PDA

View Full Version : OT: American Soldiers Using Captured Iraqi AK-47's



Kaleun1961
09-20-2007, 08:11 PM
Out of necessity, since [4 man] tank crews are only issued two assault rifles and four handguns. As well, since American tankers are now having to fight dismounted from their tanks at times due to restricted terrain, the lack of issued rifles has led to them pressing into service captured Iraqi AK-47's.


The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles. A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection. But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.


"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.


"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged." In Humvees, on tanks - but never openly on base - U.S. soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but now mass produced around the world.


Scroll down in this link to find story (http://www.wlhoward.com/id555.htm)

PhantomKira
09-21-2007, 12:41 AM
No surprise there. I remember one commander saying that he couldn't imagine a battlefield today or in the future where American soldiers wouldn't be facing the AK. Stands to reason that when you're short on supplies, you use whatever you can lift off the enemy. That's plain old common sense, despite the fact that many people in the US still have the old "superiority complex" when it comes to comparing US and Soviet/Russian gear.

Personally, I've always been of the oppinion that the Soviet gear was far better, due to more intensive testing. That and the AK-47 didn't have the problem that the M-16 had of "old school" generals etc who didn't like the smaller round thus made sure the weapon was a failure in testing.

Amazing that America still can't seem to provide for the troops, after it's been common knowledge for how long?

Celeon999
09-21-2007, 02:31 AM
They surely refer to the AKS-47 or the east german MPiKmS series which have a folding stock.

The standard AK is not very suitable for tank crews. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The MPiKMS is rather rarely seen anywhere as the GDR did not export much of them and the stock was destroyed after the NVA and the Bundeswehr got fusioned.


Thats a MpiKMS

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/LCpl_Cheema_on_the_AK-47.JPG/800px-LCpl_Cheema_on_the_AK-47.JPG

Maverick_U2007
09-21-2007, 07:10 AM
[Amazing that America still can't seem to provide for the troops, after it's been common knowledge for how long?[/QUOTE]

Don't think that lack of equipment is something for the Americans, the British army has the same problems!!!!

Kaleun1961
09-21-2007, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
No surprise there. I remember one commander saying that he couldn't imagine a battlefield today or in the future where American soldiers wouldn't be facing the AK. Stands to reason that when you're short on supplies, you use whatever you can lift off the enemy. That's plain old common sense, despite the fact that many people in the US still have the old "superiority complex" when it comes to comparing US and Soviet/Russian gear.

Personally, I've always been of the oppinion that the Soviet gear was far better, due to more intensive testing. That and the AK-47 didn't have the problem that the M-16 had of "old school" generals etc who didn't like the smaller round thus made sure the weapon was a failure in testing.

Amazing that America still can't seem to provide for the troops, after it's been common knowledge for how long?

There are also philosophical differences between Soviet and Western military designs of hardware. Traditionally, going back to before WW2, the average Soviet conscript was likely to be an undereducated peasant, with little familiarity with modern technology. Even during WW2, it was common that the first vehicle a Soviet soldier drove was a T-34 tank or an American Lend-Lease Studebaker truck. Many of the peasant soldiers came from farms where there was no electricity. Faced with such widespread backwardness amongst its recruits, the Red Army had to make its equipment simple, rugged and dependable. Western conscripts or professional soldiers came from societies that were highly technical. Hardware designs in the West called for more precisely machined parts and had higher maintenance requirements. That's why our weapons are more expensive. They also have to last a lot longer. Soviet gear was designed for a short battlefield life and was often primitive in its finishing. Why spend so much productive capacity on making finely polished weapons, which may only last a week in combat?

The AK-47 is typical of this philosophy. It is rather "primitive" in comparison to the M-16. It doesn't have the same accuracy, but it shines in other respects: easy to use, doesn't require much maintenance, has a heavier punch, but not the range and accuracy of the M-16. However, the types of soldiers for whom it was designed are not long range fighters, they are bushwhackers, guerillas, jungle fighters, etc. It has proven its worth in many insurgency/guerilla type actions the world over.

Realjambo
09-22-2007, 06:00 PM
A good post well written K61 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif As for the SA-80....

The_Silent_O
09-22-2007, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:

Amazing that America still can't seem to provide for the troops, after it's been common knowledge for how long?

That's a 'glass half empty' opinion of the situation.

Here's what's happened. Tank crews as designed and organized do not get long range individual weapons. Why should they? what is their primary weapon? It's the 120mm cannon that can hit a target much farther out than if they were fighting with rifles. When the tank is rolling, only two people can even shoot a rifle if they had too, the tank commander and the loader AND that's besides the fact that the Tank Commander and Loader each have a M2 HB and M240C machinegun that they normally fire in combat.

