[baboon6]

I have read a fair amount about the war in Vietnam and seen many photos and documentaries. I was always under the impression that, besides MACV-SOG on cross-border operations and possibly other special operations units, US use of Soviet/Chinese weapons was mainly limited to emergencies. In other words, a soldier runs out ammo or something similar on the battlefield, so he grabs an AK and uses that for the duration of the firefight. Yet someone on another forum, who claims to have served with an armoured cavalry unit in Vietnam, writes that he threw away his M16 after one or two battles, and that he and most of the men in his unit carried AKs from then on. I have always suspected him of being a liar and a fantasist but maybe I am biased. So what was the real situation? Of course I am sure a few individuals in line infantry or cavalry units may have used AKs but this man's statement to me just sounds like nonsense.

[Damian]

Myth, AK/AKS and AKM/AKMS got distinctive sound when fire (different than M16), in jungle where you don't see enemy, soldiers most often shoot in direction from where sound of this weapons were heard, so only someone that wan't suicide in normal units use AK/AKS or AKM/AKMS or Chinese copies. Soldiers just use their normal weapons.

[Paul in Qatar]

The US had a nifty black operation that spiked AK ammunition with high explosives. They would leave the ammo on the battlefield and the PAVN would police up and reuse the ammunition. Needless to say, the stuff would blow up in the chamber.

The US (through PM magazine and other sources) told US soldiers not to use captured AKs and they were of poor quality. This effort was to keep the Americans from hurting themselves and also to spread discontent amongst the enemy. There was nothing wrong with the rifles of course, they were damaged by the American ammunition.

So take your pick. American GIs using captured weapons was so common that it had to be discouraged, or so few GIs used AKs that they could safely be sabotaged.

[baboon6]

Paul in Qatar, on Mon 7 Sep 2009 1159, said:

The US had a nifty black operation that spiked AK ammunition with high explosives. They would leave the ammo on the battlefield and the PAVN would police up and reuse the ammunition. Needless to say, the stuff would blow up in the chamber.

The US (through PM magazine and other sources) told US soldiers not to use captured AKs and they were of poor quality. This effort was to keep the Americans from hurting themselves and also to spread discontent amongst the enemy. There was nothing wrong with the rifles of course, they were damaged by the American ammunition.

So take your pick. American GIs using captured weapons was so common that it had to be discouraged, or so few GIs used AKs that they could safely be sabotaged.

I've heard of this sabotage operation before. I don't want to "take my pick". I want to know the facts.

[thekirk]

I believe the sabotage program worked a little differently--From what I recall, it was mostly the recon folks inserting the ammo into the supply dumps up along the Ho Chi Minh trail. The program was called "Eldest Son", and was the product of MACV-SOG.

Website of unknown veracity on this subject:

http://www.jcs-group...64/project.html

As to the use of the AK-47? Outside of various recon and SOCOM formations, I don't believe it was very prevalent. The M16, once over its initial teething issues, was deemed "good enough" by most of the veterans I've known. The few real combat vets I talked to about this issue just laughed at the idea. That you're going to rely on the enemy for your ammo resupply? Ludicrous. AK-47s were around, as captures and trophy weapons, and they did fire them for familiarity (pre-Eldest Son, that is--there were emphatic "Safety of Use" messages that went out about captured weapons, and few were willing to violate those).

The claim you're hearing is pretty much prima facie evidence for the writer being a fraud. Vietnam veterans I know and trust have used similar claims to "out" fraudulent vets in the past. Widespread use of the AK-47 just didn't happen outside the SOCOM and MACV-SOG community, and they only did so to create confusion in the enemy ranks.

[X-Files]

baboon6, on Mon 7 Sep 2009 1618, said:

I have read a fair amount about the war in Vietnam and seen many photos and documentaries. I was always under the impression that, besides MACV-SOG on cross-border operations and possibly other special operations units, US use of Soviet/Chinese weapons was mainly limited to emergencies. In other words, a soldier runs out ammo or something similar on the battlefield, so he grabs an AK and uses that for the duration of the firefight. Yet someone on another forum, who claims to have served with an armoured cavalry unit in Vietnam, writes that he threw away his M16 after one or two battles, and that he and most of the men in his unit carried AKs from then on. I have always suspected him of being a liar and a fantasist but maybe I am biased. So what was the real situation? Of course I am sure a few individuals in line infantry or cavalry units may have used AKs but this man's statement to me just sounds like nonsense.

