[url]https://medium.com/war-is-boring/kurdish-troops-grumble-our-junk-weapons-are-killing-us-67ca31b817d[/url]
[quote]When I shoot, the top of the rifle flies off,” Mahd Abdul Basit, a 28-year-old Peshmerga fighter told me while we stood a few hundred meters from Islamic State’s front line.
Unlike many Kurdish troops, who must purchase their own weapons, Mahd’s rifle — a taped-up Kalashnikov appearing to be made from several different rifles— was issued to him, and could still one day cost him his life.[/quote]
[quote]A trickle of Western weapons have circulated among the Kurdish troops — but they’re still not enough. Most Peshmerga fighters still rely on ancient Kalashnikovs that have suffered through decades of wear and tear. Soldiers are going months without pay.[/quote]
[quote]When Kurdish fighters told me that they fought with weapons from Saddam Hussein’s time … it’s not the type of weapons they were talking about. They literally meant the actual, specific guns they held in their hands.[/quote]
[quote]Universally the Peshmerga fighters I’ve spoken to say they’re fighting to defend their homeland — and there’s no reason to doubt that. They’re willing fight … and die. It’s a major reason why Islamic State hasn’t made it through to Iraqi Kurdistan’s major cities, with the exception of the occasional suicide bomber and even that is rare compared to Baghdad.
But many fighters have families to support, and money worries are taking a toll. The KRG still relies on the Iraqi government in Baghdad for money, and the lack of cash has driven some Kurdish troops into debt. At the time of my June 14 visit, fighters in this part of the front line had not received pay for around 100 days.
“Some Peshmerga have had to leave because they cannot support their families,” Sulaiman said. He pointed to a wedding ring and said that many fighters have had to sell theirs to feed their families.[/quote]
[quote]Despite potential logistical problems arising from many different types of ammunition in service along the front, for some Peshmerga units the only problem is not having enough bullets to go around, according to Niqib. The Kurds must frequently conserve their ammunition during firefights.
“Sometimes when shooting at ISIS and they are a long distance away, the guys with Kalashnikovs must sit and do nothing,” Niqib said. “Only the G36, G3 and 23-mm [the ZU-23–2] are good enough.”[/quote]
Man, sounds pretty damn bad out there.
If the U.S. Actually sent the Pesh and YPG/J weapons they'd be real better off.
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;48060711]If the U.S. Actually sent the Pesh and YPG/J weapons they'd be real better off.[/QUOTE]
Last time the us did that, it didn't think things through and we ended up with 9/11.
[QUOTE=01271;48060817]Last time the us did that, it didn't think things through and we ended up with 9/11.[/QUOTE]
No. Last time we did that the Iraqi army went full chickenshit and ISIS took them all.
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;48060711]If the U.S. Actually sent the Pesh and YPG/J weapons they'd be real better off.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but they didn't because of some bullshit of the weapons having to go through confirmation from the Iraqi government first, and the Iraqi government is hesitant to give the Peshmerga weapons in case of that whole Kurdistan independence thing.
How about a compromise?
Instead of sending them military weapons, let's send them everything we gather from gun buyback programs. Or hell, just make a "donate yer guns so's they can shoot sum terrrrists" program; there's about twenty billion people in my state alone who'd throw a couple dozen AR-15s apiece in support of that cause.
Two birds, one stone. America gets rid of some guns (we've got way too many), the Kurds get some guns (they apparently need them), and since they'd be American guns, they'll have a very short useful life in the desert before jamming up beyond repair, so any ISIS-captured guns would quickly become useless.
Why can't we make cheap insurgency weapons like the Sten guns and such from World War Two and send them those? Maybe that's only me, and perhaps it's a stupid idea. But that's my opinion at least.
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48061378]Why can't we make cheap insurgency weapons like the Sten guns and such from World War Two and send them those? Maybe that's only me, and perhaps it's a stupid idea. But that's my opinion at least.[/QUOTE]
Because at this point ISIS is fighting with good equipment, and you need to match it, especially when fighting at range. Compared to the Kalashnikov and old Russian scopes, the optics in and accuracy of a G36 are a godsend when making the first few rounds count and not forcing the weapon to have to cycle through multiple magazines in each engagement.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;48061409]Because at this point ISIS is fighting with good equipment, and you need to match it, especially when fighting at range. Compared to the Kalashnikov and old Russian scopes, the optics in and accuracy of a G36 are a godsend when making the first few rounds count and not forcing the weapon to have to cycle through multiple magazines in each engagement.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is that the lack of ammo is what is keeping the G36 accurate, if it you rapid fire it the thing's handguard starts melting and the accuracy goes to shit lmao. That's why the germies gave em away in the first place
Edit: why dumb me for something that's true, have you wankers nevee heard of overheating in the g36 before. And when I said "gave em all away" I was referring to the specific batch of rifles, machine guns, and missiles they sent the YPG
[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;48061766]That's why the germies gave em away in the first place[/QUOTE]
Uh, they didn't "give them all away", it's the current service rifle of the German Army.
