleaning is a matter of training. The first rule of combat rifles is, if it doesn't go boom, it's no good. All well-trained soldiers will clean their weapons often and as needed, as all weapons work better when cleaned. Since the AK often uses corrosive ammo, the gas system/operating rod must be cleaned often else it rusts to the gas tube, rendering the gun non-functional.

The M-16 gas system needs constant attention, though the problem has been lessened due to newer propellant powders. The M-16 cannot be used as club, but the AK can, a fine but serviceable point in close quarters combat.

As far as complexity, the bolt of the M-16 has 15 pieces, of which three are affixed gas rings, effectively rendering 12 parts. Of these, three are permanently affixed to the bolt, therefore, only nine parts are actually removed for cleaning. (The gas system is seldom broken down as solvent and pipe cleaners will do the job.)

The AK-47 does not have a bolt parts list in the Small Arms of the World catalog, but the rifle to be stripped has an operating rod, recoil spring and guide (= one unit), dust cover, bolt with firing pin, firing pin retaining cover and extractor and bolt carrier.

To Ranger's thinking and experience, neither rifle is harder nor easier to maintain. The AK is hardier but more prone to gathering dirt and debris. The M-16 is a more sealed unit, if the dust cover is properly utilized.

"Some U.S. trainers say the switch to the M-16 will help improve the professionalism of the Iraqi force and its performance on the battlefield."

This is a faulty construct, since the battlefield is actually the streets of Iraq, and the enemy, the Iraqi people. Professional armies fight other armies, not their own citizens. Do we really want to leave behind a professional Iraqi army that may someday oppose U.S. interests?

My take on the transition to the M-16: We are fixing something that is not broken, throwing money at a problem that does not exist. With over 100 million AK's in production worldwide since 1947, the AK is obviously a serviceable and robust rifle for infantry ground combat.

Combat is not often based upon individual marksmanship but final protective fires, suppressive fire and volume of fire, none of which require precision. If we are talking professionalism and combat abilities, the biggest killer on the battlefield is artillery.

Is anyone about to suggest we give Iraqis our first line artillery pieces, as well? If they will not receive these these weapons, too, then the talk of professionalism is an absurdity. Giving the Iraq army black rifles is as ludicrous as calling them an army.

Whatever rifle the Iraqis are using simply puts a blind and indiscriminate death-dealing tool in their hands. Witness the Taliban -- do they need improved professionalism? They do very well with AK's, RPG's and 1950's-era light and heavy Soviet-made machine guns.

Where do all the AK-47's go when discarded by the now-professional Iraqi army? Further, we surged because the Iraqis did not. They are not bearing the brunt of the combat. As this falls to U.S. soldiers, why not issue them an extra weapon?

As the closest enemy that the Iraqis themselves may possibly ever have to face would be Iran, and Iran uses AK's, why not keep them on the same playing field? This would enable them to use captured enemy ammo.

The argument for up-gunning the Iraqi army is questionable, but it's a windfall for Colt. Ranger wonders who owns Colt Industries these days.

Cui bono?