That explains those tacky “Designed by Sandia in New Mexico” labels on the back of our nukes.
Hmm…he was specifically refering to inexpensive small arms. Doesn’t mean that America/NATO countries don’t sell expensive big weapons.
Russian tactics relied on strong top down leadership with little or no innovation at the lowest level. It worked well for countries in which their troops may not be very well educated. Soviet/Russian equipment designed for export is simplistic compared to most U.S. equipment and required a lot less training.
In the Middle East it used to be just everyone against Israel. We supplied Israel, the Soviets supplied everyone else. Now it’s a bit more complicated. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and probably a few others are getting U.S. exported heavy weapons and equipment up to and including M1 tanks.
Back during the Cold War my company was brought to a place in Germany where they had a bunch of old Soviet equipment. We were allowed to crawl in and on all of it. It was pretty cool. No one would say where the equipment came from but it was pretty obvious it was from one of the wars with Israel. One of the old MIGs there had instruments with only English writing. Obviously an export model. It was all very interesting. Of course just a few months latter Desert Storm happened and every unit had a more modern captured Soviet vehicle on static display in from of the orderly room.
The Soviet Union literally poured out weapons during it’s time, arming anyone and everyone that even vaguely opposed the US/Western Europe, said key words like ‘revolution’ or were remotely Communist in any sense of that word. They also basically licensed (though that’s probably not the right word) their designs for manufacturing everywhere with the above caveat as well, which was a problem once the Soviet Union collapsed since it meant it was harder for them to sell new weapons (they still manage to do so, though now they actually sell them for money instead of giving them away free with every bottle of vodka purchased).
Syria and Iraq were both recipients of Soviet Era largess, as was Egypt and several other nations in the region. As noted, Iran, ironically, actually had US made equipment until the change in leadership. Since Iraq also had a change in leadership fairly recently, they had a large amount of US equipment, some of which has now fallen into ISIS hands…so, I guess to answer the question in the title, no…not ALL of the US enemies us Soviet/Russian weapons. Some of them use US weapons (and some actually use French or Israeli weapons, as well as German and some other nations brands/types).
The ISIS MIGs you mentioned were probably non-flying (‘hanger queens’) that the Syrians had, which as noted were Soviet era sales or gifts to Syria.
Huh?
“That’s Argentinians!” “But they’re on our side of the hill, they’re wearing British uniforms, and they’re speaking English?”. “Won’t foul me. They have automatic-enabled SLR. :mad:”
At night, in dense forest, or with smoke obscuring visibility, a certain amount of covering fire is directed at what you hear because you can’t see a damn thing.
I agree that when things are calm, nobody is going to fire up the friendly squad on their flank. But unless you’ve done it, you have no idea how F*ed up a firefight can get.
That was a concern of using captured AKs. Those sound different as well.
A capitalist country:A highly vertical integrated company::Former communist country:A concept where products are made by whomever in the free market?
Vichy France operated a number of American-built aircraft, including the Curtiss Hawk 75 (the immediate predecessor of the Curtiss Tomahawk/Warhawk) and the Douglas DB-7 (also known as the A-20 Havoc or Douglas Boston). At the very least, a number of DB-7s were strafed by US Navy fighters during Operation Torch. I’m not sure how much air-to-air combat the battle involved or if the US forces got mixed up in it or if that was a pure British/French affair.
Also, the Japanese did a bit of catch-and-return with American fighters that they captured in Asia, including operating a small number of Curtiss Warhawks in Japanese markings, due to a waste-not-want-not attitude combined with limited resupply from home (at least one of which was shot down in a friendly fire incident).
Also, some interesting trivia, the Douglas DC-3, famous for its service with the Allies during WWII, was license-built in Japan, with about 500 seeing service during the war. This evidently caused no small degree of confusion to pilots and gunners on both sides of the conflict. This was in addition to a smaller number of American-built DC-3s operated by Japanese airlines that were pressed into military service.
More recently, I seem to recall that the Taliban had some American weapons leftover from the Soviet-Afghan War, including some Stinger missiles.
I’ve never been in combat, but I like this little story from Andy Rooney (and I’ve posted it before):
I’d wonder whether the Argies and Tommies used the same tracer ammo. My understanding of jungle fighting in SE Asia in the 60s is that, while the AK might be more reliable than the early M-16, shooting green (or red: I forget who had who, not being there.) tracers with that sound would get your ass killed. The jungle does make IFF difficult.