It's analogous to U-Boat crews, as I remember there were only a few rifles on board a German U-Boat; not enough for the whole crew. As a unit, their primary weapon is the torpedo and stealth.

Now, we are sending units 'as they were designed' over to Iraq, but now they are being assigned other missions than their normal ones, convoy security being an example. Believe me, we have entire equipment packages designed around these new missions and they are getting them.

In the end, its okay if a unit commander wants to use what is more available, more power to him, but at the same time we are capturing his needs for future deployments. That's what makes the US leader so different, they have a flexible mindset and utilize any asset to their advantage.

http://www.mpturner.net/images/donkeyborne.jpg

PhantomKira
09-22-2007, 11:06 PM
I understand where you're coming from Silent_O. As always, weapons and weapons systems, are geared toward what was encountered in the previous war. Therefore, it usually takes a relatively long war for designers to adapt to the current situation, whatever it may be.

I can see the flexibility in thinking on the commanders' part with the use of whatever is avaiable (ie use of donkeys for mobility on tough terrain); I was just wondering how long it might take for the current war to result in a shift in priorities will regards to actual unit structure. So when will these other crew members be given the weapons they need based on today's reality instead of yesterday's idea. How long is it going to be before people figure out that this isn't the 1980's and we are not facing the Soviet hordes across the German heartland and the Fulda Gap? And when will this realization result in fundamental changes in weaponry, tactics, and force structure reaching the battlefield?

That said, I guess I'm a bit of a pessamist when it comes to these sorts of things. I know it all takes time, but it's a bit hard to ignore things like the loss of M1A2s in the 2003(?) invasion/occupation when we didn't loose one M1A1 crew in the 1991 invasion. There is, of course the widely variant time factor that can't be ignored, nor the fact that the systems simply are not fighting the war they were designed to fight in the 2003 war (that being armor against armor).

You can retrain people, but can you really make a weapon system (M1A1/2/3) something it was never designed to be in the first place? Maybe I'm getting too far off the path with this...

Celeon999
09-23-2007, 02:28 AM
Its right that MBT's arent made for close or urban combat. Thats why several M1A2 were lost in Iraq.

They are too big, they cant manouver in narrow streets or even turn their turrets while their armour isnt configured for hits at close range and from behind.

Not to mention that the crew has only a very limited field of view which is no problem when fighting vehicles at great distances but becomes a major problem when moving into urban areas.

Their main gun is in 8 out of 10 scenarios useless in urban combat and the coax machine gun is meant for medium ranges at best and not to fight infantry in close combat. (Remember the turret turn problem)

The only useful weapon proofed to be the commanders machine gun mounted on top of the turret. (It was meant to be a AA weapon when the Abrams and the Leopard were designed)


Its really the international wet dream of anti-armour infantry to lure MBT's into a city. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Developing a tank takes years and cannot be done from today to tomorrow. Thats why the best you can do at the moment is changing as much as you can on already existing tanks.

A certain amount of M1A2's will recieve the TUSK (Tank Urban Survival Kit) which is meant to do at least what is possible at the moment to improve the Abrams Urban warfare capabilities.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg/800px-OCPA-2005-03-09-165522.jpg


The manufacturer of the Leopard 2 also presented a prototype specimen called Leopard 2 PSO (Peace support operation) which takes the TUSK concept even a bit farer at some spots like a overall reconfiguration of the armour.



Both concepts are of course just a patch on a bleeding wound but the best that can be realized in the limited time.

A whole new tank is necessary to take the role of armoured urban combat but will not be available within the next 5 years.


http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4020/prototypleopopupai5.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2365/prototypeinespsokampfpadv5.jpg

klcarroll
09-23-2007, 05:04 AM
The demands and hazards of operating armor in an urban area are only going to get worse! The problem makes me wonder if the "Urban Tank" of the future will even have a crew!

When you consider the success of remotely piloted drones, a remote control Urban Tank seems like a practical approach.

klcarroll

Celeon999
09-23-2007, 11:09 AM
Exacto http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


Drones are one thing. Real robots are another.


