Kit Up! friend and grizzled war correspondent for the New York Times Chris Chivers has a new entry in the paper’s “At War” blog looking at the melange of weaponry being used by Afghan government forces.

Chivers took a look at the Taliban gun locker a couple weeks ago and now turns his attention to the rifles and machine guns being fielded to the Afghan army, border police and uniformed police.

In the early years of the war, the Pentagon bought and issued former Eastern bloc weapons to the Afghan army. These included Kalashnikov assault rifles and machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and 82-millimeter mortars, among others. In the last few years, however, Pentagon has been converting the Afghan army to NATO firearms, including the M-16 assault rifle, the M203 grenade launcher and the M240 machine gun.

Afghan police units, meanwhile, with a very few exceptions, continue to use Eastern bloc arms, most notably the AMD-65 assault rifle — a shortened, folding-stock Hungarian variant of the Kalashnikov that was distributed by the United States to police forces in 2007. It has been the Afghan police force’s official standard arm since then.

I’ve always been dubious about the logic of fielding the M16 and its variants to arguably third world allies. We did the same thing in Iraq to some extent, but it’s still hard to find any evidence that the IA prefer the M16 over the AK-47. I do see the argument that if you field your weapon to your friends, it will make them feel more appreciated and superior to their foe who use a more pedestrian weapon. The training and focus that it takes to maintain an M16 platform go far deeper than just the rifle — it transcends all operations and esprit.

But still, these are Afghans we’re talking about…

Be sure to read Chivers’ entire post. It’s interesting to see that the Afghan police don’t like their Hungarian AK knockoffs and prefer their Bulgarian AK clones.

PS — I’m still plowing through Chivers’ new book, “The Gun,” and will have a review and (hopefully) interview with the man himself in the coming weeks.

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

Bob October 6, 2010 at 7:57 am

Well the AK and its clones were designed with peasant armies in mind. I don't think anyone is claiming that the average Afgani represents an advance technilogical society, The only reason I can see to supply them with M16 or M4 would be to: 1 get rid of excess stocks; 2 more profit for Colt or whichever manufacter was making the M16s.

Reply

jik October 6, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Its all about keeping weapons and ammunition getting into the hands of the enemy.

Reply

Mike October 6, 2010 at 7:23 pm

Looking at that picture…does it really matter what type of weapons given to them?

Reply

Mike P October 7, 2010 at 3:53 am

I think a key motivating factor at NATO arms there is for replacement parts, ammo and future weapon sales. It keeps them looking more westward to stay armed as opposed to looking to Russia and middle east countries.

Reply

Bob October 7, 2010 at 5:42 am

Note how clean shaven they are. In a strict muslim country that is a sign of a girly boy. Real warriors have beards and are proud of their unshaven faces. These guys will not garner respect from other Afgans.

For Americans its a different story.

Reply

cortsdad95 October 7, 2010 at 6:44 am

Do these guys even have a clue?

Reply

jw lane October 7, 2010 at 8:47 am

they are so dam stupid , no they have no clue, and this is what we are fighting for. give me a break.

Reply

Infidel4LIFE October 8, 2010 at 7:41 am

Its a stupid move if ur gonna give the ANP M-16's those guys cannot shoot. Let them keep their AK's, its easier to maintain, it is simple.

Reply

Hkmd October 11, 2010 at 10:38 am

How the hell would you know about that? The ANA are trained by NATO officers and NCO's. That means, if by a snowballs chance that u're right, the American, british, danish, norwegian ++ MOT-units that are training them can't shoot either.

This is reality not som ******** 80's Hollywood movie where the lone Uber American supersoldier stands around spraying rounds on full auto at an enemy force of 200 men and not one of them have the descensy to actually put a round in him.
Stop watching Rambo, playing MW2 and educate yourself on the matter before making dumbass comments like that.
Rant ends.

Regards, M

Reply

DonM October 12, 2010 at 2:46 pm

M43 rounds don't stop someone in their tracks. The bullet is slow (less than 2500 fps), so doesn't fragment, turns to tail first, and exits. Russians fielded their copy of the M-193 round because of its light weight and higher lethality.
Most AK type weapons have chromed barrels.

Afghans were amazing shots for many years. No reason why they can't shoot, so long as they can see.

It is important to tell friend from enemy in a fight. One way to do that is to listen to the rounds. AKs sound different than M-16s.

Reply

bodybuilding diet plan August 30, 2014 at 4:55 am

Right aeay I am going tto do my breakfast, after havng my breakfast coming ovewr again to read additional news.

Reply

i grow low level laser August 30, 2014 at 5:26 am

Will the doctor performing blind dissection be able

to adequately account for this variability in the average patient

and will he risk operating on an unwary patient in whom these differences might be profound.

main light based permanent hair removal technique for men. light of one wavelength,

not of an entire spectrum like a light bulb.

Reply

Roseanna August 30, 2014 at 9:12 am

This website certainly has all of the information and facts I wanted about this subject and didn’t know who to ask.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: