AK myths??

[Forest]

Laughable. Check your facts man.

I love people who post BS to check their 'facts' when you have listed non.

Let's look at them shall we?
Military Deaths WW1 8.5 MILLION
Civilian Daths WW 1 825 THOUSAND (these are deaths directly related to military action - I excluded the extra 2 million due to disease/hunger that were an after effect).

Military Deaths WW2 - 23.6 MILLION
Civilain Deaths WW2 - 39.6 MILLION

Note that the direct civilian deaths alone from WW1 is more than 15 TIMES the US military deaths in the 10 years of Vietnam.

Whereas most of the deaths in the Afrcian wars are due to hunger/disease not weapons.
But let's look at the numbers:
1st Congo War 250K-800K dead (due to violence AND hunger)
Congo Civil War 14K dead
2nd Congo War 350K dead due to violence (with another 2.7-7.8 dead due to hunger/disease).
Central African Bushwar "deaths in the hundreds"
Angolan War 53K Dead
Portugese Colonial War 58K dead
Rhodesia pehaps? Can't be because there were only 108K Combatants (combined both sides)

Hell there were more casualties duringhte Battle of the Somme in WW 1 than all those 'wars' added up. Hell the British alone lost more men on the FIRST DAY of the Somme than were lost in the entire Portugese Colonial War.

The Bush Wars were 'Bush League' when it came to deaths due to combat arms (have you seen how most of those guys shoot? I'm more afraid of one of them with a machete than an AK).

 

[Forest]

303 Brit as well, zillions of Indians and African wars. Our own 06 has quite a few notches in it's belt as well.

You make a good point with the .303, It's near the top but probably not #1 or #2.

The .303 is older than 8mm, but the 8mm was also used by the Brits (in the Bersa) and is still in use. But I think the .303 beats the .30-06 as it was not only older - it was being used in many of the early nasty battles of WW1 when the US was not in the fight, and those colonial conflicts.

 

[Forest]

You do realize that even though you don't hear about it, parts of africa have been in a perpetual state of war for generations right?

Yep, and there is a reason why they are called 'low intensity conflicts'.

 

[Semper Noctem]

I love people who post BS to check their 'facts' when you have listed non.

Let's look at them shall we?
Military Deaths WW1 8.5 MILLION
Civilian Daths WW 1 825 THOUSAND (these are deaths directly related to military action - I excluded the extra 2 million due to disease/hunger that were an after effect).

Military Deaths WW2 - 23.6 MILLION
Civilain Deaths WW3 - 39.6 MILLION

Note that the direct civilian deaths alone from WW1 is more than 15 TIMES the US military deaths in the 10 years of Vietnam.

Whereas most of the deaths in the Afrcian wars are due to hunger/disease not weapons.
But let's look at the numbers:
1st Congo War 250K-800K dead (due to violence AND hunger)
Congo Civil War 14K dead
2nd Congo War 350K dead due to violence (with another 2.7-7.8 dead due to hunger/disease).
Central African Bushwar "deaths in the hundreds"
Angolan War 53K Dead
Portugese Colonial War 58K dead
Rhodesia pehaps? Can't be because there were only 108K Combatants (combined both sides)

Hell there were more casualties duringhte Battle of the Somme in WW 1 than all those 'wars' added up. Hell the British alone lost more men on the FIRST DAY of the Somme than were lost in the entire Portugese Colonial War.

The Bush Wars were 'Bush League' when it came to deaths due to combat arms (have you seen how most of those guys shoot? I'm more afraid of one of them with a machete than an AK).

WHAT!? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?

 

[Forest]

WHAT!? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?

LOL Typo.

But WW3 has been going on for the last 10 years. We and our allies have been battling terrorist on 6 continents. The difference with this war is one side is primarily a NGO.

 

[Semper Noctem]

LOL Typo.

But WW3 has been going on for the last 10 years. We and our allies have been battling terrorist on 6 continents. The difference with this war is one side is primarily a NGO.

I whole heartedly agree with you.

 

[DarthZed]

I love people who post BS to check their 'facts' when you have listed non.

Let's look at them shall we?
Military Deaths WW1 8.5 MILLION
Civilian Daths WW 1 825 THOUSAND (these are deaths directly related to military action - I excluded the extra 2 million due to disease/hunger that were an after effect).

Military Deaths WW2 - 23.6 MILLION
Civilain Deaths WW2 - 39.6 MILLION

Note that the direct civilian deaths alone from WW1 is more than 15 TIMES the US military deaths in the 10 years of Vietnam.