Not sure whether full auto FAL fire would confuse matters but, IIRC, the SAS had an unfortunate blue on blue during operations on W. Falkland. So maybe it would’ve complicated things?
FWIW, in WW2, from what I’ve read, on the Eastern front at least, both sides used each others’ weapons that were better than the issued stuff: Germans (and allies) with PPSh-whatevers; Soviets with MG-42s or Panzerfausts.
As to the USA throwing down on enemies, the Panama campaign, at least, had Airborne Soldiers (or is it Troopers?) fighting against U.S. and French issue (the armored cars) weaponry. For a certain value of “allies”, U.S. forces in Afghanistan occasionally faced opponents with Lee-Enfields from, jeez, probably the early 20s? Earlier? I don’t think they ran into anybody with Martini-Henry’s, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
There were 186 Gripens in service with military users as of January 2013.
Czech Republic
The Czech Air Force has 14 Gripens on lease; these include 12 single-seat C models and two two-seat D models, in operation in January 2013.
Hungary
The Hungarian Air Force operates 14 Gripens (12 C-models and two D-models) on a lease-and-buy arrangement as of January 2013.
South Africa
The South African Air Force (SAAF) ordered 26 aircraft; 17 single-seat C-models and nine two-seater D-models. The first delivery, a two-seater, took place on 30 April 2008. The South African Air Force has 17 JAS-39Cs and 9 JAS-39Ds in service.
Sweden
The Swedish Air Force originally ordered 204 aircraft, including 28 two-seaters. Sweden leases 28 of the aircraft, to the Czech and Hungarian Air Forces. The SwAF has 134 JAS 39s, including 50 JAS 39As, 13 JAS 39Bs, 60 JAS 39Cs and 11 JAS 39D Gripens in inventory in January 2013, with approximately 100 JAS 39C/D Gripens in operational use (including 31 A models refitted to the C level). The 60 original JAS 39Cs are to be retrofitted to the E level by 2023.
Thailand
The Royal Thai Air Force has ordered 12 JAS 39 Gripens (eight single-seat JAS 39C and four JAS 39D two-seaters). It had six JAS 39s, including four JAS 39Cs, and two JAS 39Ds in use as of January 2013. Nine were delivered in April 2013. Another three were delivered in September 2013. On 18 October 2013, the Thai government announced their intentions to purchase another six Gripens.
United Kingdom
The Empire Test Pilots’ School operates Gripens for training. ETPS instructor pilots and students undergo simulator training with the Swedish Air Force, and go on to fly the two-seater Gripen at Saab in Linköping, in two training campaigns per year (Spring and Autumn). The agreement was renewed in 2008.
Of course to paraphrase Palmerston: ‘A country has neither permanent friends nor permanent interests’
Several people have alluded to the reason why enemies of the United States don’t use American weapons. Modern weapons are generally not a one-time purchase. You need to buy an ongoing supply of ammunition and replacement parts. And you don’t want to be in a situation where an enemy country can shut down your military by turning off the supply line.
Probably not related, but for a fun fact, the last Enfield-based rifles were issued 1963-1975 to the Indian armed forces.
Pakistan’s military arsenal consists overwhelmingly of US hardware. So here’s one heck of an enemy that is officially supplied by the US. Unless you count Pakistan as the “most allied ally”, that is.
Still does, in a manner of speaking. The Mk. I Merkava is largely based around the bones of the Centurion, and some parts (like the tracks) are essentially identical.
Consider the H&K G3 rifle, which is used and often also manufactured under license by a lot of “non-aligned” or outright US-unfriendly nations, including Iran.
Pakistan has a real mix of weapons, and it’s certainly not ‘overwhelmingly of US hardware’. Overwhelmingly, it’s still old Soviet era crap with a mix of modern stuff. Most of the US stuff they have, especially the tracked vehicles and such are older generation cast offs for the most part.
I dont see why. they were basically the same rifle except one was metric and the other imperial. why would they sound different?
Stingers have a shelf life of about 4-5 years. The batteries and coolant did not last from the 80s until now. There are plenty of other countries that could have supplied shoulder fired weapons. Most likely Russian built.