# ANA to get C7s? from the Globe and Mail 13 Aug 2007



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Aug 2007)

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070813/AFGHANGUNS13/International/international/international/5/5/12/

Afghan army awaiting new rifles from Canada



 By ALEX DOBROTA  Monday, August 13, 2007 – Page A9 KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Equipped with antiquated Soviet-era weaponry, the Afghan National Army is still waiting for a shipment of modern rifles promised by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, a high-ranking Afghan official said.Lieutenant-Colonel Sherinshaw Kohbandi, the commander of Kandahar Province's 2nd Battalion, said Mr. O'Connor pledged to equip the ANA with the C-7 assault rifles used by Canadian soldiers."His recommendation was that within the next few months he'll supply us with brand new equipment from Canadian Forces," Lt.-Col. Kohbandi said on the weekend, adding he met the minister during one of his recent trips to Kandahar. "So I'm hoping and waiting for that day that will come for us."A spokeswoman for Mr. O'Connor said Canada is looking at various ways to help the Afghan army, and delivering C-7s is an option.Lt.-Col. Kohbandi made his comments after a transition ceremony at Kandahar Base, where Lieutenant-Colonel Rob Walker handed over the command of the Canadian Battle Group in Afghanistan to Lieutenant-Colonel Alain Gauthier, of the Quebec-based Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Vandoos.The Vandoos are currently beginning a six-month rotation, replacing troops from the Royal Canadian Regiment and Princess Patricia's Light Infantry. Commanding officers with the Vandoos have repeatedly said their main focus will be training Afghan security forces to prepare them to face the Taliban on their own.The Afghan National Army has fewer than 500 soldiers, about one battalion, ready for combat in Kandahar Province. The Canadians plan to train more than 1,000 Afghan soldiers over the next few months.Besides their thin ranks, the Afghan army also lacks modern equipment. Its soldiers often drive into battle on board pickup trucks and wielding AK-47s, also known as Kalashnikovs.The AKs fire a 7.62-mm round, which loses accuracy at long ranges. In comparison, the Canadian C-7 rifle, a variant of the U.S. M-16, fires the NATO-standard 5.56-mm round, which travels faster than a 7.62 mm bullet. The C-7 is also more accurate than the Kalashnikov.Lt.-Col. Kohbandi said he hopes the shipment of C-7s will arrive within the next few months to allow his soldiers and officers to be trained on the new equipment before they join the Vandoos in combat operations."We'll be trained and educated for that for the next operations, so we're looking forward to that," he said through a translator.Lt.-Col. Gauthier told reporters he expects the ANA to control the area in and around Kandahar City within the next six months. This should enable Canadian forces to devote more resources to outlying regions in Kandahar Province, he said.


----------



## MediTech (13 Aug 2007)

I sure hope they include a large shipment of cleaning product with the C7s.  I wonder if they'll be sending the C7s with Elcan C79 sights or just iron sights?


----------



## 3rd Herd (13 Aug 2007)

I saw this a few days ago Ex, read it, got to the AK 7.62 vs NATO 5.56 comparison and would let some else have the honor.

 "....fire a 7.62-mm round, which loses accuracy at long ranges. In comparison, the Canadian C-7 rifle, a variant of the U.S. M-16, fires the NATO-standard 5.56-mm round, which travels faster than a 7.62 mm bullet. The C-7 is also more accurate than the Kalashnikov........." 

I figure there are few who will wade in on this.


----------



## MediTech (13 Aug 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> I saw this a few days ago Ex, read it, got to the AK 7.62 vs NATO 5.56 comparison and would let some else have the honor.
> 
> "....fire a 7.62-mm round, which loses accuracy at long ranges. In comparison, the Canadian C-7 rifle, a variant of the U.S. M-16, fires the NATO-standard 5.56-mm round, which travels faster than a 7.62 mm bullet. The C-7 is also more accurate than the Kalashnikov........."
> 
> I figure there are few who will wade in on this.



Does anybody know the average range at which most engagements in Afghanistan occur?  If under 300 yards would the difference in accuracy be negligible?  I think some other issue to address would be ease of operation of the AK47 v. C7.  Does anybody know how well the ANA treats their equipment?  If the C7 wasn't cleaned regularly it wouldn't be all that useful in the hands of an ANA trooper.  There would be many jams and the C79 sight's range knobby thingy would get jammed up with dirt and become innoperable assuming that the c79 sight was shipped with the weapon.  Also, would be it easier and cheaper for the ANA to acquire 7.62 rounds or 5.56 rounds?  I guess somebody smarter than me has already addressed these issues but it's something to think about.  As far as the 5.56 being better or worse than the 7.62 I'd have to go with the 5.56 based on what I've read about penetrating power at long distances (800m) and the 7.62 for close ranges due to its stopping power at shorter distances.  But that doesn't really matter here because we're comparing what weapons are chambering the rounds.  I'd say the 7.62mm FN-SCAR-H would be better than a C7 but an AK47 wouldn't be better than a C7 but then again it depends on who is using and maitaining the weapon.


----------



## aesop081 (13 Aug 2007)

Med.Tech said:
			
		

> There would be many jams and the C79 sight's range knobby thingy would get jammed up with dirt



That part right there says alot about the volume of experience you have  :


----------



## Martino (13 Aug 2007)

This doesn't seem like a very good idea in my opinion. Two different calibers for the ANA could create supply problems, and I can't see the Afghans taking to the C7 too well after getting used to using and being around AK's their entire lives. Not that they couldn't get used to a new assault rifle, but I'd think something like the AK-74 would make more sense.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2007)

Med.Tech said:
			
		

> Does anybody know the average range at which most engagements in Afghanistan occur?  If under 300 yards would the difference in accuracy be negligible?  I think some other issue to address would be ease of operation of the AK47 v. C7.  Does anybody know how well the ANA treats their equipment?  If the C7 wasn't cleaned regularly it wouldn't be all that useful in the hands of an ANA trooper.  There would be many jams and the C79 sight's range knobby thingy would get jammed up with dirt and become innoperable assuming that the c79 sight was shipped with the weapon.  Also, would be it easier and cheaper for the ANA to acquire 7.62 rounds or 5.56 rounds?  I guess somebody smarter than me has already addressed these issues but it's something to think about.  As far as the 5.56 being better or worse than the 7.62 I'd have to go with the 5.56 based on what I've read about penetrating power at long distances (800m) and the 7.62 for close ranges due to its stopping power at shorter distances.  But that doesn't really matter here because we're comparing what weapons are chambering the rounds.  I'd say the 7.62mm FN-SCAR-H would be better than a C7 but an AK47 wouldn't be better than a C7 but then again it depends on who is using and maitaining the weapon.



Ya really made a mess of that one.


----------



## Pte AJB (13 Aug 2007)

Martino said:
			
		

> y
> Two different calibers for the ANA could create supply problems



If anything, I would presume that the switch to NATO standard 5.56 would aid interoperability and alleviate some of the difficulties in acquiring 7.62x39 ammo from non-NATO stocks.


----------



## McG (13 Aug 2007)

Are there difficulties?


----------



## aesop081 (13 Aug 2007)

FifthHorse said:
			
		

> alleviate some of the difficulties in acquiring 7.62x39 ammo from non-NATO stocks.



Its probably the most widely distributed ammo in the world, how difficult can it be ?


----------



## Pte AJB (13 Aug 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Are there difficulties?



Out of my lane here.  It would _seem to me_ that acquiring NATO standard ammo would be easier for the ANA given the ISAF mission in country.  Providing them with access to a steady stream of ammo without having to go outside the NATO system. 