Whereas most of the deaths in the Afrcian wars are due to hunger/disease not weapons.
But let's look at the numbers:
1st Congo War 250K-800K dead (due to violence AND hunger)
Congo Civil War 14K dead
2nd Congo War 350K dead due to violence (with another 2.7-7.8 dead due to hunger/disease).
Central African Bushwar "deaths in the hundreds"
Angolan War 53K Dead
Portugese Colonial War 58K dead
Rhodesia pehaps? Can't be because there were only 108K Combatants (combined both sides)

Hell there were more casualties duringhte Battle of the Somme in WW 1 than all those 'wars' added up. Hell the British alone lost more men on the FIRST DAY of the Somme than were lost in the entire Portugese Colonial War.

The Bush Wars were 'Bush League' when it came to deaths due to combat arms (have you seen how most of those guys shoot? I'm more afraid of one of them with a machete than an AK).

The deaths you list in the two World Wars were due to a wide variety of weapons systems, primarily machine guns, artillery and bombing. Numerous rifle types were used by all sides in these conflicts, so no single rifle is accounting for a large majority of deaths. (German Mausers and Russian Mosins are probably the two rifles with the highest casualty count)

The point made is that since WWII, the AK 47 is the most prolific rifle ever produced and the most widely distributed. The Soviets would hand out crates of these things to anyone who they thought could be an ally, or at least a pain to the West. The Soviets didn't care if the recipients were a recognized government or simply an insurgent groups opposing a non-allied government. The AK's simple and rugged design also means that it can be built from scratch by any good gunsmith anywhere in the world (and this is constantly being done in third world countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan), so it is a favored choice for construction by locals.

No matter where U.S. troops travel and fight today, they will probably be facing some variant of the AK. And since the gun is involved in most of the trouble spots around the world, being used by violent, repressive governments, and vicious insurgent groups; the AK is going to have been responsible for a staggering amount of the inflicted small arms deaths since its development. We aren't simply talking about combat casualties (combat soldiers, support troops, etc), but civilian casualties as well; which can reach tens and even hundreds of thousands of people per conflict. 3.3 million civilians were killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia alone, and China is known to have supplied them with many small arms.

The Khmer Rouge used American weapons as well, since they were supplied with them during the Vietnam War; however in 1976 intelligence indicated that AKs were far more prevalent. These weapons were much more easily obtained locally, and accounted for progressively larger portion of the regime's firearms over time. There is no way to ever get an exact (or even an approximate) body count for this kind of killing, but considering how much of it has been due to the AK platform, I wouldn't want to bet against the AK being responsible for the most deaths.

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/army_v3.html

 

[KMK1862]

The deaths you list in the two World Wars were due to a wide variety of weapons systems, primarily machine guns, artillery and bombing. Numerous rifle types were used by all sides in these conflicts, so no single rifle is accounting for a large majority of deaths. (German Mausers and Russian Mosins are probably the two rifles with the highest casualty count)

The point made is that since WWII, the AK 47 is the most prolific rifle ever produced and the most widely distributed. The Soviets would hand out crates of these things to anyone who they thought could be an ally, or at least a pain to the West. The Soviets didn't care if the recipients were a recognized government or simply an insurgent groups opposing a non-allied government. The AK's simple and rugged design also means that it can be built from scratch by any good gunsmith anywhere in the world (and this is constantly being done in third world countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan), so it is a favored choice for construction by locals.

No matter where U.S. troops travel and fight today, they will probably be facing some variant of the AK. And since the gun is involved in most of the trouble spots around the world, being used by violent, repressive governments, and vicious insurgent groups; the AK is going to have been responsible for a staggering amount of the inflicted small arms deaths since its development. We aren't simply talking about combat casualties (combat soldiers, support troops, etc), but civilian casualties as well; which can reach tens and even hundreds of thousands of people per conflict. 3.3 million civilians were killed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia alone, and China is known to have supplied them with many small arms.

The Khmer Rouge used American weapons as well, since they were supplied with them during the Vietnam War; however in 1976 intelligence indicated that AKs were far more prevalent. These weapons were much more easily obtained locally, and accounted for progressively larger portion of the regime's firearms over time. There is no way to ever get an exact (or even an approximate) body count for this kind of killing, but considering how much of it has been due to the AK platform, I wouldn't want to bet against the AK being responsible for the most deaths.

http://www.yale.edu/cgp/army_v3.html

One thing to keep in mind is the difference between numbers of the AK and it's variants produced vs numbers deployed. I know firsthand from a soldier who was in OIF that crates of East German MPi-KMs (AKMs) were found in their shipping crates, still wrapped in the wax paper and complete with the accoutrements. I'd be curious to know how many AKs and variants are held by countries in storage that have never been deployed or fired in anger.

 

[chris12138]

The deaths you list in the two World Wars were due to a wide variety of weapons systems, primarily machine guns, artillery and bombing.

This

Good post.

 

[DarthZed]

One thing to keep in mind is the difference between numbers of the AK and it's variants produced vs numbers deployed. I know firsthand from a soldier who was in OIF that crates of East German MPi-KMs (AKMs) were found in their shipping crates, still wrapped in the wax paper and complete with the accoutrements. I'd be curious to know how many AKs and variants are held by countries in storage that have never been deployed or fired in anger.

I'd be curious about this as well. The Soviets were famous/notorious for sending shiploads of weapons to anyone who asked for them (at least before economic concerns started to become a factor in the 1980s). Though given the unstable nature of many Third World countries; I doubt crates of AKs are left sitting in storage. Every turnover of regime/government will result in opposition groups raiding storage depots.

Even in more stable countires, local officials have probably "disposed" of surplus guns for personal/family profit. That sort of thing happens often, given the level of graft, corruption, and poor logistics methodologies in those countries. I'd bet, you're more likely to find "lost" crates of AKs in more developed Com Bloc countires that have tansitioned to more moderm platforms, and never bothered to dispose of excess/surplus AKs.

 

[Forest]

The deaths you list in the two World Wars were due to a wide variety of weapons systems, primarily machine guns, artillery and bombing.[/qutoe]

And what caliber were those machine guns mowing down wave after wave of men crossing no man's land in WW1? Would that be 8mm, 7.62x54, and some .303?

Bombs not so much in WW1 - but yeah there were deaths other than from 7.62x54 & 8mm fire.

THE SAME APPLIES to the bush wars.

While the AK-47 is prolific. The Soviets also passed out PKMs (7.62x54) and there were still pleny of WW2 erea (8mm & 7.62x54 bolt guns & machine guns) used.

Those wars also saw alot of use of machetes (particularly against the civilian populations).

The point made is that since WWII, the AK 47 is the most prolific rifle ever produced and the most widely distributed.

No question about that. But that doesn't translate into "It's killed more people than any other rifle/caliber" simply because the wars fought since the introduction of the AK have been primarly small scale affairs & low intensity conflicts. Even our 10 year+ war in Vietnam we only received roughly the same casualties the Brits did in the FIRST DAY of the battle of the Somme; and only a fraction of those casualties were from 7.6x39; with only some of those being from AK-47 types (the rest being SKSs and RPDs).

It's a numbers game. While the AK was more profilic than any other rifle - however the casualties, compared to other rifles which fought in the two largest wars the world has known, is comparatively small.

Remember the 7.62x54 has been in front line use by one of the largest countries in the world for over a century. The 7.62x39/AK just can't compete against that kind of background.

 

[DarthZed]

You keep talking about calibers Forest. I was referring to weapon platforms, since the thread is about AKs, not 7.63x39. I never said that bombing was a large factor in WWI, I simply combined bombing, machine guns, and artillery since I was referring to both WWI and WWII. Machine guns and artillery were responsible for most casualties in WWI. The generals hadn't yet adapted to them, and still erroneously believed (like the Japanese in WWII) that the "spirit" of their soldiers would overcome mechanized firepower. They died by the hundreds of thousands. (As in your reference to the Somme, where troops charged across fields through artillery barrages and into entrenched overlapping machine guns. It wasn't bolt action rifles that generated those massive casualty counts.)

Bombing and artillery were the big killers in WWII (according to everything that I've read), and again actual casualties attributed to small arms would be divided amongst many different platforms.

Yes, all the conflicts that the AK has been involved in have been small compared to the two big wars. But bear in mind that many of these have been constant, low-level conflicts that continue to generate casualties to this day. America has lost more citizens to drunk drivers over the years than all our wars combined. You just don't realize how high the number count is because it's a constant, background growth that no one notices. That was what I was trying to get at. All these small, ongoing acts of violence add up over the years; and unfortunately the AK is generally the weapon of choice for people committing those acts.

As I said, I can't say with certainty that the AK is responsible for the most deaths of any small arm (particularly since so many of them are undocumented), simply that it is responsible for an incredible number of them. And I am in no way saying that such an attribute is a good thing.