[crazyinsane105]

Taliban Seek Rifles with More ‘Punch’?

One way of finding out what sort of weapons the Taliban favor is to go the usual military route: examine captured arsenals and look for shell casings after a firefight. Or you could just go and talk to the man who apparently sells them their weapons, as Guardian reporter Ghaith Abdul-Ahad recently did. The results were highly instructive.

Abdul-Ahab talked to a man named Hekmat, formerly a shopkeeper but now a wealthy smuggler. Hekmat made his fortune ferrying arms from Central Asia. He also deals in heroin, but prices are down this year, so apparently the real money is in guns. Surprisingly, the hot item is not the plain-vanilla Kalashnikov.

“It’s the Kalakov everyone wants,” the arms dealer tells Abdul-Ahad. “The Taliban like it because it pierces body armor.”

The Kalakov, evidently, is the name the Afghans give to the AK-74, a Russian weapon based on a 5.45mm cartridge. This is confirmed when Hekmat shows the comparatively smaller round for the rifle.

In some ways this should not come as any great surprise. The Soviets designed the 5.45mm round specifically to fight against Western armies who might have body armor, and have upgraded the standard bullets since its introduction in 1974. The original bullet had a mild steel core and a lead tip; a harder steel core was introduced in 1987 and this was enlarged in 1992 to create the 7N10 “improved penetration” round. This will punch through a Kevlar vest, but not hard ceramic inserts.

The AK-74 round has better penetration than the Russian 7.62×39mm round it replaced, as well as improved accuracy. This Japanese video shows that it also penetrates better than a 5.56mm from an M16A1 – but only in wood, which doesn’t tell us anything about armor-piercing properties.

If some Taliban fighters are apparently seeking to abandon the old 7.62 cartridge for a smaller caliber, there’s some irony here: Some commentators have argued that the current NATO 5.56mm — the standard round for the M16 rifle, M4 carbine and M249 light machine gun– is not lethal enough. Arguments about the effectiveness (or lack of it) of the 5.56mm round have been going on forever. Many of these go back to the introduction of the M16 in the 1960s, or are based on dubious “experiments” such as casually firing fifteen rounds into a tethered goat.

The U.S. Army Infantry Center carried out a detailed study of the effectiveness of the 5.56mm cartridge. This was prompted by anecdotal reports from Iraq and Afghanistan that the round “overpenetrated,” punching a hole right through an enemy combatant who was able to continue fighting. The study looked at several different 5.56mm alternatives as well as the NATO 7.62×51mm (.308 Winchester) used in the old M-14; it found no significant differences in effectiveness at “close quarters battle” ranges of up to fifty meters. It concludes that U.S. forces “are still being provided the best performing weapons and ammunition available.”

And if the Guardian report is correct, upgrading the Taliban arsenal with the AK-74 would be expensive. According to Hekmat, a Kalakov that costs $700 in Tajikistan sells for as much as $1,250 in southern Afghan provinces like Helmand. That sounds like a lot of money for a force whose hired help has been dubbed the “$10 Taliban” because of their low rates of pay.

Read More http://www.wired.com.../#ixzz0d1IxXOF1

[Tony Williams]

crazyinsane105, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 0230, said:

In some ways this should not come as any great surprise. The Soviets designed the 5.45mm round specifically to fight against Western armies who might have body armor, and have upgraded the standard bullets since its introduction in 1974. The original bullet had a mild steel core and a lead tip; a harder steel core was introduced in 1987 and this was enlarged in 1992 to create the 7N10 “improved penetration” round. This will punch through a Kevlar vest, but not hard ceramic inserts.

There are actually four different levels of penetration available in this calibre:

7N6 - standard ball round with mild steel core.
7N10 - small hardened-steel penetrator (penetration probably equivalent to 5.56mm SS109/M855). There have been two versions, with and without air cavity.
7N22 - AP bullet with machined core of high-carbon steel (no US equivalent in 5.56, although some other countries - including Canada - have offered steel-cored AP).
7N24 - AP bullet with tungsten alloy core (equivalent to 5.56mm M995).

Whether the Taliban would be able to get hold of the more advanced AP rounds is another matter, of course.