In hindsight, the world 'difficulties' may have been too strong a word, but I _suppose_ that it would be easier to acquire stocks from within the NATO system than from outside it. Though I am speaking solely on speculation and am welcome to any correction.  

edited to include post from CDN Aviator:


			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Its probably the most widely distributed ammo in the world, how difficult can it be ?



Not much, but is there benefit from acquring stocks from within NATO rather than outside it?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Aug 2007)

Not to change the subject too much but are there still a lot of SMLE .303s still in use?


----------



## KevinB (13 Aug 2007)

Any wide spot on the road has 7.62x39

 However switching to 5.56mm does make it hard for units to sell off their ammo to Warlords etc.
Secondly Diemaco (now Colt Canada) products, while made in Canada, are subject to US Department of State ITAR requirements due to the Colt license.  Minister O'Connor can talk till he is blue in the face - but unless Condi gives her John Hankok on the paper all he is doing is wasting oxygen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2007)

There's lots of both on the market. Everyone is producing it. Was at a show this weekend, looking at crates and battlepaks of 5.56 produced by the Serbs, Checks, Hungarians, Russians, etc. All surplus and all for sale cheap.


----------



## Pte AJB (13 Aug 2007)

Thanks all. I stand corrected, humbled and enlightened.


----------



## MediTech (13 Aug 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That part right there says alot about the volume of experience you have  :



I was trying to refer to the horizontal thumbwheel used for elevation adjustments but I couldn't nor can I still think of the proper name.  Can somebody help me out?


----------



## geo (13 Aug 2007)

Uhh... while we are on record as saying we will equip the ANA with the C7, does it say anywhere that we will be providing C7A2 or C7A1?  The C7 with a straight iron sight, as used on the M16 could be just what the Dr prescribed.


----------



## medaid (13 Aug 2007)

One would hope that they'd be A1s. I think as the A1s are slowly being phased out, they would be of some use to our allies. 


Med.Tech.... I see you're back....


----------



## geo (13 Aug 2007)

Med. Tech...
A1s have the Elcan sights, that need a relatively solid maintenance plan to keep em going... Iron sights don't need special maintenance.  Considering the US Military still embraces Iron sights on their M16s, the ANA shouldn't feel upset.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Aug 2007)

I would imagine they'll equip them with original C7's of which I am sure there is many in storage, and with all the logistical and maintenance hoopla on the ELCAN, supplying them to 'monkeys' (poorly trained and educated) would not be the best idea. There is no infrastructrure/training for maintenance at any level by the ANA worth mentioning, unless Colt Canada is sniffing out a ongoing parts and maintenance programme for both the EOS and the weapon. Maybe IVI is in on the ammo bandwagon too? Some Canuckistan war profiteering perhaps??  ;D ha!

Personally the ANA should be equipped with AKs, it makes sense, its the regional weapon of choice, robust and monkey-proof, the ammo will be around long long after our Forces are out of the area.

As for MEDTECH's babbling about stoppages and problems with the C7 FOW, he's been watching too many Viet Nam war movies et all, and listening to the M16 urban myths. Stay in your lane mate and stick to your level of small arms knowledge and trade, as you just make an arse out of yourself. 

I would not consider the ANA our Allies, just on our side for the moment.

I have full confidence on the M16 FOW in any climate, and thats info not from a magazine, thats from personal experience.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## RCR Grunt (13 Aug 2007)

I cant see this going well.  During my deployment there the ANA logistics system was nowhere to be seen.  They resupplied themselves using Taliban weapons caches they would find on operations.  To switch them to a new calibre would eliminate this advantage and leave them to the mercy of a supply system that is still growing its legs.  I feel this will delay the advancement of the ANA to take the forefront in operations, leaving ISAF to stay in a larger role than they would like.  In addition, the AK47 is what these boys were raised on.  To switch them over to the "Mattel toy" C-7 makes little sense.  If we are seeking to give the ANA a combat advantage, we should concentrate on training them in marksmanship principles and combat shooting, eliminating the afghan "spray and pray."  Replacing the old AK's with newer, better made models makes sense and there are countries and companies out there that do that.  As for ammo, the Romanians are in theatre, they use the 7.62, if it comes down to it we could ask them for some bullets.  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## felboisse (13 Aug 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> I cant see this going well.  During my deployment there the ANA logistics system was nowhere to be seen.  They resupplied themselves using Taliban weapons caches they would find on operations.  To switch them to a new calibre would eliminate this advantage and leave them to the mercy of a supply system that is still growing its legs.  I feel this will delay the advancement of the ANA to take the forefront in operations, leaving ISAF to stay in a larger role than they would like.  In addition, the AK47 is what these boys were raised on.  To switch them over to the "Mattel toy" C-7 makes little sense.  If we are seeking to give the ANA a combat advantage, we should concentrate on training them in marksmanship principles and combat shooting, eliminating the afghan "spray and pray."  Replacing the old AK's with newer, better made models makes sense and there are countries and companies out there that do that.  As for ammo, the Romanians are in theatre, they use the 7.62, if it comes down to it we could ask them for some bullets.  Just my 2 cents.



well said, i dont think they would be able to "spray and pray" with the C7. They should get good training before good equipment because without proper training, all the fancy equipment will be badly used. 

Let em stick to the RPGS and AK 47.


----------



## slowmode (13 Aug 2007)

This can have a positive and a negative effect both at the same time. While equipping the ANA with better rifles will help in the long run with there effectiveness in battle it can also bring up many factors. Keeping the bolt clean, the barrel, the flash supresser, and what not is a job and a half. It can be done quickly but I've been told by many of my instructors and higher ranks that a soldier should try to field strip clean his rifle 3 times a day. 

  Weapons maintenance is a soldiers responsibility and a big one. If a soldiers rifle is not taken care of properly it can lead to him or his comrade being injured in battle. I think the idea to give the ANA C7's is a great idea. But it has to be done correctly, hopefully each will be given basic cleaning kits and taught how to clean the rifles. If we want the ANA to become a good protecting force in Afghan then they have to be equip well enough so they can do there job better then their enemy.


----------



## Trooper Hale (14 Aug 2007)

Sorry, but does anyone actually know if O'Conner did promise them Canadian gats in public? Because the inference i got was that it could just be some Afghan chap trying to do a little name and shame with the hope of picking up some new kit at the end of it. Is that just me?
Dont get me wrong, i really respect your average afghan soldier because of the HUGE everyday risks he puts up with (I'm not so sure i'd do this job if my family stood a good chance of being butchered because of it) but this seems to just be a story to sell copies by criticizing the Harper government by the Globe&Mail. Although we all know are totally respectable and wouldnt even dream of taking things out of context.

Maybe i didnt read it right though. And maybe i'm just getting cynical in my old age.


----------



## MediTech (14 Aug 2007)

Hale said:
			
		

> Sorry, but does anyone actually know if O'Conner did promise them Canadian gats in public? Because the inference i got was that it could just be some Afghan chap trying to do a little name and shame with the hope of picking up some new kit at the end of it. Is that just me?
> Dont get me wrong, i really respect your average afghan soldier because of the HUGE everyday risks he puts up with (I'm not so sure i'd do this job if my family stood a good chance of being butchered because of it) but this seems to just be a story to sell copies by criticizing the Harper government by the Globe&Mail. Although we all know are totally respectable and wouldnt even dream of taking things out of context.
> 
> Maybe i didnt read it right though. And maybe i'm just getting cynical in my old age.



