Being a little ignorant about military matters, I sometimes can’t tell if I’m watching American or British troops on TV.
I have noticed that American troops use (I think) the M16, but British troops use a different rifle. I think it’s called an SA-something, but I’m not sure.
Why do they use different weapons, and which weapon is the best in a combat situation? Also, I haven’t seen any kind of scope on the M16, don’t the troops have a need for a scope, or are the iron sights good enough?
I forgot to add: How good are the Iraqi AK47s, how do they compare to coalition weapons, and what do they do with all the captured AK47s?
SA 80 Assault rifle.
As far as I am aware the SA-80 is far more modern than the M16 (which was used in Vietnam)
However, for all I know the M16s have been updated over the years.
The AK47s are older still. If I remember correctly the ‘47’ refers to the date of introduction of the gun (1947)
As for the diff’s between British and American troops, I usually can tell by the color of camo they have on. The Brits seem to have a darker camo than the Americans.
Click here for a list of all the weapons a US marine could carry. The site is very interesting…I’d hate to be an Iraqi combatant.
Having said that - I am also mostly ignorant on military matters. I have picked up one or two snippets of knowledge from a military-mad friend of mine.
Jesus H Christ in a lime green cadillac, that’s some firepower. The weapon of choice as a primary seems to be the M16 though. Another issue - do all troops carry a sidearm, and what is it?
It confuses me too (the troops) as traditionaly UK troops wear green and us - sand. But the UK troops have been wearing sand coloured helmets.
The difference becomes blindingly obvious when you hear them speak.
Also - the UK army wear red berets (when not wearing helmets) The UK SAS wear sand coloured berets, so if you see any guys wearing sand coloured berets, well, you shouldnt have, because SAS soldiers are never to be identified.
The SA-80 is a “bullpup” design (the magazine is aft of the pistol grip) which makes it more compact. The M-16 has indeed been upgraded over the years. I have a 1979 Colt AR-15, which is the civilian (semi-auto) version of the (selective-fire) M-16. During the Vietnam war, we got the M-16A1 which had a forward-assist plunger. The M-16A2 has the more-sturdy round handguards, a slightly longer buttstock, a fully-adjustable rear sight, and a heavier barrel. One of my other AR-15s is in this configuration. The early-style is much lighter than the newer one. The newer style feels more “serious”. The latest version (I don’t know what it’s called unless I look it up) has deleted the full-auto capability and replaced it with a three-round burst mode.
…and it is a POS. Seriously. They’ve had problems with it since it was designed. You would think after decades of work and millions of pounds they would just scrap it and use a M-16 or some HK variant.
Here’s the latest article on the problems with the SA-80
But of course they still use it…
Does the UK military posess M16s? If not they have no choice but to use the SA 80s. Personally I like the look of them, but if they are no good, they are no good.
Was I right about the age of the AK47?
They spent $230 million to rebuild 100,000 rifles? That’s $2,300 each. To rebuild. They should have gotten brand-new rifles from the factory for that price!
By way of comparison, I paid $400 twenty years ago for my Colt AR-15. I have a semi-auto version of the M-16A2 by Bushmaster that cost around $1,000 (more or less – I built it myself) before Clinton’s ban. The Bushmaster is as close as a civilian can get to the M-16A2. The cost of the few parts required to give it three-round burst (if it were legal) is minimal. I got a brand-new rifle for about a kilobuck – which is half what the British paid to “revamp” their SA-80s.
Lobsang: Yeah, I like the looks of the SA-80 too. Pretty. And yes, the AK-47 was adopted in 1947. Some years later – and I don’t know when it was – the Soviets started using the AKM, the “avtomat kalashnikova modernizerovanyi” or “modernized automatic Kalashnikov”. IIRC, these had laminated stocks and stamped receivers. The laminated stocks were tougher than plain walnut, and the stamped receivers were cheaper, less labour-intensive, and lighter than the milled receivers of the AK-47. There are so many variants, and they were and are produced in so many countries, that it’s hard to be definitive about the AK-series.
The thing about the M-16 and the related family of guns is that it’s very customizable. For instance, CNN’s site greeted me with a picture of a solidier using a rather nice gun this morning, an M4A1 (much like the M-16 but with a shorter barrel and a sliding stock) with a scope and grenade launcher. The SA-80 has an integrated scope, but as far as I know it doesn’t allow for as much customization. And, as has been mentioned, it’s supposed to be crap.