Quote

The U.S. Army Infantry Center carried out a detailed study of the effectiveness of the 5.56mm cartridge. This was prompted by anecdotal reports from Iraq and Afghanistan that the round “overpenetrated,” punching a hole right through an enemy combatant who was able to continue fighting. The study looked at several different 5.56mm alternatives as well as the NATO 7.62×51mm (.308 Winchester) used in the old M-14; it found no significant differences in effectiveness at “close quarters battle” ranges of up to fifty meters. It concludes that U.S. forces “are still being provided the best performing weapons and ammunition available.”

Conclusions which are in such stark contrast to the published judgments of the great majority of soldiers with battle experience of both the 5.56 and 7.62mm make the "detailed study" highly questionable.

Besides which, according to British Army analyses only 25% of small-arms engagements in Afghanistan have been at less than 170 metres (let alone 50) with more than half of fire-fights at over 300 metres, with the final quarter at 500-900m. The longer the distance, the more the 5.56 loses out.

This post has been edited by Tony Williams: 18 January 2010 - 2222 PM

[Lampshade111]

Tony Williams, on Mon 18 Jan 2010 2219, said:

Besides which, according to British Army analyses only 25% of small-arms engagements in Afghanistan have been at less than 170 metres (let alone 50) with more than half of fire-fights at over 300 metres, with the final quarter at 500-900m. The longer the distance, the more the 5.56 loses out.

Yet reverting to a full rifle caliber cartridge for Afghanistan probably isn't worth the headache it would cause afterwords, and at ranges greater than 500 meters I can't imagine firefights being little more than expending ammo trying to suppress the enemy. With the exception of dedicated marksmen, medium machine guns, and snipers that is.

[Tony Williams]

Lampshade111, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 0525, said:

Yet reverting to a full rifle caliber cartridge for Afghanistan probably isn't worth the headache it would cause afterwords, and at ranges greater than 500 meters I can't imagine firefights being little more than expending ammo trying to suppress the enemy. With the exception of dedicated marksmen, medium machine guns, and snipers that is.

I'm not suggesting entirely abandoning the 5.56mm in favour of going back to the 7.62mm (although there is a signficant shift going on in the British Army to replace many of the 5.56mm guns with 7.62mm). But there is a case for replacing the 5.56 with something a lot better, which would still have much less recoil and ammo weight than 7.62.

You are right that from standard infatry rifles the main purpose of long-fire is suppression, but the BA has discovered that the 5.56 is rubbish at that, too - it doesn't make much noise, so the Taliban ignore it.

[Luke Y]

Wasn't this exact article posted here months ago? :huh:

[TonyE]

Bring back the 6,5x55mm Krag!!!

[Dawes]

Seems like there's a niche for the old SMLE :P

[crazyinsane105]

Luke Y, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 0308, said:

Wasn't this exact article posted here months ago? :huh:

Oh sorry, did not realize that. :o

[Mike Steele]

crazyinsane105, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 0942, said:

Oh sorry, did not realize that. :o

Anything worth discussing is worth over discussing. :lol:

[Sami Jumppanen]

Tony Williams, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 0319, said:

Besides which, according to British Army analyses only 25% of small-arms engagements in Afghanistan have been at less than 170 metres (let alone 50) with more than half of fire-fights at over 300 metres, with the final quarter at 500-900m. The longer the distance, the more the 5.56 loses out.

Let me quess: Most of the firefights hapen when afghans ambush a convoy and just spray some bullets at it? I heard that some british platoon was allowed to conduct an ambush on Taleban and bagged like 8 of them, some of them died when they ran in the dark and fell from the hill. I could imagine that just the chance of ambush would reduce taleban movements a lot.

[crazyinsane105]

Sami Jumppanen, on Tue 19 Jan 2010 2221, said:

Let me quess: Most of the firefights hapen when afghans ambush a convoy and just spray some bullets at it? I heard that some british platoon was allowed to conduct an ambush on Taleban and bagged like 8 of them, some of them died when they ran in the dark and fell from the hill. I could imagine that just the chance of ambush would reduce taleban movements a lot.

Firefights in Afghanistan last hours on end from what I've been reading.

[Tony Williams]

Sami Jumppanen, on Wed 20 Jan 2010 0421, said:

Let me quess: Most of the firefights hapen when afghans ambush a convoy and just spray some bullets at it?

What makes you assume that they would "spray some bullets at it"? The Afghans grow up with guns, in the same way that our kids grow up with mobile phones, and they've always been a formidably effective enemy. I would be very surprised if the average Taliban fighter was not at least as capable of accurate aimed fire as the average Western infantryman.

