Thursday, April 03, 2008
Once again, people line up to join the army
The Iraqi army, that is. In Basra. Where it supposedly just "lost" its fight with the Shiite militia.
CWCID: Maggie's Farm.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Apr 03, 08:37:00 PM:
The Iraqi Army's recruiting, huh; are the AK-47s not getting stolen fast enough?
By , at
Thu Apr 03, 10:21:00 PM:
They're converting to M-16s, FYI.
By , at
Fri Apr 04, 02:34:00 AM:
I'm no expert, but aren't the M-16s horribly unreliable? I remember reading that American soldiers in Vietnam would often carry AKs because they were much better weapons.
By , at
Fri Apr 04, 10:28:00 AM:
Nope. But I can't speak for Vietnam era weapons in tropical climes but I've used them in ice, desert, and temperate woodlands and never had any trouble. You just have to clean it once in a while. And unless you drop it in the sand, you don't even have to clean it that well.
Do you really think the most modern and highly trained army in the world would rely on something 'horribly unreliable' for such a basic duty as infantryman's rifle?
Summary: The AK assumes that its user is a conscript, militiaman, or raw revolutionary; short range focus, large caliber rounds, full auto, virtually no maintenance. A few fools can put out so much lead that something has to hit, right? And whatever does hit, hurts.
The M16 assumes that its user is a professional soldier; more accurate at long range (because unlike mujahidin, our troops aim), lighter ammo (so you can carry more), no autofire option (conserves ammo), but it requires basic maintenance. In effect you have fewer, better aimed shots; more ammo used less often with a higher hit ratio = high efficiency and longer staying power.
I think that the Iraqi adoption of the M16 is another example of their sink or swim situation. If they can bring their forces up to the level of professionalism to capitalize on their new rifle's strengths, they're in good shape. If they can't, well, then they have a mob for an army and the country is probably doomed anyway.