The university of the German Army in Munich just won a robot contest in Swiss. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

This completely autonomous VW Tuareg passed a 8 kilometers long obstacle route all on its own. Just with cameras ,laser rangers and a computer.

http://www.streitkraeftebasis.de/portal/PA_1_0_P3/PortalFiles/02DB040000000001/W276DCXG419INFODE/Auto_unterwegs_420.jpg?yw_repository=youatweb
http://www.streitkraeftebasis.de/portal/PA_1_0_P3/PortalFiles/02DB040000000001/W276DC54004INFODE/Ausr%C3%BCstung_Kofferraum_420.jpg?yw_repository=y ouatweb


This is another robot vehicle which is used for similar tests , the "Gecko"

http://www.streitkraeftebasis.de/portal/PA_1_0_P3/PortalFiles/02DB040000000001/W276DD2C182INFODE/Gecko_420.jpg?yw_repository=youatweb


Here is a prototype for a adoptable remote control system http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The idea is to make this remote controlled mechanical driver installable in every kind of vehicle and that with minimum effort.


Suicide car bomb without suicide ? We are working to make that possible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Then we will see who blows up who and who will be still there in the end http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1650/19496fahrerlosbi6.jpg

Kaleun1961
09-23-2007, 01:06 PM
My bet is that the US Army will "borrow" German technology, much as they have the design of German "coal scuttle" WW2 helmets for their infantry and the Rhein-Metall 120 mm gun for the Abrams tanks. Lest we think that the idea of robotic weapons are something new, here are a few pics to show that Germany was decades ahead of the rest of the world in WW2:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Miscellaneous/781px-Mini-tanks-p012953.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Miscellaneous/codeceegee.jpg

The first pic is of British soldiers examining captured Goliath robotic tanks. They were operated by remote control. The idea was to pilot them toward an enemy tank or other obstacle and then detonated.

Kaleun1961
09-23-2007, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
I understand where you're coming from Silent_O. As always, weapons and weapons systems, are geared toward what was encountered in the previous war. Therefore, it usually takes a relatively long war for designers to adapt to the current situation, whatever it may be.

I can see the flexibility in thinking on the commanders' part with the use of whatever is avaiable (ie use of donkeys for mobility on tough terrain); I was just wondering how long it might take for the current war to result in a shift in priorities will regards to actual unit structure. So when will these other crew members be given the weapons they need based on today's reality instead of yesterday's idea. How long is it going to be before people figure out that this isn't the 1980's and we are not facing the Soviet hordes across the German heartland and the Fulda Gap? And when will this realization result in fundamental changes in weaponry, tactics, and force structure reaching the battlefield?

That said, I guess I'm a bit of a pessamist when it comes to these sorts of things. I know it all takes time, but it's a bit hard to ignore things like the loss of M1A2s in the 2003(?) invasion/occupation when we didn't loose one M1A1 crew in the 1991 invasion. There is, of course the widely variant time factor that can't be ignored, nor the fact that the systems simply are not fighting the war they were designed to fight in the 2003 war (that being armor against armor).

You can retrain people, but can you really make a weapon system (M1A1/2/3) something it was never designed to be in the first place? Maybe I'm getting too far off the path with this...

Good points you make there. The Canadian military, always under budgetary challenge, has had to re-examine its structure due to changing roles and deployments. The Canadian military had for most of the 20th century been structured to deploy in a conventional, European First World type conflict, as we did in WW1, WW2 and Korea. With our pioneering of U.N. peacekeeping missions, that force structure came to be seen as outmoded and inappropriate. This has led to the streamlining of our forces and the reorientation toward "light infantry" roles, mainly for U.N. deployments in Third World hotspots. To this end, the emphasis has changed to equipping our infantry to be more mobile and flexible and to operate as self-sustaining combat units, somewhat like the Israeli self-contained brigade, which incorporates all functions into one unit. [To this end, Canada is now purchasing its own heavy lift aircraft from the US. Until now, we have had to rent lift capacity from whomever, including Russia. This has left us vulnerable, since such a country could effectively veto our participation in a U.N. mission with which they disagreed. They could cripple us simply by refusing to rent us lift capacity.] The new style force structure has tended to serve us well until we got involved in the Yugoslavian civil war and Afghanistan. In Yugoslavia, our lads had to contend with armoured assaults. Fortunately, they were able to defend themselves, as the Canadian commander, General Lewis Mackenzie, sneaked in anti-tank weapons against the regulations of his mission. In Afghanistan, we have had to rent some modern Leopards from the Dutch, to give our boys some heavy weapon backup. We just hope that we don't get caught with our pants down, configured for fighting Third World insurgencies should another big match erupt in Europe again.

Of course, I could be merely blowing a smoke screen to obscure Canada's "Fall Beiber" plans to invade the U.S. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I recently viewed a documentary about the Abrams on the Military Channel. During the documentary, it was claimed that an Abrams [of either vintage] has never been lost in action in a tank-on-tank duel. I would assume that the losses of Abrams tanks in Iraq 2 has been due to ambushes in close terrain from RPG's, IED's and other infantry AT actions? This is further proof of the long known rule, that it is very unwise to deploy tanks in urban terrain.