You might be on to something Hale.


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Aug 2007)

I keep seeing people making references to the C7 being "better" or a step up from the AK, and without going into a rifle vs. rifle debate, which has been covered I would imagine, who's to say the AK isn't the better choice?  Its durable, simple, cheap, reliable, and prolific.  I'm not saying the C7 isn't any or all of these things, but yo have to look at who you are equipping.  The average ANA lad doesn't have the supply chain of your average ISAF lad,he gets resupplied from the dead Taliban or from enemy weapon caches, which I've already stated.  Take this into account though ... while going through training it is possible for an ANA soldier to find himself in the midst of combat completely by accident.  There are no safe training areas in Afghanistan.  He may not be proficient in handling his new rifle yet.  But, if equipped with the rifle he has grown up with, he should at least be able to return fire.  I think I'm up to 4 cents now, stop me if I go over a nickel!


----------



## TheHead (14 Aug 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I would imagine they'll equip them with original C7's of which I am sure there is many in storage, and with all the logistical and maintenance hoopla on the ELCAN, supplying them to 'monkeys' (poorly trained and educated) would not be the best idea. There is no infrastructrure/training for maintenance at any level by the ANA worth mentioning, unless Colt Canada is sniffing out a ongoing parts and maintenance programme for both the EOS and the weapon. Maybe IVI is in on the ammo bandwagon too? Some Canuckistan war profiteering perhaps??  ;D ha!
> 
> Personally the ANA should be equipped with AKs, it makes sense, its the regional weapon of choice, robust and monkey-proof, the ammo will be around long long after our Forces are out of the area.
> 
> ...



Monkeys?  Please... I've seen just as many "Monkeys" in the American, Canadian and British Army.  I've seen Canadian soldiers do the Spray and Pray against the Taliban.
I've fought alongside the ANA and can say they have some outstanding soldiers, other than the Asshole who almost killed me with a RPG. 
You should be disgusted in yourself for slandering them like that.  The only way they will ever switch sides is if the Taliban win, and we all know that will never happen.


----------



## Fusaki (14 Aug 2007)

> I keep seeing people making references to the C7 being "better" or a step up from the AK, and without going into a rifle vs. rifle debate, which has been covered I would imagine, who's to say the AK isn't the better choice?  Its durable, simple, cheap, reliable, and prolific.  I'm not saying the C7 isn't any or all of these things, but yo have to look at who you are equipping.



My thoughts exactly.

Just because the C7 family of weapons is better for us, doesn't mean its better for the ANA. From what I saw of the ANA, they just don't have the training, discipline, infrastructure, or the mindset to use the same kind of rifle we use in western forces. Its better for them to have an OK rifle that always works then a superior rifle that requires more range time and maintenance. Its not that the C7 is really that finicky, its that the AK is just geared towards the lesser trained soldier.



> Monkeys?  Please... I've seen just as many "Monkeys" in the American, Canadian and British Army.  I've seen Canadian soldiers do the Spray and Pray against the Taliban.
> I've fought alongside the ANA and can say they have some outstanding soldiers, other than the ******* who almost killed me with a RPG.
> You should be disgusted in yourself for slandering them like that.  The only way they will ever switch sides is if the Taliban win, and we all know that will never happen.



In all fairness, the ANA have balls of steel and a serious hate on for the Taliban. That makes them OK in my books. But they DO have a tendency to ND into each other... when they're not shooting each other on purpose. Nevermind the fact that they get high every night and go AWOL regularly. Even compared to the worst Canadian soldier, the ANA is a whole other world. I don't blame them for it having grown up in that environment, but lets call it for what it is. The ANA is a 3rd world army with 1st world support.

I've also fought along side ANA - from looking at your profile I'll bet it was some of the same guys you were with... and I have to say that I trust those guys about as far as I can throw them. Yes, they're good fighters. But I'm fairly convinced that they're on our side only as long as we have a common enemy.


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Aug 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Monkeys?  Please... I've seen just as many "Monkeys" in the American, Canadian and British Army.  I've seen Canadian soldiers do the Spray and Pray against the Taliban.
> I've fought alongside the ANA and can say they have some outstanding soldiers, other than the Asshole who almost killed me with a RPG.
> You should be disgusted in yourself for slandering them like that.  The only way they will ever switch sides is if the Taliban win, and we all know that will never happen.



Not at all, monkeys meaning low moral, little confidence, questionable loyalities, sub-standard (by our standards)soldiers poorly trained, and little discipline, nothing more than that. My experience comes from the New Iraqi Army, and the Iraqi Police, and from what I have heard first hand from our Forces in AFG.

In my time in Iraq, I never observed  any western 'monkeys', just a few idiots who fell thru the cracks somehow, so don't get your dander up by miunderstanding me.  I simply have littel confidence in the ANA overall.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Aug 2007)

The first thing that came to mind when I was reading that artcile was that it might come in handy to have the "good guys" all kitted out with different equipment than the "bad guys".  With the Taliban all looking just like every other AK47 carrying person in Afghanistan, wouldn't it make sense to give our allies the same weaponry that we are used to seeing?  It would make it a whole lot easier to kill the right people in a firefight. 

If you were to pass through a town and see an individual with a C7.. you could probably assume that it's a stolen/acquired weapon that he shouldn't have, hence Taliban or another "bad guy" organization.

I don't care about the ak vs c7 debate and I am almost positive O'Connor didn't think it as in depth as I did, and maybe I am totally out in left field but I think it's a good idea to give them a little bit of hope and individuality..


----------



## rz350 (14 Aug 2007)

Well, if they are need in of weapon's and Canada is willing to give them C7's, I am sure the rifle will be an efective and deadly tool for them. However, the AK (it any of its interations from 47 to 108...including the 5.56mm NATO versions...thats the 101 I think?) is also a deadly and effective tool. If they have enough working and reliable AK's, perhaps we should give them more training support, and possibly heavy weapons/other stuff they dont have. (LAW's? Mortars? old arty? ect)


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Aug 2007)

I'm about go go over my nickel limit...

I agree with rz350, if we want to help weapon wise, lets give them some punch they don't already have.  As far as changing all their weapons over to a NATO standard, I think thats wrong, and thats what I infer from us giving them our old stocks.  Its much easier for Afghanistan to obtain and maintain old Warsaw pact style weapons than it would be NATO std ones.  Why?  Because they have them all laying around!  Of course, they are in various states of disrepair, but we could always refurbish them.  I think that is the appropriate answer.  A refurbished set of weapons modified to produce more accurate results is the way to go.  All this old truck we call the ANA needs is a tune-up and she will run just fine, we don't need to swap out the whole engine to get'er runnin'!


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Aug 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> the AK (it any of its interations from 47 to 108...including the 5.56mm NATO versions...



In March while leaving the LSA at Ali Al Salem in Kuwait, I ran into a bunch of Polish soldiers enroute to AFG outside the PX (resembles a Matt Dillion Dodge City look for those that have been), with their AKs, even had a safety catch/change lever on both sides, similar to the Galil, and their AKs were 5.56mm. Plastic mags which were black, and almost identical to their 5.45 x 39mm cousins, and being honest, I thought they were 5.45mm until I asked. All spoke perfect English too.

