• Junk Weapons are Killing Kurds.
    52 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jund;48062461]most of the fighting takes place in towns. nobody cares enough to fight over vast expanses of dirt[/QUOTE] why do people still think that the IS fight like the Taliban or al-Qaeda they have equipment. they want to be a legitimate governing force, and have the power to do so. they aren't hiding in mountains taking pot shots at Americans in hopes that they'll go away. until they get mostly stomped out they don't have to rely on insurgency why else do you think IS territory maps are determined by what towns are held? capturing and holding territory is done in towns and cities, not empty fields of nothing
[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] Uhh... Civilian ar's are often significantly better than their military counterparts. They generally have fewer rounds put through them and frequently are made of higher quality components. They lack a full auto setting, but really that is a waste of ammo in the vast majority of situations. Quality military gear would certainly be nice, but good quality civilian stuff will still be light years ahead of what they currently have.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48064415]Uhh... Civilian ar's are often significantly better than their military counterparts. They generally have fewer rounds put through them and frequently are made of higher quality components. They lack a full auto setting, but really that is a waste of ammo in the vast majority of situations. Quality military gear would certainly be nice, but good quality civilian stuff will still be light years ahead of what they currently have.[/QUOTE] too bad no one's going to donate/sell their $5000 AR kit at most they'll get a few "mil quality" civilian rifles
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48061033]... 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 don't think the guns know that. You'll have to explain to them before they leave that, in spite of being of generally of very high quality, they should fail shortly after being exposed to sand. [editline]27th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Jund;48064432]too bad no one's going to donate/sell their $5000 AR kit at most they'll get a few "mil quality" civilian rifles[/QUOTE] Which would be better than what the military would give them. Ask guardsmen about the quality of the M16A2's we still have floating about.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48064454]I don't think the guns know that. You'll have to explain to them before they leave that, in spite of being of generally of very high quality, they should fail shortly after being exposed to sand. [editline]27th June 2015[/editline] Which would be better than what the military would give them. Ask guardsmen about the quality of the M16A2's we still have floating about.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure they worked out all the kinks with M16s we use nowadays (which pretty much only Marines do with M16A4s). All that "M16 sux u guys" crap is just bullshit now.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48064454]Which would be better than what the military would give them. Ask guardsmen about the quality of the M16A2's we still have floating about.[/QUOTE] They're alright. Sure, they're nothing fancy, but they put rounds downrange and don't jam if you keep the clean. Only real problem with it is the long-ass barrel. That'll get you killed in a city fight. You also can't add modern attachments to them, which some folks might find restrictive. I'd prefer if my unit had M4s, if only for the shorter barrel, but other than that I've got no problems with the M16A2.
I'm fairly certain that civilian AR-15s are going to be miles ahead of the things that they're forced to fight with right now, which can be anything from a bolt action rifle to an AK with mismatched handmade parts. I mean at least the AR-15 has standardized parts
One of my close friends is fighting in a militia with the Kurds. He told me that 5.56 is much more rare and expensive than 7.62x39, which in and of itself is a dollar a round. Kalashnikovs are pretty much the only viable weapon for the combat that they are conducting, as a mass issue weapon.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;48064772]One of my close friends is fighting in a militia with the Kurds. He told me that 5.56 is much more rare and expensive than 7.62x39, which in and of itself is a dollar a round. Kalashnikovs are pretty much the only viable weapon for the combat that they are conducting, as a mass issue weapon.[/QUOTE] Really, we should just send the Kurds some Ammunition, not weapons. It can't hurt. [editline]27th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ejonkou;48063209]Can't believe people suggest sending them weapons. Freedom fighters one day, terrorists the next.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Scar;48063279]Oh boy, can't wait to send even more weapons to Marxist Narco-Terrorists[/QUOTE] Do you guys even know who the Kurds are? There a very Westernized group of people located in Northern Iraq. They even let Women serve in their Army. That's better than the US. As soon as the War against ISIS ends, there not going to immediately turn around towards the US and go ALLAHU ACKBAR and start bombing the place. At most they're just going to try to gain Independence from Iraq.
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;48064666]I'm pretty sure they worked out all the kinks with M16s we use nowadays (which pretty much only Marines do with M16A4s). All that "M16 sux u guys" crap is just bullshit now.[/QUOTE] It's not that M16s are bad. the AR-15 platform is actually a really high-quality design. It's just that, well, the M16A2s that some guardsman still use have been in use since the early 80's. They're old, and very, very worn down. Still functional, but i wouldnt trust my life to a 30 y/o surplus M16A2 in the middle of the desert.
[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] They're largely untrained militia on both sides. It doesn't matter if they have the latest NATO wonder-weapon or a scrapyard Sten, most of these fighters spray bullets randomly until the conflict is resolved psychologically (one side or the other retreats) rather than through body count. Most have sub-20/20 vision and no access to corrective eyewear, making scopes and accurate weaponry almost irrelevant. Look at footage of these combatants on Liveleak. They're not professional soldiers. Something like a [url=http://www.forgottenweapons.com/rifles/trw-low-maintenance-rifle/]TRW[/url] or a sample from our vast collection of captured insurgent weapons would be perfect, but they don't need new-production thousand dollar ARs.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48063645] 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] Since when the fuck did I say they were full of wisdom? The guy I was replying to was talking about world war 2 weapons and I replied with a simple fact about their use today, cut the edgy bullshit, I'm not in favor of the Taliban.