Those modifications shown us by Celeon should do something to redress the disadvantages of the current armour operating in Iraq. I would also think it would be wise of Uncle Sam to consult with Israel, as they have extensive experience of modern armour deployments in urban areas. Their Merkava tanks sport the innovation that has been necessary, borne out of years of combat experience. One innovation I find rather clever is the rear evacuation hatch. In armoured combat, the maxim is to always face the front of your tank toward the enemy. Merkavas have been knocked out of action, but the crew have survived simply because they could evacuate through the rear hatch. None of this being shot down by infantry as you climb out of hatches on the top and front of the vehicle. Another innovation they have in the Merkava is to put the engine in front of the crew compartment. This means that any round which penetrates the front of the vehicle could effectively be blocked by the bulk of the engine. I suspect this could result in more tanks being immobilized, but to a small country such as Israel, it is more important to save a highly trained crew than a disposable weapon. They can get new tanks more easily than they can new crews.

Celeon999
09-23-2007, 01:46 PM
During the documentary, it was claimed that an Abrams [of either vintage] has never been lost in action in a tank-on-tank duel.


Thats not exactly true.

Several M1A1 were disabled beyond any battlefield repair by Iraqi T-72 during Desert Storm. Some others by missiles, rpg's and anti-tank mines.

They do not count them as a loss as the tanks were shipped back to the usa and got repaired later (but that was after the war http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and a tank that gets so badly disabled that it cant be used in the war anymore is actually a loss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Others got disabled behind enemy lines and then destroyed by friendly fire to prevent them from becoming Saddams trophys.

Not exactly a battle loss but still a loss as these were totally destroyed to make them fully useless to the iraqis http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Never trust military statistics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kaleun1961
09-23-2007, 01:57 PM
Danke, Celeon. I should have been more skeptical of that claim. Still, it was an interesting documentary, as it showed the facility in the southern US, I think it was in Alabama, where they recondition battered Abrams. It is an amazing process from beginning to end. The battered hulls are stripped bare of all equipment and then placed inside of a special booth, where it is showered for several hours by tiny ball bearings, to strip off the rust and other corrosion. The gleaming hull then emerges and is immersed in some liquid to rust proof it, I think, then is primed and painted. It then goes through the process of overhaul and upgrading. Newer systems are installed, older systems reconditioned. Overhauled engines are then fitted, next new or reconditioned tracks and at the end you have what is virtually a new tank. Amazingly, there are no new Abrams being built, but because of this process it is almost like getting brand new tanks in a continual stream. Of course, this precludes increasing the number of armoured divisions in the US army, at least until the next battle tank is introduced. Or, they could do what Hitler did after the fall of France: reduce the number of panzers in a division and double the number of panzer divisions without doubling the number of panzers in stock.

Celeon999
09-23-2007, 02:21 PM
Was that the one in which they also demonstrated how the parts for a M1A2 turret get cut in shape with a industry plasma cutter ? That one was very interesting http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Ah,...yes...

Almost forgot :

Youtube scores again Goliath remote bomb in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUsuoVm_XKI) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kaleun1961
09-23-2007, 03:02 PM
That must have been a different documentary. The one I saw didn't show anything about plasma cutters. I think I should record it next time it features on the Military Channel. One thing about that channel, they recycle often, so if you miss a particular show, chances are good that it will be replayed.

I had a good laugh while watching that Goliath video. It must be a propaganda piece, as it looks very "staged." As I watched those two men running closely behind it, I thought for a second it may have been a Monty Python skit. Surely they wouldn't run that close behind it in real life? Of course not.

Speaking of Monty Python, I caught the tail end of an episode last night on PBS. I had never seen that one before, but it was hilarious. It was all shot in German, with English subtitles. The two most hilarious parts were the famous lumberjack song, sung in German, and the parody of a Bavarian restaurant, where the waiters abuse the customers in Bavarian slapstick style. Part of the menu included the woman being beaten about the head with a chicken and the man having prawns stuffed down his shirt, after which he was thrown out the window with sauteed potatoes. Bizarre, but hilarious in Monty Python style.

Kaleun1961
09-23-2007, 03:38 PM
As the saying goes on the Internet, "Google is your friend." In like manner, You Tube can also be a friend. To wit, I have found the Bavarian restaurant clip:

Das Bayerisches Restaurant Stck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yrZB-jWT-Y)


A blessing! He's made them damp in Bavaria. Yes, in Bavaria, and scared them ****less!

