US + NATO forces unprepared to face Russia in small arms conflict?

2015-10-27T11:06:30-04:00

From Sputnik News:

Few countries on the planet could hope to dominate the US in tank, air or naval warfare but US soldiers would be easily outgunned in a fire fight, military analyst Jim Schatz wrote in his article for National Defense.

"Yet every bad actor with an AK-47 takes on US and NATO ground forces in a small arms fight. We are no longer suitably armed to prevent it," he wrote. "The current US Army small arms development and acquisition system is dysfunctional and virtually unworkable, even for those within the system."

The problem became visible after the Battle of Wanat in 2008 at Combat Outpost Kahler in Afghanistan. Nine soldiers of the 173rd Brigade Combat Team were killed and 27 others were injured. Their weapons, including M249 machine guns, Mk 19 grenade launchers and M4 carbines, stopped firing due to overheating.

The flaws of the M4 carbine have been well known to military analysts. For example, tests in 1990 and a report by US Special Operations Command in 2001 proved its numerous shortcomings. However, that was ignored by lawmakers as well as by military command.

Billions of dollars are spent to develop high-tech weapons that are never used in modern warfare while the issue of small arms has never been tackled, according to the author.

Small arms are the most deployed weapon systems in the arsenal of the US military, but the eight most numerous conventional weapons in the army were developed over 35 years ago, and have never been upgraded.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151026/ [login to see] /us-army-capability-ak-47.html#ixzz3pmU4RdxL

'Anyone With AK-47' Can Overmatch US Soldier in Fire Fight

Few countries on the planet could hope to dominate the US in tank, air or naval warfare but US soldiers would be easily outgunned in a fire fight, military analyst Jim Schatz wrote in his article for National Defense.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2015 11:16 AM

2015-10-27T11:16:25-04:00

I think we would dominate them as our weapons are better than thiers. Granted the AK-74M is a very good weapon that is very effective in the close in flight, the current versions of the M16 family are just as good. Our all volunteer force is more leadership centric than the current Russian Army and we are better trained and have current operation experience that the Russians are lacking.

Response by Cpl Sarah Mast made Oct 27 at 2015 11:22 AM

2015-10-27T11:22:40-04:00

Does this mean we're finally going to be issued laser rifles?

All kidding aside, yeah. Anyone who's ever had to deal with a double-feed or a jam in their M16 at a critical moment will heartily agree that there could be some changes. Although I do love those perpetually dirty bastards. Even got a tattoo of one.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Oct 27 at 2015 11:26 AM

2015-10-27T11:26:18-04:00

Switch to the 416? I wonder how much that would cost.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2015 1:04 PM

2015-10-27T13:04:46-04:00

Give me 10 men, M4s, 210 rounds per Soldier and a competent position and I will decisively defeat any enemy element with 3x the men and armed with AKs.
We would put effective aimed shots on them at 3-400 meters, while they would be expending ammunition uselessly until they were at least within 150 meters.
It is more than a gun that determines the winner of a small-arms fight. It is volume and accuracy of fire, the steel will and training of the rifleman, and the use of terrain to gain positional advantage. I like my chances with the equipment and men we have.
Ask the Taliban that were at Wanat how many men they lost, despite positional advantage and surprise. It was a hell of lot more than nine, mostly because the men at COP Kahler had some big brass ones.

The M4/16 family of weapons could be better, to be sure. But they are accurate and plenty lethal. Our crew served weapons are the equal of any.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2015 5:25 PM

2015-10-27T17:25:39-04:00

Here is the problem - Apparently DOD does not recognize that other nations can, despite lack of serious budget can also modernize their equipment and confidence instead of caution is serious flaw here, when it comes to modern Russian weaponry and equipment.