[QUOTE=01271;48060817]Last time the us did that, it didn't think things through and we ended up with 9/11.[/QUOTE]
The kurds are mostly pro-western or leftist and aren't even close to the same as the Pan-Islamic jihadist fighters we armed to fight the USSR.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48061033]How about a compromise?
Instead of sending them military weapons, let's send them everything we gather from gun buyback programs. Or hell, just make a "donate yer guns so's they can shoot sum terrrrists" program; there's about twenty billion people in my state alone who'd throw a couple dozen AR-15s apiece in support of that cause.
Two birds, one stone. America gets rid of some guns (we've got way too many), the Kurds get some guns (they apparently need them), and since they'd be American guns, they'll have a very short useful life in the desert before jamming up beyond repair, so any ISIS-captured guns would quickly become useless.[/QUOTE]
I understand your idea, however it is flawed. First of all, American civilian guns, even the "Military styled AR-15" isn't all that useful, especially in this fight. They need actual military weapons, not civilian weapons built slightly to military specs. While every bit helps, this would hurt the kurds even more. Also, ISIS has captured tens of thousands of American made M-16 and M-4 assault rifles, you know the actual military version of the AR-15, and they work pretty well for ISIS. ISIS has almost top of the line military gear they captured from Iraq, who practically just gave it to them. The Peshmerga on the other hand are slowly getting Western weapons trickled in to replace the decades old weapons they have. They are doing damn good with what little they have. We need to provide them with actual military weapons, gear, and training. Only issue is, there is always risk. Only other issue is, we'd rather do limited support for them instead of giving them the help they need.
[QUOTE=01271;48060817]Last time the us did that, it didn't think things through and we ended up with 9/11.[/QUOTE]
which would be swell if al-Qaeda didn't hate the US from the start and got funding from Saudi Arabia instead
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48061849]Uh, they didn't "give them all away", it's the current service rifle of the German Army.[/QUOTE]
Not for long. German defense minister basically cut the lot of them, saying they found major accuracy deviations past 100m after 3-4 mags of auto fire. German government doesnt want G36s anymore. At least not the ones they accepted. They said they'd keep an open mind about another, upgraded G36 but the current ones have got to go.
[url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/23/german-defense-minister-g36-has-no-future-with-bundeswehr/[/url]
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48062225]I understand your idea, however it is flawed. First of all, American civilian guns, even the "Military styled AR-15" isn't all that useful, especially in this fight. They need actual military weapons, not civilian weapons built slightly to military specs. While every bit helps, this would hurt the kurds even more. Also, ISIS has captured tens of thousands of American made M-16 and M-4 assault rifles, you know the actual military version of the AR-15, and they work pretty well for ISIS. ISIS has almost top of the line military gear they captured from Iraq, who practically just gave it to them. The Peshmerga on the other hand are slowly getting Western weapons trickled in to replace the decades old weapons they have. They are doing damn good with what little they have. We need to provide them with actual military weapons, gear, and training. Only issue is, there is always risk. Only other issue is, we'd rather do limited support for them instead of giving them the help they need.[/QUOTE]
never gonna happen
the moment we start doing that iraq iran and turkey are gonna lose their shit
not that they were great to begin with but they're way bigger power players than a hypothetical kurdistan will be for decades
They're probably gonna swap them all out temporarily with G3s in storage until they can find a proper new service rifle. The G3A4 is still in active service, so pulling out old G3A3s wouldnt be that big a deal.
[editline]27th June 2015[/editline]
my fucking merge god dammit
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48061033]How about a compromise?
Instead of sending them military weapons, let's send them everything we gather from gun buyback programs. Or hell, just make a "donate yer guns so's they can shoot sum terrrrists" program; there's about twenty billion people in my state alone who'd throw a couple dozen AR-15s apiece in support of that cause.
Two birds, one stone. America gets rid of some guns (we've got way too many), the Kurds get some guns (they apparently need them), and since they'd be American guns, they'll have a very short useful life in the desert before jamming up beyond repair, so any ISIS-captured guns would quickly become useless.[/QUOTE]
Moving that much weapons to there is going to cost more than the total cost of weapons. Also Turkey no way would allow US send weapons, fearing YPG would use it later on Turkish soil.
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;48062264]They're probably gonna swap them all out temporarily with G3s in storage until they can find a proper new service rifle. The G3A4 is still in active service, so pulling out old G3A3s wouldnt be that big a deal.