I had also ran into a bunch of Iraqi SF, using US weapons, from M4's to M240Bs and .50 Brownings. Other 'elite' troops had the new black style furniture on their early machined from solid stock recievers, both of Chi-Com Type 56 and Russian manufacture. The mainstreamers had generic AK47s and AKMs from every corner of the former Warsaw Pact's globe.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 3rd Herd (14 Aug 2007)

The usual disclaimer:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/08/14/4417572-cp.html

Canadian rifles must be adapted for physique of Afghan soldiers: officer
By MARTIN OUELLET
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - The relatively small stature of Afghan soldiers is one of the reasons for the delay in getting Canadian weapons into their hands, a Canadian military officer said Tuesday.  
"Afghan soldiers are a little shorter than Canadian soldiers, so you want a shorter butt stock on it," said Lt.-.Col. Wayne Eyre, the outgoing commander of the Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team, which is responsible for training the Afghan National Army. 

The modified C7 assault rifles will then be easier for Afghans to handle, said Eyre, who is being replaced by Lt.-Col. Stephane Lafaut of the Royal 22nd Regiment. 

Ottawa promised earlier this year to supply Afghan soldiers with ammunition and C7 rifles. 

Lafaut said the transfer of weapons is a lengthy process because it involves different technology and is subject to several international agreements. 

The delivery delay has slowed the preparation of Afghan recruits and stalled their planned takeover of combat operations against the Taliban. 

The C7 is the standard issue rifle for Canadian troops. It is similar to the American M-16, one of the weapons commonly used by modern western armies. 

Afghan soldiers have been waiting impatiently for the C7 rifles because their current weapons are often defective AK-47 rifles  from the old Soviet era. 

The C7 is more accurate and has a greater range than the AK-47, and will allow the Afghan army to be more efficient on the ground, a leading Afghan officer said recently. 

Meanwhile, Afghan National Army Col. Abdul Basir said Tuesday he hopes to get a first batch of weapons by the end of the month so recruits can become familiar with them as soon as possible. 

A Defence Department spokesman in Ottawa recently confirmed that supplies for the Afghan National Army are planned, but declined to specify a date when they will be delivered.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Aug 2007)

I am baffled at the need to give them western weapons, unless the purpose is to attempt to slowly remove the AK from circulation in Afghanistan, which is likely to fail.


----------



## blacktriangle (14 Aug 2007)

Great so there will be our C7's around on the black market, en masse, in due time...when my c7 could use replacing itself...  :-\


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (14 Aug 2007)

i read some where that  the Iraq  was being sold the M16 svc weapon to replace the Ak family of weapon because the winners of the war were armed with them and they wanted to have the same weapon as the winners.  Aks were for the losing side of the war. I do not remember when or what  paper i ead it in, the National Post or the Ottawa Sun were the newspapers of the choice at my house at the time. Could replacing the AFGANS  weapons with C7s be in the same line of thought. one weapon for the winners and one for losers. I do not know where to find the story  to post here from the news source but here is a link to it froma website.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20070517.aspx
i donot know much about the ak family  so do not want to be accused of being out of my  lane, just know what i read.
so there is some more thoughts on the switch


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Aug 2007)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> i read some where that  the Iraq  was being sold the M16 svc weapon to replace the Ak family of weapon because the winners of the war were armed with them and they wanted to have the same weapon as the winners.



The Iraqi government is currently replacing all current AK47s and AKMs with new AKM, the 101 I do beleive, the one with all the black plastic funriture. From what i understand, this is for the ISF, both Police and Army.

Along with this is the latest black spear point new style AK bayonets, of which I managed to scrounge two variants of. All new and unissued, and already around not long before I left. One is Russian, the other Bulgarian, one is plumb, the other black. These are a ne design, and are now unique, but the grip is similar in a way to the US M9 family of bayonets.

So that M16 replacement is a rumour or media hype WRT generic Iraqi Forces, but as I said in a previous post here, some Iraqi SF units are using US weapons. The unit we met had US SF advisors, and were not 'stand alone', but of all the locals I met, the SF guys were switched on, and Vets, I would say aged between 30 and 50, so Allah only knows what they were doing pre 2003! They loved us Aussies, and our Steyr AUG rifles. Vehicles were US too, Hummers, but an earlier armoured version with an earlier style of turret, and Iraqi camouflage painted, not just tan like the US ones, so you could tell them apart quite noticably.

I traded my Aussie patch for theirs, and we wore each others, joking around. Less than an hour after we left them, we came under rocket attack! That was 21 Dec 06.

Mick Kalashnikov's enhanced AK (in 7.62 x 39mm) will truly be in Iraqi hands, both civvy (and the bad guys too), para-military and military for decades to come! However, point to mention, I did see AK74s in 5.45mm used by the Iraqi MND's CPP guys. East German MPiKM types with side wire folding stocks, and definatley with orange bakilite 5.45mm mags on, safety catches on automatic!

Yes, Diemaco C7 rifles will fall into bad hands in AFG in a matter of time, and yes be on the black market, and who knows where they will be in 10 yrs from now. I think its a poor idea overall.


Wes


----------



## KevinB (15 Aug 2007)

Iraqi SF have M4's and M16A2's.

more on the rest tomorrow.


----------



## geo (15 Aug 2007)

There was a story in the press in the past 5 days that discussed an order, allegedly approved by the US for Iraqi police & military that was being funneled through Italy.  AKs and AKMs I believe.  Turns out that this was not a US approved order and that it was probably destined to arm some militias & terrorists.

The whole thing is being unraveled right about now, arrests of arms merchants and the middlemen have been carried out.  With luck they can roll things back to the instigators, recoup some of that Iraqi reconstruction $$$ that's dissapeared and make Iraq a little bit safer, for a little while.


----------



## MG34 (15 Aug 2007)

Like it or not the Afghans are our allies in this fight, if re-equipping them with modern weapons will get them into the fight then I'm all for it. The argument that the Taliban will use these weapons against us is pretty much moot as captured ot stolen M16s and M4 Carbines and  black market versions of the same are already being used against us, wether or not you are killed by an ex-Soviet AKM  or a Colt product doesn't matter you are still dead. Given the marksmanship standards of the Taliban and others I am not too worried about it either way, as it is the shooter not the tool that makes the difference.


----------



## Jorkapp (15 Aug 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Like it or not the Afghans are our allies in this fight, if re-equipping them with modern weapons will get them into the fight then I'm all for it. The argument that the Taliban will use these weapons against us is pretty much moot as captured ot stolen M16s and M4 Carbines and  black market versions of the same are already being used against us, wether or not you are killed by an ex-Soviet AKM  or a Colt product doesn't matter you are still dead. Given the marksmanship standards of the Taliban and others I am not too worried about it either way, as it is the shooter not the tool that makes the difference.



+1


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Aug 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Like it or not the Afghans are our allies in this fight, if re-equipping them with modern weapons will get them into the fight then I'm all for it. The argument that the Taliban will use these weapons against us is pretty much moot as captured ot stolen M16s and M4 Carbines and  black market versions of the same are already being used against us, wether or not you are killed by an ex-Soviet AKM  or a Colt product doesn't matter you are still dead. Given the marksmanship standards of the Taliban and others I am not too worried about it either way, as it is the shooter not the tool that makes the difference.



Fair enough. 

My only gripe is just where are these weapons coming from, our war stocks, or is it an order of new weapons through our Government? Also, out of curiousity, do afghan troops tend to clean their weapons as much as us, or do they not really worry about that?


----------



## 3rd Herd (15 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> There was a story in the press in the past 5 days that discussed an order, allegedly approved by the US for Iraqi police & military that was being funneled through Italy.  AKs and AKMs I believe.  Turns out that this was not a US approved order and that it was probably destined to arm some militias & terrorists.
> 
> The whole thing is being unraveled right about now, arrests of arms merchants and the middlemen have been carried out.  With luck they can roll things back to the instigators, recoup some of that Iraqi reconstruction $$$ that's dissapeared and make Iraq a little bit safer, for a little while.