First of all the new standard for Russian Infantryman is AK74M, not AK47. AK47s in stock are nothing more than a sale item to some other nation in need of cheap infantry firearm. AK74 is just as reliable as AK47 and obviously if it came to prolonged fight. AK74M's 500 effective range to M4A1's 450 effective range and subpar reliability could be decisive factor.
Russian individual body armor is also rated at least level 4 if it came to NIJ standard.
M240Bs are not as reliable but just as accurate as standard Russian Pecheneg.
There is no comparison of RPG 7 to AT4. Obviously it is much better carrying one launcher with various types of rounds, compared to one shot launcher.
RPK 74M is just a tad worse than M249 due to the ammo count, but the accuracy remains virtually the same.
Russian modernized Dragunov (not the Iraqi crappy version which is NOT Dragunov, even though it looks like one) is about as good as modernized M14.
The worst it comes down to the ammunition. Russian standard 7N6 ammo (and worse 7N24) is capable of defeating standard SAPI or IOTV vest's armor, while 5.56 m855 struggles at doing what it was designed for. - Defeating modern body armor.

Overall though if it was 10 US Army's infantry men vs 10 Russian Infantry men, it is 50/50. Weapons are roughly equal in performance (not reliability though. Alas Russian Federation weapons are built to last as priority), minus some negligible things like modern camouflage (ACUs vs Russian standard Wooden Camo? that's laughable, but in reality camo is not that important when shit already hit the fan or if those 10 infantrymen would use Multicam).

Both sides have night vision and modernized optical sights. Both have modernized body armor. US Army's soldiers have more battle experience though, while Russian soldiers have better reliable modern weapons.

Overall my statement what I don't like is how today many leaders in US forces underestimate other military forces in the world, especially the one who had been arch nemesis of United States on almost every principle. Do not underestimate the enemy and as leader you have to research your enemy without making quick gung ho statement, thinking that the enemy is not prepared either.

Look at 2008 Ossetian conflict and Ukrainian/Ethnic Russian rebels supplied by Russian weapons and military volunteers. They are not some kind of joke to be trifled with, but treated as very real threat with much better weapons and equipment than the one seen just 5 or 10 years ago.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2015 8:56 PM

2015-10-27T20:56:41-04:00

No position is a competent one. The key is TOP leadership inadequacies. Coupled with the fact of a shrinking military. We kicked as because we were able to get the best equipment, best men and moral was at the top. Why? Top leadership was the best and money. Something the Military is lacking these days.

Response by CPL Colin Darensburg made Oct 28 at 2015 3:06 AM

2015-10-28T03:06:43-04:00

Holy crap! I've been say this for 25 years now! I'm glad somebody is finally backing me up. Look I was using the same T-10 on jumps in 1980's that they were using back in the 1950's! This is nothing new people!

Response by SGT William Howell made Oct 29 at 2015 9:52 AM

2015-10-29T09:52:55-04:00

There are some great things about the AK that make it formidable on the battle field. First is the round. 7.62x39 is a kick ass round out to about 300 meters then it takes a dump ballistically. The 6.5 Grendel is a much better all around round, but The military is not going to just change calibers. It is a pickup truck of battle rifles. Tough, requiring no maintenance. I used to re-purpose seized AKs to issue back out to Iraqi Police. We would get rifles in that were packed with cosmoline and sand. They were never cleaned from the time they were pulled out of the box. Every one of them worked. They are cheap to make and soldier proof.

Now the bad. They don't have any sight radius. The front sight is way too close to the rear sight. For the Russians it is perfect for their model of rushing the enemy with a larger force. A soldier with an M-4 can engage much sooner in combat effectively at longer ranges. Heat is the biggest downfall of the AK platform. Put 60 rounds through a AK sustained and try to hold it. Impossible to do. The front is hot as hell. A major flaw of the long stroke piston system. How can you engage the enemy if you can't even hold the gun? Last it is not lefty friendly. Well it is not lefty anything. You have to shoot it right handed or

So the AK is not the perfect battle rifle. In some ways it is better than the M-4 and in others it is a dog. Door to door clearing I'll take a AK any day, but on a battlefield the M-4 is a much better weapon.