[QUOTE=ossumsauce;48065024]It's not that M16s are bad. the AR-15 platform is actually a really high-quality design. It's just that, well, the M16A2s that some guardsman still use have been in use since the early 80's. They're old, and very, very worn down. Still functional, but i wouldnt trust my life to a 30 y/o surplus M16A2 in the middle of the desert.[/QUOTE] these guys are putting their lives in hands of even more run down equipment, so yeah
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;48060711]If the U.S. Actually sent the Pesh and YPG/J weapons they'd be real better off.[/QUOTE] Not really, since the majority of ammo stores the pesh probably have is warpac 7,62 as opposed to nato 5,56. Which is the reason weapons they get from some post soviet euro countries are incredibly well received. The Vz58s,s SkSs or polish AKMs are all fairly tried weapons and in most cases well maintained. Couple that with these countries also giving the pesh a lot of ammo...
[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] Couldn't they just replace that with a metal version on all the rifles?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48063645]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.[/QUOTE] Except soviets actually returned all of the supplies given by Land-Lease. Which then promptly got scrapped, right there on the spot (much to the confusion of the Soviet personnel, who actually repaired and cleaned the equipment, assuming it would be reused).
[QUOTE=gufu;48066745]Except soviets actually returned all of the supplies given by Land-Lease. Which then promptly got scrapped, right there on the spot (much to the confusion of the Soviet personnel, who actually repaired and cleaned the equipment, assuming it would be reused).[/QUOTE] I haven't seen anything about them returning our stuff, all I've read is that we charged them 1.3 billion for it, and they refused to pay. Eventually we settled for $722 million and wrote the rest off.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48064975]Do you guys even know who the Kurds are? There a very Westernized group of people located in Northern Iraq. They even let Women serve in their Army. That's better than the US. As soon as the War against ISIS ends, there not going to immediately turn around towards the US and go ALLAHU ACKBAR and start bombing the place. At most they're just going to try to gain Independence from Iraq.[/QUOTE] They're going to go right around and use the weapons against countries such as Irak and Turkey. I'm all for an independent Kurdistan, but I can't support arming known terrorist organizations. Freedom fighters one day, terrorists the next.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48063645]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. [/QUOTE] Per the US Army, the combat effective range (the range at which a trained operator will either disable or fully suppress an enemy) of the M4 carbine is [B]50 meters[/B]. The maximum point-target range is 500 meters, but that's for hitting a stationary target, not for a firefight. [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48063645]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. [/QUOTE] My initial proposal was mostly facetious. We would at the very least want to limit the weapons to a single caliber, and to those which reasonably effective in combat. If we standardize on 7.62x39mm, though, an SKS in good condition would be perfectly usable. [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;48063645]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.[/QUOTE] The Kurds have shown an ability to govern themselves, defend themselves, and care for themselves. They need assistance now only because the threat is also being externally supplied and funded. Also, small arms are not going to be a serious blowback for us should they somehow turn on us. Even crew-served HMGs or mortars would not be much of a threat, since they're so ammunition-reliant. I would be wary of giving them RPGs or MANPADs, but there seems to be no real use for them anyways. And I will note that we gave the Taliban Stinger missiles back in the 80s, and if they were used against us post-2001, I am not aware of it. In any case, materiel support - arming the people who live on the ground to [B]be[/B] our boots on the ground - is clearly better than fighting the war ourselves. Air strikes and SEAL raids will only inspire more people to fight against America - if we want the war to eventually end, it needs to be done on local terms, not by our own forces. PS: Arming the Soviets in WW2 won the war. If it weren't for that, the Germans would have been able to deploy much larger forces in the west, and the war would have gone much worse for the Allies. And the arms themselves did not contribute to the following Cold War, except in that it helped the USSR continue to exist. I'd say it was worth it.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48068171]Per the US Army, the combat effective range (the range at which a trained operator will either disable or fully suppress an enemy) of the M4 carbine is [B]50 meters[/B].[/QUOTE] Serious question, have you ever shot a rifle? Basic [URL="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/index_2011.html"]Army field manuals[/URL] provide instructions for engaging point targets under battlefield conditions at ranges of 200-300m for urban warfare. Combat at three to five hundred meters has been common in Iraq and Afghanistan and the M4 has performed fine. It's the combat at five hundred to a thousand meters out in the foothills of Kandahar that makes some call for a return to 7.62x51 or a new caliber like 6.5 or 6.8mm. The fact that you're suggesting an SKS suggests to me that, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, you really don't have much experience with actual firearms. An SKS is, in the hands of a typical soldier, just an AK with a tiny internal magazine and no automatic fire capability. It was obsolete even when it was brand new, that's why it was only issued to militias and rear echelon units while AKs were the primary arm. Assault rifles do not have a range measured in double digits and giving the Kurds our stores of captured AKs will do just fine.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;48064975][the Kurds] even let Women serve in their Army. That's better than the US.[/QUOTE] The US lets women serve in the army too, it's just very few of them are able to past the physical examinations.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48068171] I would be wary of giving them RPGs or MANPADs, but there seems to be no real use for them anyways. And I will note that we gave the Taliban Stinger missiles back in the 80s, and if they were used against us post-2001, I am not aware of it.[/QUOTE] I'd make the case that they might need Anti-Tank weaponry because ISIS has been fielding armored vehicles as suicide bombs. Usually they're scrap metal armored trucks, but they have been known to use MRAPs, a BMP, and even a tank in one situation. They do still operate some tanks that they've captured from the Syrian Army.
[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 weapons like the sten guns are effective up to about 100m... which is nothing when your probably shooting across a field of about 300-600m or mountain ranges up to 1.2km.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.