[editline]27th June 2015[/editline]
my fucking merge god dammit[/QUOTE]
that seems like a major pain in the ass
might go with g38s but i doubt they'd go back to 7.62. what is this the 60s?
[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48062225]I understand your idea, however it is flawed. First of all, American civilian guns, even the "Military styled AR-15" isn't all that useful, especially in this fight. They need actual military weapons, not civilian weapons built slightly to military specs. While every bit helps, this would hurt the kurds even more. Also, ISIS has captured tens of thousands of American made M-16 and M-4 assault rifles, you know the actual military version of the AR-15, and they work pretty well for ISIS. ISIS has almost top of the line military gear they captured from Iraq, who practically just gave it to them. The Peshmerga on the other hand are slowly getting Western weapons trickled in to replace the decades old weapons they have. They are doing damn good with what little they have. We need to provide them with actual military weapons, gear, and training. Only issue is, there is always risk. Only other issue is, we'd rather do limited support for them instead of giving them the help they need.[/QUOTE]
If they're fighting in the field, or in relatively open villages, they don't really need assault rifles. If they were fighting in Baghdad, sure, assault rifles would be best for close-quarters combat, but in terrain with long lines of sight, a bolt-action rifle can suffice.
What they need are simple, maintainable weapons, using common ammo, that are ammunition-efficient. I actually think an SKS might be their ideal weapon - semi-automatic (limits ammo consumption but keeps it usable in urban warfare), fairly accurate, lethal, reliable, and shares ammunition with the AK-47. An old-style M14 might also be good, if we have enough of those left.
Assault rifles would only really work if we keep them supplied with ammunition. Once you have automatic weapons, ammunition consumption skyrockets. We can keep our own armies supplied, but do the Pesh have that kind of supply line? If they're using broken weapons, I doubt they have solid materiel support.
Agree on the training and other gear, though. And they need some crew-served weapons - light mortars, machine guns, and so on. Much harder to use, but you don't need nearly as many of them to make an impact.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48062364]If they're fighting in the field, or in relatively open villages, they don't really need assault rifles. If they were fighting in Baghdad, sure, assault rifles would be best for close-quarters combat, but in terrain with long lines of sight, a bolt-action rifle can suffice.
What they need are simple, maintainable weapons, using common ammo, that are ammunition-efficient. I actually think an SKS might be their ideal weapon - semi-automatic (limits ammo consumption but keeps it usable in urban warfare), fairly accurate, lethal, reliable, and shares ammunition with the AK-47. An old-style M14 might also be good, if we have enough of those left.
Assault rifles would only really work if we keep them supplied with ammunition. Once you have automatic weapons, ammunition consumption skyrockets. We can keep our own armies supplied, but do the Pesh have that kind of supply line? If they're using broken weapons, I doubt they have solid materiel support.
Agree on the training and other gear, though. And they need some crew-served weapons - light mortars, machine guns, and so on. Much harder to use, but you don't need nearly as many of them to make an impact.[/QUOTE]
You're right, they don't have very much in the way of Ammunition. In the article itself tells how low the amount of ammunition there is to go around, forcing the Kurds to conserve in Firefights. It doesn't help that there are many different types of ammunition the Kurds use.
[quote]Despite potential logistical problems arising from many different types of ammunition in service along the front, for some Peshmerga units the only problem is not having enough bullets to go around, according to Niqib. The Kurds must frequently conserve their ammunition during firefights.[/quote]
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;48062248]Not for long. German defense minister basically cut the lot of them, saying they found major accuracy deviations past 100m after 3-4 mags of auto fire. German government doesnt want G36s anymore. At least not the ones they accepted. They said they'd keep an open mind about another, upgraded G36 but the current ones have got to go.
[url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/23/german-defense-minister-g36-has-no-future-with-bundeswehr/[/url][/QUOTE]
What is it with the G36 synthetic that causes it to go soft anyway? There are a lot of guns out there that use synthetic parts over wood or metal, but they don't have this problem. Is it because large parts of the gun are synthetic rather than a stock and handguard like most weapons?
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48062364]If they're fighting in the field, or in relatively open villages, they don't really need assault rifles. If they were fighting in Baghdad, sure, assault rifles would be best for close-quarters combat, but in terrain with long lines of sight, a bolt-action rifle can suffice.
What they need are simple, maintainable weapons, using common ammo, that are ammunition-efficient. I actually think an SKS might be their ideal weapon - semi-automatic (limits ammo consumption but keeps it usable in urban warfare), fairly accurate, lethal, reliable, and shares ammunition with the AK-47. An old-style M14 might also be good, if we have enough of those left.