Are these the ones geo ?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65137.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65198.0.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Aug 2007)

I don't mind equipping them with new equipment, but is it really the right choice for them? If the weapon does not function correctly because of lack of upkeep it will not do them any good and will hurt morale. They will be lucky if half their recruits have more than 5 years of school and half can read and write.

Same with the tanks, the Leo C2's will be far les useful than an updated T-55.


----------



## geo (15 Aug 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Are these the ones geo ?
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65137.0.html
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/65198.0.html



Yep, those are the very ones........... what are thousands of additional weapons in the hands of the insurgents...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Aug 2007)

And if we keep treating them as ignorant savages will we get anywhere? Treating them as equals will pay dividends in the long run and when they see that they will bend over backwards to please. Just because they are 3rd World does not mean they are lower on the totem pole. If we keep treating 3rd World Armies like they are second or third rate (yeah I know some are) then we end up pushing them away.


----------



## geo (15 Aug 2007)

FWIW, the C7 as a basic weapon is for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the M16.
The M16 continues to do well with troops from Thailand, the Phillipines and many other countries in jungle/damp climates not known for being gentle with ANY weapon... and they continue to work well.

If we provide C7s with iron sight / no Elcan scope, it there any reason why an Afghan warrior couldn't keep his weapon operational?

Though their formal educational level is low, is there a reason we should be treating them as monkeys & donkeys?
Aren't they something more than simple cannon fodder?


----------



## 3rd Herd (15 Aug 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And if we keep treating them as ignorant savages will we get anywhere? Treating them as equals will pay dividends in the long run and when they see that they will bend over backwards to please. Just because they are 3rd World does not mean they are lower on the totem pole. If we keep treating 3rd World Armies like they are second or third rate (yeah I know some are) then we end up pushing them away.



If you look at the Phillipines and Burma in the Second World War and off the top of my head, Von Lettow in the First, those are prime examples of the success of so called inferior troops. Specifically, in view of this thread was the arming of "indigenous troops" with the Carbine over the standard rifles of the time. Again primarily based on the physical stature differences between east and west. This also led to the A-Team concept and the fight between the "Regular" army types and those advanced thinkers in the early SF. Force multiplier anyone ?

Geo,
as you and I, others well know "formal education" can mean a number of things. Books or generations of traditional knowledge, again the developed vs non developed (less developed, developing, or what ever the lastest PC buzz word is) dichotomy.


----------



## geo (15 Aug 2007)

One thing most everyone can attest to is that the Afghans, as a people, know how to fight.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Aug 2007)

Giving them the right tools for their current abilities is not demeaning them, nor is recognizing their strengths and weakness. Upkeep is a major issue in any 3rd world country, hell even the Malay’s like to joke about how they are much better building new things than fixing the old. Afghanistan has not had a real functioning education system for the last 10-20 years. The AK family and it’s derivatives are ingrained into the local culture, likely most men can field strip one without formal lessons (I am taking an educated guess here) Why not build on that strength instead of re-inventing the wheel? I suspect this has more to do about politics and money, then tactical requirements.


----------



## 3rd Herd (15 Aug 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect this has more to do about politics and money, then tactical requirements.


Colin,
having similar thoughts I tend to agree. For one the lack of a "dedicated" teaching cadre. Instead we have a rotational cadre to a certain extent on the "voluntold" basis. An example everyone can relate to is the substitute teacher in the class room. Very few "substitutes" can keep the continuity of the program intact. Next, as with most areas there are those that are "gifted" or "have the knack" or are "naturals" but historically those personal have been often described as suffering from "Chinese fever", having gone "Asiatic" or have been so successful they are deemed a threat to the regular for life types. It is because of their natural gifts that they are a threat to those who one either do not the gift and are unwilling to learn, or who are still buying into the white man's supremacy doctrine.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2007)

Apart from the capacity and technical issues, if the Coalition is trying to help AFG rebuild the society, military and government ("The Afghan people are relying on the international community to *help them rebuild their lives and their country* after having suffered through decades of instability, oppression and insurgency"), does anybody know if the ANA and other security forces have been asked if they have a preference one way or another?  

I'm far from a technical expert, but here appears to be a case to be made for either the AK-family of weapons (familiar, resiliant to adverse conditions with limited maintenance, parts and ammo easy to obtain on open markets) or the M-16 family (easier to integrate with NATO/western forces, newer technology).  Given that, have the Afghans said which they'd like better?   

Yes, I realize they're still a growing military (which is why all those Coalition folks are helping build them up), but if we're here to help them help themselves, I'd like to think they'd been consulted in some manner, no?


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> There was a story in the press in the past 5 days that discussed an order, allegedly approved by the US for Iraqi police & military that was being funneled through Italy.  AKs and AKMs I believe.  Turns out that this was not a US approved order and that it was probably destined to arm some militias & terrorists.
> 
> The whole thing is being unraveled right about now, arrests of arms merchants and the middlemen have been carried out.  With luck they can roll things back to the instigators, recoup some of that Iraqi reconstruction $$$ that's dissapeared and make Iraq a little bit safer, for a little while.



This is a seperate issue, as the new weapons were already coming in when I was there.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Aug 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Any wide spot on the road has 7.62x39
> 
> ....are subject to US Department of State ITAR requirements due to the Colt license.  Minister O'Connor can talk till he is blue in the face - but unless Condi gives her John Hankok on the paper all he is doing is wasting oxygen.



True Kevin, back in 2000/2001 in Australia, we rebuilt several hundred M16A1's (Colts and GMs) using our Viet Nam stock (prior to this all M16A1 rifles in catalogue were pre 1970 'purchase'. We were recalled off our Christmas leave, as these weapons were destined for the new Timor L'este Army. They got through, and suddendly were returned to Australia, as they were still considered 'Lend lease' with return only to the USA, to keep for Australia or be destroyed. All that hard work for nothing. The Timor L'este Army ended up with 'off the shelf' new M16A2 rifles. The US government did not approve of the export to Timor L'este, adn the whole project was cancelled.

Canada too will have to comply, and I am sure the US Governemt sees $$$$, so maybe the EM thing will be repeated?

Cheers,

Wes

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kiwi99 (16 Aug 2007)

Just going back to a comment made a while back on the thread, in ref to the enemy being not very good shots.  I tend to disagree.  At times they employ all the basic warfighting skills that we use, and I can attest that they DO know how to aim and shoot, apply fire movement, and rates of fire.  Lets not undersetimate them, or the freindly dudes, eh.

Let them have C7s all they want.  Big deal.  All this mumbo jumbo about falling into enemy hands, logistics issues, what type of ammo.  It means nothing.  If a new riflke makes them feel better as soldier, then do it up.  And if it pisses off Mr Dion and Jack Layton, even better! there are more than enough weapons missing from the CF to float around on the black market anyway.


----------



## 3rd Herd (16 Aug 2007)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> Let them have C7s all they want.  Big deal.  All this mumbo jumbo about falling into enemy hands, logistics issues, what type of ammo.  It means nothing.  If a new riflke makes them feel better as soldier, then do it up.