Just as an additional note, the earlier 7.62 mm AK-47/AKM’s have mostly been superseded by the the AK-74 variants, which are chambered for a smaller 5.45 mm cartridge. Accordingly it is a lot closer in muzzle-velocity and effective range to the M16 than the older models.
I have no idea to what extent Iraq in particular has re-tooled and replaced older model AK-47’s ( it’s not a sexy upgrade for a third world military, though arguably it is a very effective one ), but I don’t doubt that it maight at least partially have. The AK-74 variants have been around since at least the mid-70’s.
Of course, the easiest way to identify a member of the SAS is by the large black rectangle they all wear over their faces. Imagine how effective they’d be if they took those things off…
According to the bbc news website (sorry can’t find the exact page at the moment) the AKs that the British troops are confiscating are being stockpiled to potentially distribute to anti-saddam rebels in the Basra area.
And as far as i know, not all Brit troops wear the red beret - its particular to a certain unit (although thats only a gut feeling) i think it might be the paras or possibly even the MPs.
Where’s a Brit Army veteran when you need one?! 
IANABAV - but the Red Berets = the Paras (at least when you’re talking about the British Army).
I’m in the OTC, which is the British Army version of ROTC. The color of beret worn does depend, as noted, on the regiment you serve with. A few highlights:
- maroon berets are worn by those who have passed P-company, the parachuting course. This includes the Parachute Regiment, 7 Royal Horse Artillery (the Para Gunners) and various units of other support units, also para-qualified
- red berets (it's a much brighter color than the para berets) are worn by the military police
- Sandy coloured berets are worn by the SAS when they wear headdress - this is very rare, but at least once in the 60s/70s the SAS deployed to Ireland openly instead of covertly and patrolled in their berets.
- Tan berets are worn by the Guards regiments: most likely, if you see a beret that you think is sandy, it's probably a Guards beret.
- Green berets are worn by the Royal Marines, and by those members of the other services who have passed the Commando Course: this typically means members of 29 Commando Battery Royal Artillery and various other supporting units for the Marines.
You'll occasionally see head-dress even more bizarre than berets: the Scottish regiments wear tam o'shanters, and the Royal Irish wear a similar traditional head-dress, whose name escapes me. Hope this helps!the wearing of dodgy headwear has actually been turned into a bit of a " psychological weapon" by the British Army in two ways:
It not only helps the troops pick out their commander but also represents that perculiar “britishness” that can inspire troops to bravery out of patriotism etc.
Basically the British were generally better recieved by the local populations because as soon as the danger levels reached a “reasonable” level they’d:
never walk around/patrol in sunglasses
Look as non-offensive as possible
remove their helmets and don berets etc.
He basically said that one of the lessons they’d learnt in Ireland was that if you look scary then people will think you are scary.
But…
If you look like (in his words): “some damn fool englishman in a funny hat” people tend to be more curious than scared. They see you as a person (all be it a strange one) not as an instrument of war and they are more likely to be friendly, look to you for help etc.
I’ve seen stuff along this lines in a couple of news articles etc. as well. Including this article in the guardian newspaper the other day about what’s happening in Iraq (complete with tam o’shanter!).
He said that he used to hate going out with the Americans because you would literally go out completely tooled up for war - they were bloody good at going into places hard and fast and sorting out trouble, but they just didn’t always grasp the whole peacekeeping psychology thing.
He said then that if Britain and America ever fought together he wouldn’t be surprised if the Americans concentrated on offensives and keeping the thrust of the conflict going whilst the British specialised in consolidation and peacekeeping.
So basically guys, you rush around saving them and we’ll follow behind saying “there there, don’t worry, the scary americans have gone now…”
The SA80 was a good design badly implemented. There was an excellent TV documentary on it recently. The SAS have M16/M203 combinations, as well as pretty much any other make of weapon they’d like (primarily HK MP5 SMGs).
There is no hope in hell of the UK purchasing M16s or AK47s or G3s or any other rifle. The value of such contracts is enormous, and therefore make-or-break for manufacturers. Every major arms contract is a vast political morass between cost/efficiency considerations and political/economic considerations. Do you buy the cheap, proven foreign rifle, watching the jobs disappear and the money flow overseas, or the expensive local solution that lets you wave the flag for British industry?