Combat History of the AK vs AR

[Koli01]

I understand that the AK is the most widely used the world over. There have been much, maybe way too much, discussion on the pro's and con's of the AR vs AK.

Has anyone ever done an analysis of AK vs AR in actual combat use. What I mean to ask is, one side armed with AK vs the other side armed with AR, who wins? Not in theory who would win. But, in actual conflicts that have taken place. When one side has been equiped with AR's and the other with AK's who has won the battle, war, or conflict?

I have not seen anyone use an argument with any data like this to support the merits of either rifle.

I do understand that there may be many other variables to the actual conflict outcome.

Any other thoughts?

[Hawk]

I understand that the AK is the most widely used the world over. There have been much, maybe way too much, discussion on the pro's and con's of the AR vs AK.

Has anyone ever done an analysis of AK vs AR in actual combat use. What I mean to ask is, one side armed with AK vs the other side armed with AR, who wins? Not in theory who would win. But, in actual conflicts that have taken place. When one side has been equiped with AR's and the other with AK's who has won the battle, war, or conflict?

I have not seen anyone use an argument with any data like this to support the merits of either rifle.

I do understand that there may be many other variables to the actual conflict outcome.

Any other thoughts?

Well, I guess we are mostly talking about US troops (from Vietnam to present day) vs any of our enemies in the same time frame? My first thought would be that the small arms used would not be the deciding factor of winner/loser in a battle, I would think it would more likely be the training and determination of the weapon user instead. From most of the video's I see on TV news reports lesser trained AK users tend to use the pop up - empty magazine on full auto - go back to hiding approach where as US troops naturally use 1 -3 round aimed bursts because of the M16's design. Which do you think would be more effective of the two styles?
Also, the M16 has a effective range out to 550 yards, not sure what the AK's is.

Hawk,

[tec]

As Hawk said, training is 95% of it. I'd put my money on a U.S. Marine armed with a muzzle loading musket over some schmuck armed with the latest and greatest in AR technology. The Marine's training would be far superior to that of some goon, so the Marine would only be required to fire one, well placed shot to end the conflict.

Back to the question; there have been recent conflicts between U.S. soldiers armed with M-16s and the enemy armed with AKs. Obviously the most recent, Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, 1993 in Mogadishu, Somalia. Delta operators and Rangers were called in for a routine snatch and grab job that went terribly wrong resulting in 18 U.S. lives lost (two Delta operators were awarded the Medal of Honor for their heroic last stand in defense of a downed helicopter crew). Despite the loses, the U.S. infantry combined with close air support from the 160th SOAR managed to kill anywhere from 300-1,000 enemy combatants.

This is not to say the M-16 is any better or worse than the AK. I would wager the results would be about the same even if the U.S. soldiers were armed with AKs and the Somali rebels armed with M-16s.

[Koli01]

So, if we put our theoretical blinders on, we could say that in conflicts involving AK-47 vs M-16 the side using the M-16 usually wins. Right?

[Koli01]

I would wager the results would be about the same even if the U.S. soldiers were armed with AKs and the Somali rebels armed with M-16s.

Ah, but they were not.
One of the Delta snipers was even armed with a M-14. But, we will leave that for other discussions.

[LorDiego01]

So, if we put our theoretical blinders on, we could say that in conflicts involving AK-47 vs M-16 the side using the M-16 usually wins. Right?

Thats fallacy. Cause and effect.

Usually, the side using the M-16/AR-15 has trillions of dollars in war budget, satellites, stealth bombers and other weaponry, artillery out the ass, GPS, ect, ect, ect,.

[tec]

Ah, but they were not.
One of the Delta snipers was even armed with a M-14. But, we will leave that for other discussions.

I understand that. The point I was making is- training has more to do with the outcome of a conflict than the equipment being used (within reason, of course). The reason one of the Delta snipers was using an M-14 was because the larger round had more stopping power than the 5.56mm green tips the rest of the soldiers were using. The green tips went through the unarmored Somalis like a warm knife through butter. When a bullet passes through its target, the majority of the energy exerted by the bullet is also passed through the target. This is why many U.S. soldiers shot the Somalis multiple times without them stopping; the Somalis were also high on a narcotic called 'khat', a similar high to that of crack cocaine.

[brian]

to answer this, you need to ask "who would win if the US went up agianst mother Russia?" obviously removing nukes from the equasion(sp?).
both have large, well equiped, well trained armies.
comparing a superpower to a bunch of cameljockeys in third world countries is like comparing apples to your key board.

[Koli01]

What if we were to compare a squad level battle? No air support, no artillary. More or less man on man. One side with AK, the other with AR. We would have to take into account location though. ie wooded, rolling hills or house to house that sort of thing.

[Hawk]

What if we were to compare a squad level battle? No air support, no artillary. More or less man on man. One side with AK, the other with AR. We would have to take into account location though. ie wooded, rolling hills or house to house that sort of thing.

Range between combatants would be a major contributing factor, as would the presence of cover that may stop a 223 but not the 7.62x39. I found a semi interesting link to help our discussion.

http://www.ak-47.us/223_vs_762x39.php

http://www.ak-47.us/AK-47vsM-16.php


Hawk,