Assault rifles would only really work if we keep them supplied with ammunition. Once you have automatic weapons, ammunition consumption skyrockets. We can keep our own armies supplied, but do the Pesh have that kind of supply line? If they're using broken weapons, I doubt they have solid materiel support.
Agree on the training and other gear, though. And they need some crew-served weapons - light mortars, machine guns, and so on. Much harder to use, but you don't need nearly as many of them to make an impact.[/QUOTE]
most of the fighting takes place in towns. nobody cares enough to fight over vast expanses of dirt
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48060619]When Kurdish fighters told me that they fought with weapons from Saddam Hussein’s time … it’s not the type of weapons they were talking about. They literally meant the actual, specific guns they held in their hands.
[/QUOTE]
Say what you will, this is actually kinda funny.
Can't believe people suggest sending them weapons.
Freedom fighters one day, terrorists the next.
This is a pretty complicated situation
Oh boy, can't wait to send even more weapons to Marxist Narco-Terrorists
[QUOTE=TheNerdPest14;48061378]Why can't we make cheap insurgency weapons like the Sten guns and such from World War Two and send them those? Maybe that's only me, and perhaps it's a stupid idea. But that's my opinion at least.[/QUOTE]
An interesting thing to note is that the older members (I'm talking about the same guys that fought the Russians in Afghanistan) of the Taliban for example, still use Lee Enfield rifles over the younger members choosing the AK family of rifles for their accuracy and overall familiarity.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48062364]If they're fighting in the field, or in relatively open villages, they don't really need assault rifles. If they were fighting in Baghdad, sure, assault rifles would be best for close-quarters combat, but in terrain with long lines of sight, a bolt-action rifle can suffice.
What they need are simple, maintainable weapons, using common ammo, that are ammunition-efficient. I actually think an SKS might be their ideal weapon - semi-automatic (limits ammo consumption but keeps it usable in urban warfare), fairly accurate, lethal, reliable, and shares ammunition with the AK-47. An old-style M14 might also be good, if we have enough of those left.
Assault rifles would only really work if we keep them supplied with ammunition. Once you have automatic weapons, ammunition consumption skyrockets. We can keep our own armies supplied, but do the Pesh have that kind of supply line? If they're using broken weapons, I doubt they have solid materiel support.
Agree on the training and other gear, though. And they need some crew-served weapons - light mortars, machine guns, and so on. Much harder to use, but you don't need nearly as many of them to make an impact.[/QUOTE]
Thats fucking stupid. Real life isn't a video game, and real life assault rifle damage doesn't fall off after 100 feet. They're effective our to several hundred meters, and bolt actions in modern warfare aren't going to cut it lmfao. An SKS in a modern battlefield is absolutely laughable. Arming a militia force with our surplus and hunting rifles to fight a force with modern firearms straight from the crates they looted is retarded to the point of malice.
And no the Kurds don't have a decent supply line, thats the point of this article. They don't have the guns, the don't have the ammo, and they're not making enough money to pay their own troops. Us sending them ancient hunting rifles and "mil-spec" AR-15's is fucking retarded; it's the equivalent of sending hungry children in Africa freezer-burnt TV dinners.
The solution here isn't to throw money or weapons or ammo or people at the Kurds. Feeding them a supply line of materiel is the wrong answer, and has been the wrong answer since we were the Soviet Union's supply line in 1941. The weapons always fall into the hands of people we don't want to have weapons, or the people who relied on our supplies become our enemies. If we want to support the Kurds, we either ramp up the airstrikes or put boots on the ground. And thats just ignoring the economic cost to us, because theres no way in hell the Kurds will ever pay us back financially for it.
It's all or nothing with these situations, you can't half ass it by fighting a proxy war.
[editline]27th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;48063514]An interesting thing to note is that the older members (I'm talking about the same guys that fought the Russians in Afghanistan) of the Taliban for example, still use Lee Enfield rifles over the younger members choosing the AK family of rifles for their accuracy and overall familiarity.[/QUOTE]
They also beat women to death with stones and pay said youngsters the equivalent of $5 to fight for the Taliban in the off season when they can't harvest poppy.
Age=/=Wisdom, and some kiddy fucker in a cave in Pakistan probably isn't full of wisdom.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48062423]What is it with the G36 synthetic that causes it to go soft anyway? There are a lot of guns out there that use synthetic parts over wood or metal, but they don't have this problem. Is it because large parts of the gun are synthetic rather than a stock and handguard like most weapons?[/QUOTE]
The trunnion, that keeps the barrel seated in place, is made of plastic, so once it heats up it softens and doesn't restrict its movement.
[QUOTE=Tinter;48063985]The trunnion, that keeps the barrel seated in place, is made of plastic, so once it heats up it softens and doesn't restrict its movement.[/QUOTE]
Whose genius idea was that?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.