A point we had missed so far.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Aug 2007)

+10 Kiwi99

Those posting need to place this very minor "issue" in context.  We are engaged in an increasingly large effort to professionalize the ANA and to have them play a greater part in the fight.  Until recently, they've participated using secondhand US-surplus trucks, Mongolian artillery (well, until 2005 anyway), Ranger pickups and hand-me-down AK-47s.  They're not stupid and there have been repeated stories in the press quoting Afghan commanders envious of the massive technological superiority enjoyed by the West.  If giving away several hundred _surplus_ C-7s helps alleviate this envy and contributes to the ANA's operational success, I'm all for it.

Moreover, there may well be a larger agenda at work.  Provision of Western weapons links the ANA more firmly to Western methods, doctrine, and supply systems.  The Taliban is likely to use Soviet-type weaponry for the foreseeable future, in part because spares and ammunition can be found in any Pakistani Frontier Province bazaar.  Indeed, some of their Russian pattern weapons are _made_ there.  A Taliban fighter picking up (or buying) a C-7 is far less likely to be able to obtain both spares and ammunition from his traditional supply chain.

Anything that sets the ANA apart from the Taliban, links them more closely to us, aids in their professionalization, and limits interoperability with Taliban weapons is all good in my book.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Aug 2007)

I know they just mention C7s but will C8s and C9s be included as well?


----------



## KevinB (19 Aug 2007)

I would assume -- however you know what they say about that...


  FWIW - I'd replace all the x39 small arms leaving the only Russian weapon I like, the PKM in its x54R cartidge as the PL's only Warsaw Pact calibre.


----------



## Big Red (20 Aug 2007)

The Iraqi army is also replacing it's AK variants (some very recently purchased) with US supplied M16A2s and M4s.  The entire army will be equipped with the M16 FOW. The ones I've seen had fixed stocks and looked awkward in the hands of guys wearing body armour.  The Iraqi SF has been supplied with US equipment since it's formation. I've seen them with M4, M24, M249, M240, M2, NVGs, etc.  They also have US SF-style humvees with multiple weapons mounts and Mamba APCs.

I'm not totally against supplying the Iraqi ARMY with the newer weaponry, as it will help them look more professional, increase NATO ammo interoperability, and make Friend or Foe ID easier.  I can think of better things to spend money on though.  I'm not sure if they are providing the IA with any NATO belt feds, but I hope not as the PKM works just fine. 

I would not supply the Iraqi POLICE with anything new as the organization is 100% corrupt with the possible exception of a couple units mentored by US SF.

The arms smuggling ring into Iraq was orchestrated by the MOI according to the article. Those weapons would have ended up in the hands of the MOI Commandos (mahdi militia in uniform).

There were pictures in the Stars & Stripes recently of Afghan SF units with M4s and M249s with iron sights and Knight's RAS.


----------



## McG (30 Aug 2007)

It is too bad that we've already sent away our AVGP.  Those would have done more for the ANA that a few rifles.


----------



## geo (30 Aug 2007)

he AVGP turrets have been recycled to the TLAVs.
Amongst other things, the 1st generation Mowags had a stability problem - that was corrected on the LAV IIIs
The hulls were tired
If we weren't prepared to use em ourselves in Afghanistan, I wouldn't consider it doing the Afghans a favour - to ship so much "scrap metal" their way...


----------



## McG (30 Aug 2007)

An AVGP would be better than the open pick-up trucks they have now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Aug 2007)

Actually a Mine protected version of a commercial truck similar to the early SA vehicles would be cheaper and easier to source part, either based on a Mercedes or Gaz commercial truck.

The Pickup will always be around because they are cheap and fairly easy to maintain and train people to drive. It would be nice if they got some of the V150 armoured cars to give them some teeth, even some BRDM’s wouldn’t hurt.


----------



## KevinB (30 Aug 2007)

Your missing the spirit of the infanteer/rifleman -- a soldiers primary tool is the rifle - the image is of the soldier with the rifle - and for Afghani's this a very personal thing - they like to fight and kill stuff -- sure some other kit might be in greater need for operational capability - but when your tryign to built the warrior spirit and elan in the force - a rifle is a damn good way to do it.


----------



## McG (30 Aug 2007)

The warrior spirit is already there in the ANA.  They need to build capability.


----------



## MarkS33 (3 Sep 2007)

Hey there ladies and gentlemen, this is my first post and i found this topic rather interesting. I understand that it would be much more convenient for us to give the Afghans some Canadian made rifles, but lets look at the area. the majority of the rifles in the area run along the same lines as the AK-47. So I'm just wondering... If, God forbid, after we leave and Afghanistan is on it own, its gets invaded by say... Russia or Pakistan ( they are the two big powers in the area...) wouldn't it be better for them to be using the AK-47 as they would be able to interchange parts and pick up spare ammo in the field rather than having to rely on convoys and Canadian or American parts?. i say this simply because, we are not going to be there forever and by comparison, or troops are much better equipped and will be readily available to pass out a spare mag in the heat of a firefight or engagement. lemme know what you guys think.... though i do agree about the harm it will cause to the warlords, but I'm sure they have the ability to get their own bullets from other sources, all be it at a higher price.


----------



## Jorkapp (3 Sep 2007)

MarkS33 said:
			
		

> Hey there ladies and gentlemen, this is my first post and i found this topic rather interesting. I understand that it would be much more convenient for us to give the Afghans some Canadian made rifles, but lets look at the area. the majority of the rifles in the area run along the same lines as the AK-47. So I'm just wondering... If, God forbid, after we leave and Afghanistan is on it own, its gets invaded by say... Russia or Pakistan ( they are the two big powers in the area...) wouldn't it be better for them to be using the AK-47 as they would be able to interchange parts and pick up spare ammo in the field rather than having to rely on convoys and Canadian or American parts?. i say this simply because, we are not going to be there forever and by comparison, or troops are much better equipped and will be readily available to pass out a spare mag in the heat of a firefight or engagement. lemme know what you guys think.... though i do agree about the harm it will cause to the warlords, but I'm sure they have the ability to get their own bullets from other sources, all be it at a higher price.



Using the AK-47 on the grounds of "interchanging parts and ammo" is pointless if Russia invades, since the Russian Army now has the AK-74 as standard issue. IIRC, parts and ammo are not interchangeable between the '47 and '74.


----------



## geo (4 Sep 2007)

Mark...
another thing... the point you bring up is valid, but has already been discussed in this very thread....
Would be nice if you boned up on what's being talked about before jumping in.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Sep 2007)

Jorkapp said:
			
		

> ... parts and ammo are not interchangeable between the '47 and '74.



Ammo definatley not, but many parts are interchangeable on both 5.45mm and 7.62mm rifles. I've seen it, and done it, so I know what I am talking about, so their is NO bullshyte factor here.

Its been about 45 years since the Russians stopped using the AK-47 (most went to 'client' countries and war stocks back then) , the AKM came into play in about 1959, and for those that don't know the AKM is just a modified AK-47, using more steel stampings, a stamped receiver vice a solid stock machined job, a different handguard, different gas block, 1000m rear sights instead of 800m, a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor/muzzle break, and utilising a rate reducer in the trigger mech.

So the buck stops here yet again.

Those not knowing the facts should indeed stick to their own lane of expertise. Soon we'll be hearing that 7.62mm our's/their's interchanability myth again  :

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Jorkapp (5 Sep 2007)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Ammo definatley not, but many parts are interchangeable on both 5.45mm and 7.62mm rifles. I've seen it, and done it, so I know what I am talking about, so their is NO bullshyte factor here.
> 
> Its been about 45 years since the Russians stopped using the AK-47 (most went to 'client' countries and war stocks back then) , the AKM came into play in about 1959, and for those that don't know the AKM is just a modified AK-47, using more steel stampings, a stamped receiver vice a solid stock machined job, a different handguard, different gas block, 1000m rear sights instead of 800m, a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor/muzzle break, and utilising a rate reducer in the trigger mech.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the correction Wes. I knew the ammo was different, but I hadn't heard anything on parts interoperability. Cheers.