Your guy is only regurgitating something Kalashnikov, has spouted 3 1/2 years ago -

"In Vietnam, American soldiers threw away their M-16 rifles and used (Kalashnikov) AK-47s from dead Vietnamese soldiers, with bullets they captured. That was because the climate is different to America, where M-16s may work properly," he said.

"Look what's happening now: every day on television we see that the Americans in Iraq have my machine guns and assault rifles in their armored vehicles. Even there American rifles don't work properly."*

http://www.wayodd.co...he-best/v/2503/

* Slight bullshit - During the drive on Baghdad, M-1 crews picked up AK47s since they were short on small arms ( one M16 and four M9 pistols per tank).

This post has been edited by X-Files: 07 September 2009 - 1535 PM

[thekirk]

It's also a pretty common contention amongst posuers, who only hear the bitching about the M16. I heard crap like that while going to quite a few gun shows, over the years, and it became a pretty reliable barometer as to whether or not the idiot in question had actually been there, or not.

Amongst all the verified "real" vets I know and talked to over the years, none ever made a contention even remotely similar to this. A couple of them mentioned that they sometimes wished they could have, but the supply and ID issues prevented them from doing so... Outside of the initial early fielding, the M16 was "good enough" for almost everyone.

The most common statement I ever heard from a Vietnam vet regarding the M16? "Don't believe that BS... Take care of your weapon, and it will take care of you...".

Of course, some of these same guys lauded the M60, which was manifestly a POS, in my personal experience. Take that for what it's worth.

[Doug Kibbey]

thekirk, on Mon 7 Sep 2009 2134, said:

The most common statement I ever heard from a Vietnam vet regarding the M16? "Don't believe that BS... Take care of your weapon, and it will take care of you...".

Of course, some of these same guys lauded the M60, which was manifestly a POS, in my personal experience. Take that for what it's worth.

"Value fell to a record low today"

[shep854]

Doug Kibbey, on Mon 7 Sep 2009 2005, said:

"Value fell to a record low today"

Ah, c'mon, Doug..."We all know" that you could ditch the Pig for a PKM whenever it choked. :P

This post has been edited by shep854: 07 September 2009 - 2212 PM

[thekirk]

I kinda figured that would bring the heat... :)

One thing I noticed about genuine Vietnam vets--most laud the M60, and have a grudging respect for the M16, so long as you're talking about the later part of the war. Guys who went through the early fielding period absolutely loathe the M16, and I don't blame them. The people responsible for that fiasco should have answered with their lives, frankly. I have a grudging respect for the supposed Samurai tradition of shoving the pieces of a broken sword up the swordsmith's bunghole... I think that would certainly cause some more care to be devoted to fielding things.

Why the hell the M60 did so much better in Vietnam than it did for me, personally, I'll never know. My entire career as an NCO, that thing was one of my bete noirs--I was never happier than when I got to handle the M240s when they came in.

Although, I do sometimes wonder if the lubrication change we went through early in my career didn't have something to do with it. Break-Free may be an ideal lubricant for the M16, but I seriously dislike it for anything else. No cushioning for the moving parts, which the LSA series of lubricants provided so nicely.

[Luke Y]

His name wasn't 'Connors' was it? :P

And good to see we're onto 'M60 POS/Awesome' debate #125435538, I wonder how useful it would be in triple turrets for NGFS? :lol:

[shep854]

There was a love/hate M60 MG thread not too long ago; participants agreed to disagree. As an outsider, the conclusion I came to was that when troops got the proper log support (parts/lubricants) it was fine, otherwise, it choked. Also, like any machine, as the guns wore out, reliability went to the toilet.

What I found interesting was a note (I believe it was in one of Tony Williams' post) that the Brits were looking at the M60E3 as a lighter alternative for the L7 GPMG.

This post has been edited by shep854: 08 September 2009 - 0746 AM

[baboon6]

shep854, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 0739, said:

There was a love/hate M60 MG thread not too long ago; participants agreed to disagree. As an outsider, the conclusion I came to was that when troops got the proper log support (parts/lubricants) it was fine, otherwise, it choked. Also, like any machine, as the guns wore out, reliability went to the toilet.

