I was reading a book about the Marines in Iraq during the current war and there was a character who used an AK-47. I’ve also heard stories from friends in the services of guys picking up enemy AKs and using them instead of their issued M16.
How common is this? How easy is it to get away with - wouldn’t an officer object to it, or are there are a lot of guys who don’t mind?
Moreover, does the U.S. military in Iraq keep stocks of 7.62x39? If not, how do these AK-using American operators supply their weapons? Just by collecting captured ammunition? Do they buy it or trade it from the Iraqi army guys?
Could a guy carry a G3 or an M14 if he felt like it? If he was an officer in the field with a great deal of autonomy?
I recall reading that, early in the war, some U.S. armored troops pressed into infantry or security duties took to carrying AKs, mostly due to the availability of the weapons and ammunition (most of the latter was captured, or found abandoned, IIRC), and the weapon’s long noted reliability.
I’ve read David Bellavia’s House to House* which is about his time in Iraq in 2004. There’s a pic of a Sergeant with a M14 during a Fallujah battle. Apart from another Sergeant who was using a shotgun and a couple of M16’s used by others, every other weapon is current USA issue. He does talk about souveniring a Czech SKS with a 75 round drum mag, but I gather he not planning to use it.
*I wouldn’t recommend reading this book if you have loved ones in combat.
Now that you’re online, Nenno, maybe you can clear this up. Can an officer in the field, with sufficient autonomy, just use whatever weapon he damn well pleases? Could he go out there with an 1894 Winchester lever-action if he wanted to? A Garand or an M1 Carbine or whatever?
Paragraph 6 of GENERAL ORDER 1 prohibits “Purchasing, possessing, using or selling privately owned firearms, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into USCENTCOM AOR. Purchasing, possessing, using, selling or introducing into the USCENTCOM AOR other privately owned weapons is also weapons is also prohibited. Only military issued weapons are authorized.”
How strictly is that enforced though? Do the Marines in Afghanistan or Iraq who use captured AK’s actually get punished for it, or is it overlooked? (Forgive me if I’m asking too many questions here - it’s just that you’re the authority on this field, I’d think.)
Unless the Marines were part of a MTT Team (that trains, supervises, mentors, and works along side Iraqi Army conducting operations) and were using them for confidence and/or integration purposes, I couldn’t imagine any Marine actually using an AK. And certainly not one that was just picked up or confiscated. I haven’t come across a single AK–either in a cache, or just some civilian’s personal weapon–that I would ever even consider using as a primary weapon. They’re junk. And even if they were in like new, pristine condition… that doesn’t account for the fact that 7.62 not aquired through US resources (ie, confiscated or found in theatre) is absolute garbage!!
So the unlikely exception of a Marine actually patrolling with an AK, most likely has one that was issued through official or semi-official channels, and is using ammunition issued through his supply, or otherwise supplied through American contracts.
There are four powers enforcing this and actively discouraging the use of confiscated or personal weapons.
The soldier’s or Marine’s own common sense. The weapons are crap, and the ammo is garbage compared to what he was issued.
His own discipline. (Admitedly this is probably the weakest influence)
The fact that even if some Marine’s superior officer “looks the other way”, there is so much interaction between units, someone would notice. And someone would definitely call him on it.
The “No Fair!!” fairy. Someone will be jealous or feeled they are treated different and someone will speak up! Hell, as soon as that particular Marine pissed off another… there’d be snitching and sworn statements and all kinds of crap would surface about who was using illegal arms and ammo, etc.
Basically, I’m not saying that everyone follows every single rule found in GO 1. I know the prohibitions on porn and alcohol… and gambling are among them. [counts wad of 100s…]
But carrying around a weapon is way to obvious and out there in the open for all to see. It would be career suicide for any officer or NCO to “look the other way”. I just can’t see it happening on an everyday basis. Maybe one time on one day some smart-ass dismounted with an AK… okay I can see that. But using it as a primary weapon as a matter of standard practice? No way.
And as I said before, if anyone is using an AK, its for integration issues (ie MTT Team) or blending in issues (ie SF Teams acting covertly). But I know pleanty of both, and none of them use AKs or even would want to. Hell, SF Teams have money they can spend on whatever the hell they want. They can bring over all the AKs they want through official channels… none of them are carrying any that I’ve seen.
Also, isn’t the sound of an AK distinctive? And I would imagine US soldiers tend to interpret that sound as “bad guy”. Toting an AK seems like a good way to draw friendly fire.
In this same vein, I recall reading some soldiers saying “straight magazine=good guy, curved magazine=bad guy.” Could be another reason to avoid the AK.
When the Viet Nam war was still going on, and the M-16 was having teething problems, I saw an interview with some sergeant in the field who said the AK-47 being used by the NVA was much more reliable (at that time). Asked if he would consider picking up one and using it he replied not really, pointing out in a fierce fire-fight, nobody is really sticking their head up to look at anything, just firing at the other guy’s sounds. An AK in their midst would draw undue, unfriendly attention.
The USMC has used refurbished and accuratized M14s as the M21 Designated Marksman Rifle. Shotguns (mostly Remington 870 and Mossburg 590) are used for point position close quarters defense and embassy/consulate guard duty. It would not be atypical to see infantry carrying something other than the standard issue M4 carbine.
Carrying personal weapons into combat is a time-honored tradition (as is sneaking captured weapons home as trophies) that the U.S. military started to crack down upon about the time of Gulf War I. There are a number of good arguments for this, including issues with ammunition availability and reliability, the difficulty of identifying friendlies from enemies, and the not-insignificant consideration that such weapons are a prime target for theft. So, it tends to be punished administratively, i.e. the weapon is taken away and destroyed if found, but I think actual criminal prosecution is rare.
Regarding the AK-47 in particular, while it has a general reputation as being “junk”, the Russian/Soviet built models at least are very robust, and while accuracy is nothing to write home about, it is sufficient for normal infantry use. The Chinese Norinco and other cheap knockoffs aren’t of great quality but still manage to be quite reliable in operation given the uneven grade of materials and quality of manufacture. The Kalashnikov design has been widely copied in some of the best regarded battle and assault rifles available, including the Galil family, Sako RK-62, Valmet M76, and the Zastava M21. No less an authority on comabt Colonel Charles “Chargin’ Charlie” Beckworth of 1st SFOD-D (Detachment Delta or colloquially known as “Delta Force”) had a very high regard for the AK-47 pattern gun as a reliable infantry rifle (and some real world experience on the disappointments of the M16).
Some covert SpecOps units have been known or alleged to carry AK-pattern rifles in efforts to blend in behind lines and be able to use collected ammunition in lieu of resupply; however, I would agree that using an identifiably enemy rifle in a free-fire zone is more likely to get you crossed by “friendly” fire than any benefit it would generally offer, and I doubt that troops carry them as a matter of course. Back in the days of Korea when front line soldiers were occasionally being issued the pathetic M1 Carbine, though, picking up an enemy SKS was a substantial improvement in range and stopping potential.
Argent, I just noticed you said that a character in a book is want prompted this question. Is this supposed to be nonfiction? What is the name of the book? What is the position of the character?
The book was “Generation Kill,” which is apparently also a TV show (which I have not watched.) The character in question, I cannot remember his name, but the passage went something like: “We were taking fire from the insurgents. Sgt. [something] fired back at them with his AK.” It was as simple as that, very matter-of-fact and not addressed again.
Early on in the occupation of Iraq, there was a very brief period when US personnel who were not usually issued an M-16A2 or M-4 carbine were authorized to carry AK’s if placed on patrol. That is to say, if the soldier was normally issued a only a handgun, the AK was authorized for use. After supply of M-4’s caught up with demand, the practice ceased. I was told about this by several returning veterans. It wasn’t a matter of preferring the AK to the M-4, it was a matter of needing a carbine when one was issued a pistol.
Well I’m not going to say it’s impossible… but that book was written by an embedded journalist. I wouldn’t expect him to know one weapon from another.
Also of note, these are supposed to be Force Recon, it would seem. As I said before, if I was going to believe a Marine had an AK, it would have to be Force Recon. Plus that book was written during the initial invasion… a time when the rules were still being rewritten/decided. So yea, I’m going to say that it’s not unlikely for a Force Recon Marine to be using an AK during the initial push to Baghdad.