----------



## MarkS33 (5 Sep 2007)

yeah.. sorry about that, go figure it to be me to be the dummy who missed the page where what i say is already posted.   :brickwall:


----------



## Blakey (24 Dec 2007)

UPDATE
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/071223/n122308A.html


> Canadian military donates old C7 rifles to Afghan National Army
> 
> Published: Sunday, December 23, 2007 | 12:14 PM ET
> Canadian Press: THE CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


----------



## geo (25 Dec 2007)

2500 "surplus" rifles?  Wonder what's that supposed to mean?

2500 surplus Elcan scopes included in the deal? - If I were afghans, I might not be happy with the end product.
With luck we'll provide the rifles with screw on rail mounted iron sights


----------



## Jorkapp (26 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> 2500 "surplus" rifles?  Wonder what's that supposed to mean?
> 
> 2500 surplus Elcan scopes included in the deal? - If I were afghans, I might not be happy with the end product.
> With luck we'll provide the rifles with screw on rail mounted iron sights



Could we not donate the older C7 uppers with the integrated iron sight/carry handle?


----------



## Eric_911 (26 Dec 2007)

MG34 said:
			
		

> Like it or not the Afghans are our allies in this fight, if re-equipping them with modern weapons will get them into the fight then I'm all for it. The argument that the Taliban will use these weapons against us is pretty much moot as captured ot stolen M16s and M4 Carbines and  black market versions of the same are already being used against us, wether or not you are killed by an ex-Soviet AKM  or a Colt product doesn't matter you are still dead. Given the marksmanship standards of the Taliban and others I am not too worried about it either way, as it is the shooter not the tool that makes the difference.


I agree with MG34, invariably the weapons (even if only a few) will eventually trickle into the wrong hands. I also agree with helping out the ANA with weapons, since we're fighting the same war and all. In this case our country are the "haves" and the Afghan's, in most cases, are the "have not's".

My only qualm is having our names (CANADIAN FORCES CANADIENNES) and that nice little Maple Leaf on every one of those weapons. Maybe its just me..... 

"Made in Canada" or "Made in China"? Fine. But not "Canadian Forces"

Should a member of another allied nation (or even one of our own) recover that weapon after being shot/shot at by it, he/she will probably not hold the "Canadian Forces" in quite as high a regard. 

Just my 2 cents


----------



## dapaterson (26 Dec 2007)

I'm reasonably certain the weapons will be marked in some way to indicate the transfer of ownership - and have the Canadian identifiers suitably defaced or modified.

I'm also hoping they are in fact C7s with iron sights - because, let's face it, would we really want to inflict the Elcans on anyone else?


----------



## Eric_911 (26 Dec 2007)

Well...(not trying to be confrontational by any means)... 

Unless they grind the side off of 2,500 C7 lower receiver's, they'll all still say "Canadian Forces" on them, regardless of any additional stampings indicating ANA transfer/ownership. People will still look at the CF if the situation I described above transpired.


----------



## NL_engineer (26 Dec 2007)

I think the C7's bought by the Dutch, still say 'Canadian Forces' on them.

hopefully we are not sending along the elcans.  Even if they are C7A1's there is always that flip up site that costs something like $6.00 (or so I am told).


----------



## geo (27 Dec 2007)

Eric..... your thoughts are noted but, I think you're chasing a red herring.

US made M16s were used by the Viet Cong .... so what?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Dec 2007)

I think all professional military realize that captured weapons will be used and understand that sometimes it is beyond the originating countries control.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Dec 2007)

Ex-Dragoon's statment here is correct:

"I think all professional military realize that captured weapons will be used and understand that sometimes it is beyond the originating countries control."

Unfortunately one cannot say the same of the media.


----------



## geo (28 Dec 2007)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Unfortunately one cannot say the same of the media.



Thank the lord that fewer & fewer people are inclined to believe the tripe that comes out of MsM.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Dec 2007)

I have not seen anything really that states which variant of C7 the ANA are getting.....


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

It's either just me, or I really don't think the ANA will switch over to M16s or C7s as fast as some of us would like to believe. 

The first thought that comes to mind is the availability of ammo and parts. Not to mention a working knowledge and understanding of basic upkeep of a Colt series weapon. 

5.56 aren't as easy to get as 7.62 in a country that's all about 7.62s. The last time I checked, we haven't lost a large ammo cache anywhere... have we? Why do you think AK and its variants are the most prominent weapon types around the world. A jihadist's weapon of choice?


----------



## geo (28 Dec 2007)

Once the ANA (&ANP at a later date?) starts using 5.56, then there will be 5.56 ammo available.
Over time, the TB & AQ will use 5.56 if it suits their needs.  PERIOD!


----------



## medaid (28 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Once the ANA (&ANP at a later date?) starts using 5.56, then there will be 5.56 ammo available.
> Over time, the TB & AQ will use 5.56 if it suits their needs.  PERIOD!



My point exactly, but you're just more eloquent at it  It's a matter of convenience, and 7.62s are convenient and takes very little training with the AK compared with a Colt variant. Don't need to scrub as hard or as long with and AK, hell probably don't even have to scrub that often. With a Colt variant, it's harder to maintain in comparison... and supply yadda yadda yadda. Time will tell.


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Dec 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Over time, the TB & AQ will use 5.56 if it suits their needs.  PERIOD!



If they aren't using it now in the form of captures weapons (not saying they are, have been, or will ever  :)


----------



## KevinB (28 Dec 2007)

C7's bought by the Dutch do not have any CF literature on them.

The CF have lost SEVERAL C7 anbd C8 rifles in Afghan, and the US and other have lost some of theirs" what does it matter how the rifle is marked?


----------



## geo (30 Dec 2007)

Heh.. If I recall, in 2002, there were plenty of old Martini Henry rifles that turned up during searches.
No one was blaming the Brits for having provided the Afghans with those weapons....

Think about it, after WW2, there were tons of K98, MG34 & 42, MP40, P38 & P08s making their rounds of Europe, North Africa & the world's hot spots.  What do you do with all those weapons after the end of a global war?


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2008)

Article in the Montreal Gazette today.  Picture of the Afghan army on the ranges firing their "new" C7 rifles.
As expected, the C7s are the original C7 rifles with the carrying handle/iron sights = M16 lookalikes.

The ANA sergeant major quoted in the interview underlines the need of his troops to learn how to clean and maintain their rifles.... 

http://digital.montrealgazette.com/epaper/viewer.aspx    (page A15)


----------



## geo (4 Jan 2008)

> UK arming Afghan tribes will not work, warns US commander
> 
> Mathaba.Net
> Posted: 2008/01/04
> ...



This could become very complicated if the ANA ends up stocking weapons of the world ..... with different rifles in each Kandak.  Also, don't think the Brits would be doing the Afghans any favors if they supplied those surplus original SA80/L85 they were so fond of (not!)


----------



## Soldier54 (15 Jan 2008)

How about the simple response that the C7 is easier to support that the AK.  The ANA wpns are old and well worn. Replacing them, while simple in concept has a few edges to it.  Why maintain the Russian 7.62?  Weapons from Romania and a number of other countries have been over poor quality.  While it is easy to make fun of the C7 - it is still better than anything the old Russian system produced, with regards to maintaining it in 2008.  Lastly, why should we be paying an eastern European country or Chineses country to maintain a weapon system that we produce quite efficiently.  Yes, we can make AK ammo, but why should we?  The weapon we just sent them is still an outstanding system.


----------



## RCR Grunt (15 Jan 2008)

Why are you suggesting we support them the way you are?  The whole purpose is for us to help them stand on their own feet and then leave at a time that they can take care of themselves.  The way you are talking it sounds as though we will be in Afghanistan and supporting the ANA logistically forever.  WE are only there till THEY can do it THEMSELVES, then WE are gone and THEY will be left with what WE have forced upon them.  The decision has to be made with Afghan independence in mind, not ease of logistics for Canada.  The weapons we have supplied are good weapons, but are they the best weapons for the ANA?  Maybe, maybe not. The C7 is easier to support for us, but not for the ANA, at least not the way they operated when I was there.  That being said this part of the topic has been discussed to death.

I'd tell you to stay in your lane, but I have no idea what your lane is.  Perhaps if you filled out your profile it would make it apparent what your expertise is in this subject.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jan 2008)

Sorry I think at the present time this is a horrible idea.


----------



## Soldier54 (15 Jan 2008)

The whole point of getting them to stand up is to ensure "they know how to stand up".  While I know they can fight, logistic support is still an issue within the ANSF.  They never had to deal with that before - to make the force sustainable and viable, they need to stood up to support the Government.  That means they must be functional and supportable, which they will not be able to do on our own.  Simply put, if we don't set them up for success, they will fail.  That is why we need to equip them, support them, train with them and fight along side.  Expecting them to secure their own country from internal issues, organized crime, neighbouring countries, etc with what little equipment they have now will not help anyone.


----------



## 1feral1 (16 Jan 2008)

AKs in that part of the world as as common as chopsticks in China.

Some tribal forces still carry Lee-Metfords (c.1899)! Holy shyte, over!

AKs of all variations (Chi-Com, Russian, East German, Polish, Romanian, Hungarian etc and in calibres 7.62 and 5.45.) will be in use for the next 100 yrs.

Canada making AK ammo? Plenty of ammo to go around already. I can see us supplying it though, if we had to. It would be cheaper to buy it off the shelf from eastern Europe, China or Russia, in bulk, then tool up for it. They've been making for over 60 years in the Com Bloc world. The ammo is good stuff, and I've seen tins of it made in the 1960's, cracked open the spam tin, and ready to go. In theatre, we used Russian and Chinese ammo. The Chi-Com stuff was 1961! At our FOB, I maintaned our 'fleet' of captured AKs, and there never was a stoppage, although the Romanian one we had only fired on automatic! That one was a rusted battlefield pickup, and it only took me a few hours to clean it up.

Some Eastern Euro standards of the Cold war period, perhaps were not say as Q1 as East Germany for example, with the over'anal stereotypical german engineering (these former DDR rifles were Q1!!, Of the many, and I mean many AKs I seen in service with the Iraqi Army, and the ones taken from the AIF were overall good to go. A little shiny perhaps, but worked how they were supposed to.

Seems more practical to train up on the easy AK 'peasant proof system' then the M16 FOW. Why the ANA cannot be sponsored by a logistical front which caters the AK FOW is beyond me, but in reality the small qty of C7 rifles, will be like a bucket of sand of a beach, if that. A small gesture, not a big swing to COLT like some think.

Sooner or later thru attrition, parts and logistics will be an issue. Their EME system is piss weak, their supply system is even worse, so there will be alot of canabilisation almost instantly. The serviceable fleet will shrink from the get-go.

In the short term, repairs etc can be carried out by Coalition Forces perhaps, but what about isolation, and sooner or later, they will be on their own. If any spares are left behind, I am sure corruption etc will dwindle them down fast. Profiteering and black markets make money.

I can't see any CF EME elements doing an FRT to replace lost parts in 'Indian Country'.

I am not knocking our weapons system, but face it, with substandard troops  (I am not knocking their fighting spirit) with an AK, you can't loose a firing pin retaining pin, the firing pin, extractor and the little bits, or bend a gas tube. The 'Armalites' are not 'soldier proof' compared to the AK, and definatly not peasant mentality proofed either!

I once dealt with some PNG soldiers, who got a cleaning patch stuck in the bbl. They as a group, had tried to burn it out by putting the bbl over a fire. Peasant mentality with a Colt M16A2. You should have seen it, gathered around like some type of a sacrifical ceremony, roasting a rifle, not a beast from the J! Crazy times! At least they took the handguards off 

This little gesture with the C7's is nothing but a joke, comparing it to plugging a dam with double-bubble.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Soldier54 (16 Jan 2008)

I'm with ya on that count Wes.  The intent to convert the ANA over to 5.56 has been in the works since 02.  The US have been looking to other countries to help them out in contributing.  CAs few C7 are a drop in the bucket compared to what the US has been providing.  We'll see where it goes.

Cheers


----------



## KevinB (16 Jan 2008)

I've seen some equally as unserviceable Ak's - inc several w/o bolts (hmm Mohammed, where did the bolt go?)

 Iraqi SF has been using the M4's and more and more Iraqi units are going M16/M4 -- its not the end of the world -- if you can teach a troop to do drill, you can teach the M16FOW -- and a retarded monkey can build them -- its a plug and play system -- unlike amouring a number of other weapons systems.

I bet Wes you could within a week train up a platoon of very good Afghani Weapon techs to perfrom complete work on the system up to and including drilling and pinning front sight gas blocks on barrels...


----------



## Blakey (20 Jan 2008)

CP Video report. 03 Jan 2008
http://www.thewesternstar.com/index.cfm?main=broadcast&bcid=831&cpvid=1


> Description:
> 
> After a frustratingly long three-year wait, the fledging Afghan National Army finally has a new weapon in its arsenal: the Canadian C7 rifle. Some 42 boxes of surplus weapons arrived at the ANA base just up the road from Kandahar Airfield last week, Brig.-Gen. Gul Aqa said Wednesday in an interview with The Canadian Press. And training is already underway. Aimed at replacing the Afghan army's old Soviet-era AK-47s in order to bring the force's fire power capabilities in line with that of NATO countries, the Canadian rifles are a welcome addition, Aqa said. "They're very modern and new weapons and the C7 is a real necessity for the ANA," he said through a translator. He said the AK-47s often jam, leaving soldiers vulnerable to enemy fire. "It's the difference between old and new." It's a project that's been in the works for several years.


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2008)

Oik..... the AKs jam?

and ours don't?

Guess our troops go thru their IAs and stoppages drills so quickly that it appears like we don't have?

I dunno- sounds unreal!


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Jan 2008)

AK's often jam!

Anotehr politically correct statement pulled out of his arse!

In all my time on the AK (since 1980), I have never seen one chuck a stoppage.

Even some of the batlefield pickups I played with, and shot fired well.

Dust, sand, overall poor maintenance and lube on the C7 will have the ANA wondering after a while. If they treat the C7's like their AKs, there will be problems. Don't lose your FP retaining pins troops   !

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jun 2011)

Reviving necrothread with latest:  CF taking back donated rifles - this from the Canadian Press:


> The Afghan National Army has given back thousands of assault rifles donated by Canada several years ago in a $9-million effort to bring the fledgling fighting force up to speed.
> 
> The 2,500 modified, surplus C-7 rifles, mostly vintage 1980s weapons, were delivered to the Afghan military amid much fanfare between 2007 and 2008.
> 
> ...


----------