It is a classic error to underestimate your enemy.

Quote

I heard that some british platoon was allowed to conduct an ambush on Taleban and bagged like 8 of them, some of them died when they ran in the dark and fell from the hill. I could imagine that just the chance of ambush would reduce taleban movements a lot.

Allowed? If that happened, it would have been a very rare example of ISAF troops actually getting accurate enough intelligence of Taliban movements far enough in advance to be able to set up an ambush. Most of the time, they first realise that the Taliban are in shooting range when they get shot at.

This post has been edited by Tony Williams: 20 January 2010 - 0433 AM

[Jussi Saari]

Tony Williams, on Wed 20 Jan 2010 0932, said:

What makes you assume that they would "spray some bullets at it"? The Afghans grow up with guns, in the same way that our kids grow up with mobile phones, and they've always been a formidably effective enemy. I would be very surprised if the average Taliban fighter was not at least as capable of accurate aimed fire as the average Western infantryman.

Could be there's big differences within Taliban as well, but so far the "firefights" at least the Finns at the northern and rather quieter parts of Afghanistan have been involved in have been more or less as Sami described: taking fire from very long range for a while, nobody gets hit, fire is sometimes returned, and eventually after a while the Taleban bug out. And usually little idea at the end about who and how many they were attacked by, and if there was Taleban casualties, because of the long range of the engagement.

[Sardaukar]

I think that is the reason, because I think for example in Kandahar, it tends to be more intensive.

[FALightFighter]

I recall the story of a similar ambush, but it was conducted by US forces in the north east (Viper CO, 1st Infantry Division, IIRC), unless you are thinking of a different incident.

Tony, I know you don't want to underestimate your enemy, but most Taliban have very little training, and operate on the spray and pray mode, combined with the fact that most of them have shot-out AKs, or even worse (I've even seen PPSh-41s in use). Unless you are in a few specific areas and facing hardcore fighters, you don't face well-aimed fire.

[shep854]

Take this for what it's worth, but I've read articles that indicated that Afgan marksmanship has declined drastically with the availability of AKs. Before the Soviet invasion, Lee-Enfields were the most sophisticated rifles (and many Afgans could only get single-shots) available and ammo was scarce, so a premium was placed on accuracy. Afterward, the youngsters became enamored with volume of fire, with an attendant decline of marksmanship.

[Luke Y]

Tony Williams, on Wed 20 Jan 2010 2002, said:

What makes you assume that they would "spray some bullets at it"? The Afghans grow up with guns, in the same way that our kids grow up with mobile phones

Thats an annoying misconception that simply isn't true.

[Tony Williams]

FALightFighter, on Wed 20 Jan 2010 1236, said:

Tony, I know you don't want to underestimate your enemy, but most Taliban have very little training, and operate on the spray and pray mode, combined with the fact that most of them have shot-out AKs, or even worse (I've even seen PPSh-41s in use). Unless you are in a few specific areas and facing hardcore fighters, you don't face well-aimed fire.

The reason for the rush by the BA to obtain 7.62mm weapons (first, giving foot patrols the L96 and L7 GPMG to carry, then obtaining the new L129A1 sharpshooer rifle, a lightened L7 and a new lightweight LMG) has nothing to do with AKs, let alone PPSh-41s. The problem is the Dragunov sniper rifle and the PKM LMG, both of them in 7.62x54R calibre. They are regularly used to pin down and occasionally pick off BA foot patrols at distances well beyond the effective range of 5.56mm weapons. The soldiers would not be happy to lug the 7.62 weapons around (on top of their already massive burden of equipment and armour) if they were not absolutely needed.

[Scott Cunningham]

The AK-s (47 or 74's) are not the threat over here. PKM's are far more deadly because 1) they have a heavier bullet 2) they aim them, and 3) they are coming in a 600-800rpm burst.

We are so unconcerned about AK-s that we don't even stop many guys seen on the road carrying them (who usually turn out to be construction security guards or ASG guards).

[FALightFighter]

Scott Cunningham, on Thu 21 Jan 2010 0757, said:

The AK-s (47 or 74's) are not the threat over here. PKM's are far more deadly because 1) they have a heavier bullet 2) they aim them, and 3) they are coming in a 600-800rpm burst.

We are so unconcerned about AK-s that we don't even stop many guys seen on the road carrying them (who usually turn out to be construction security guards or ASG guards).

This tracks with my experience from 05-06.