What I found interesting was a note (I believe it was in one of Tony Williams' post) that the Brits were looking at the M60E3 as a lighter alternative for the L7 GPMG.

I think it was something I posted- it was for only a limited number of weapons, presumably for special forces use. The Mk48 was mentioned too (as were one or two other weapons) and I would be very surprised if that wasn't the one picked. For mainstream use the UK like the US wants to lighten the MAG by replacing some parts with some made of titanium.

[baboon6]

Luke_Yaxley, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 0552, said:

His name wasn't 'Connors' was it? :P

And good to see we're onto 'M60 POS/Awesome' debate #125435538, I wonder how useful it would be in triple turrets for NGFS? :lol:

No!
Though a year or two ago Connors was posting his drivel on ARRSE- he didn't last very long...

[X-Files]

thekirk, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 0422, said:

Why the hell the M60 did so much better in Vietnam than it did for me, personally, I'll never know. My entire career as an NCO, that thing was one of my bete noirs--I was never happier than when I got to handle the M240s when they came in.

Be glad you were never exposed to the M213 and M85. <_<

[chino]

thekirk, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 1222, said:

One thing I noticed about genuine Vietnam vets--most laud the M60, and have a grudging respect for the M16, so long as you're talking about the later part of the war.

From what I read decades ago, the M16 bullet did more damage than the AK47. Enemy shot with M16 were found to hard severe internal damage or an M16 bullet hitting at the right joint can take a limb off.

The VC and NVA had a healthy respect for it certainly.

I am reading a book called AK47 by Larry Kahaner and he repeated this ballistic performance fact. And his book is vetted by gun writer Charlie Cutshaw among others.

OTOH, these days I read nothing but negative reports about the M16 - or is it M4? - ballistic performance with fans calling for something bigger.

This post has been edited by chino: 08 September 2009 - 1016 AM

[Simon Tan]

People who could, often did have AK47s in their armories. The SEAL Teams had them and received US made brass cased sanitized ammo. They were valued for not being easily distinguishable by report as American weapons.
In a line unit, an AK would be a rather bad idea as you would attract friendly attention.
Units were known to keep contraband weapons but it would be a challenge to keep your AK fed as a primary weapon.
Larry Kahaner's book is not a particularly useful work on the subject.

Simon

[chino]

Simon Tan, on Tue 8 Sep 2009 2342, said:

Larry Kahaner's book is not a particularly useful work on the subject.

Simon

I quote:
"...reports reached Washington about the lethality of the new weapon (AR15)...American commanders and their Vietnamese counterparts were especially impressed by the gunshot signatures seen in dead enemy soldiers, with reports of limbs being blown apart and chest cavities exploding after being hit by the high velocity bullets."

Sounds like he wasn't stating his personal opinion... plus he had Charlie Cutshaw credited as gun facts checker.

I read similar reports of the M16's wounding effect in many other publications from decades ago, including the VC/NVA's fear of the weapon's wounding capabilities.

The AK, OTOH, did less tissue damage.

This post has been edited by chino: 08 September 2009 - 1243 PM

[thekirk]

There's a lot we really don't know about the early days of the AR-15 in Vietnam. The reports I've seen seem to indicate that we'd fielded a "super-weapon", and then... Not so much. The initial stuff I've read from those days is really out there, in some ways--reports of limbs blown off, hydrostatic shock kills, things of that nature. You'd almost think that some of the reports were written by Armalite sales representatives... I think a couple of these are available from DTIC.

There were a lot of differences between the weapons and ammo used in the initial field testing, and what we eventually issued en masse to everybody else. When you add in who was actually using the weapons, you have to wonder how much impact there was based on who was doing the shooting in the early days--from what I remember, the initial weapon fielding went to SF guys, and some Vietnamese troops they'd trained. As such, were they more proficient with small arms than the average draftee?

[seahawk]

In the books I have read, I have read soldiers trying to get an M14, M2 or even a Thomson, but I never read about a large scale use of Aks. Some small units maybe did, and I read one memory where it was kept in the bunker next to the MG. If they felt an attack was coming they would fire the AK into the air by the backdoor of the bunker and hope that the VC would open up and expose their position. Seemed to have worked once, according to the book.