Liddabit
09-23-2007, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Celeon999:
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4020/prototypleopopupai5.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2365/prototypeinespsokampfpadv5.jpg

Celeon my hubby was looking at this and wonders what that new urban combat tank is? And does he see right that they are testing that one in Kosovo?

Oh that top one loaded. HFOR Not KFOR, nevermind last question :P

The_Silent_O
09-23-2007, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Danke, Celeon. I should have been more skeptical of that claim. Still, it was an interesting documentary, as it showed the facility in the southern US, I think it was in Alabama, where they recondition battered Abrams. It is an amazing process from beginning to end. The battered hulls are stripped bare of all equipment and then placed inside of a special booth, where it is showered for several hours by tiny ball bearings, to strip off the rust and other corrosion. The gleaming hull then emerges and is immersed in some liquid to rust proof it, I think, then is primed and painted. It then goes through the process of overhaul and upgrading. Newer systems are installed, older systems reconditioned. Overhauled engines are then fitted, next new or reconditioned tracks and at the end you have what is virtually a new tank. Amazingly, there are no new Abrams being built, but because of this process it is almost like getting brand new tanks in a continual stream. Of course, this precludes increasing the number of armoured divisions in the US army, at least until the next battle tank is introduced. Or, they could do what Hitler did after the fall of France: reduce the number of panzers in a division and double the number of panzer divisions without doubling the number of panzers in stock.

I saw the same documentary...very interesting even from my perspective.

"Certified, pre-owned!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I've seen the cost of reseting tanks, but I never knew what it was buying...

Celeon999
09-24-2007, 01:56 AM
@ Kaleun

I will look for it on youtube, some of the discovery channel episodes have been uploaded there, maybe that one too...


That video is hilarious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

John Cleese speaks excellent german with only a very tiny english accent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

And even with a nice bavarian accent ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


@ Liddabit


The prototype is in evaluation at the moment as the german army seems interested but its uncertain if they will get the money for it.

Its basically a modified A5 and features :

- Reconfigurated armour
- Additional anti-shaped charge armour kit instead of a slat armour
(you can see it on its backside)

- Tear gas for the smoke grenade launchers
- Thermal sight and night vision cameras on all sides
- Remote weapon station on the turret
- Loudspeakers
- The mine protection belly plate of the A6M
- A searchlight
- A improved PSU
- External telephone for communication with supporting infantry


The project was financed with the money meant for the now cancelled combat improvement program of the Leo 2 during the cold war.

Within that program the Leo 2 was meant to get a new 140 mm smoothbore gun aswell as a automatic reloading system by 2008.

(A system which ,unlike its russian counterparts, does not try to load the arm of a gunner into the barrel http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ) Ouch ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif


The Pzh 2000 howitzer has such a system Pzh 2000 auto-loader in operation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_XZWGmSICs)

Goose_Green
10-08-2007, 03:35 PM
Further proof http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n235/Goose_Green/newsphoto_2007-10_hires_070927-A-40.jpg

klcarroll
10-08-2007, 03:53 PM
I guess the AK works OK, if you don't have something better: ....But I would still be a little nervous carrying one.

Back in my day, one of the ways you recognized the "Bad Guys" was that big, curved magazine!

Friendly fire sucks!


klcarroll

Celeon999
10-09-2007, 01:29 AM
You are not alone ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


Check out this video and notice the several short pieces of film between the picture slide show..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


As they are training the afghan army and police, they train them on russian weapons like the AK47 and the SVD Dragunov http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Now the east german experience with all forms of russian weapons pays off. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

The soldiers in the video dont have them , they are too young for that but some of their older officers there are surely former NVA officers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Celeon knows a few who are there

Those without Stasi connections that is. They've wiped the Bundeswehr mainly clean of them after all their personal documents were seen through in the 90's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPbsSFjI8Ks&mode=related&search=PzH%20PzH2000%20155mm%202000%20Panzerhaubit ze%20Bundeswehr%20schuss%20feuer%20army%20Howitzer %20artillery%20artillerie%20Tank%20shoot)


And here are two Hungarian soldiers in Kosovo explaining us how to field strip a AKS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycV3EaG18ZU)

PhantomKira
10-11-2007, 04:03 PM
klcarroll


Back in my day, one of the ways you recognized the "Bad Guys" was that big, curved magazine!

I've heard the same about the sound alone. Very destinct, if you're in a combat zone, friendly versus enemy weapon sounds. The tendency would be to shoot first and ask questions later. Of course "everyone" knows that "everyone else" (the friendlies) carry M-16s. If it's AK, it enemy. Oh. Welll... Maybe not. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif