The M16 (And its M4 Carbine version) has certain advantages over the AK-47, but the quicker and easier method of ejecting and installing a new Magazine is the best advantage, and is minor as is the lighter weight of the M16 and the ability to put on more gadgets the M16 has (especially the A4 and M4 Versions). On the other hand the AK is still considered more reliable (Through no automatic is as reliable as a Bolt Action Rifle, which is why such bolt action held on till the 1960s even in Major Powers, and bolt actions hold on in third world countries to this day) AND can be subject to more abuse (i.e. AKs have been left in the mud for weeks and like the M1911 one clean up by a soldier in the field will work, something that can NOT be said of any other Rifle).
I should note Chavez has opt for the AK-103 which differers from the AK-47. All weapons firing in the automatic mode will go up and to the left (Up and to the right if left handed). The reason for this is as the shooter feels the recoil he compensates for it, but never enough, thus the weapon goes against his effort to keep the weapon straight. This leads to the up and left motion. For this reason, except for machine guns in tripods, soldiers are trained to fire in semi-automatic mode OR in short burst in Automatic mode. The weaker the round the less up and to the left it goes, the stronger the round the more up and to the left it goes. Thus the decision during and after WWII to go to lighter loads for assault rifles. The AK-103 goes one more step, the exact technical difference escape me (and I can NOT find it on the net, everyone gets hanged up in the increase use of plastics and the increase ability to put on gadgets then the actual working of the rifle). Anyway the improvements is to help the AK-103 better prevent the up and to the left movement I believe in how the bolt works (And the change was NOT that radical splitting some action in half and then having two pulls instead of one, but the exact improvement escapes me at the present).
In addition to AKs, I would op for RPKs and PKs. PKs are the Russian General Purpose Machine Gun, it was also designed by Kalashnikov, thus the Ks in the designations. When the US looked for a replacement for the Old M60 Machine gun, the US tested the German G-3 (MG-42) and the Belgium MAG but included a Captured and previously (The amount of use was unknown) PK and the M60 to make sure the US would pick the best machine gun not a pig like the M-60 (The M-60 was NOT the worse machine gun in history, the Japanese and Italians had that privilege secure by their WWII Machine Guns, but it was the worse of the post WWII Machine guns, being a cross of the basic machine gun parts of the German WWII MG-42 with the gas operating system of the German WWII FG-42). Anyway the US did its test, the M-60 quickly showed why it was going to be replaced, PK continue to fire, even after its housing developed a crack in it, tell the end of the test. While the MAG technically won the contest, if you read between the lines the PK won (Through all three Machine Guns were deemed about the same when it came to military usability).
For more on AKs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKMhttp://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htmThe RPKs, are the Squad Automatic Weapons of the Russian Army. It is a AK with a 20 inch barrel instead of the AK's 16 inch barrel. Kalashnikov first designed a Sub Machine Gun during WWII, it was while liked but NOT adopted, he then designed the PK machine gun. In many aspects the AK is a downsized PK without a changeable barrel and designed to use a clip instead of a belt. Thus the switch to the RPK was NOT that much of a Change (and explains why the AK is so heavy, it is a downsized Machine gun, thus the RPK avoids the problem with the US XM15, M14A1, the British/Canadian/Belgium FN and other attempts to make post WWII assault rifles Squad Automatic Weapons, all of them were designed to light to do the job and when asked failed, the RPK did NOT fail for it was a Machine Gun design from day one, not a Rifle design upgraded to be a machine Gun). Now the RPK does NOT have the quick change barrel of the US M-249 (Called the BAR by some for it is a modified version of the M1918 BAR of WWII), not the modern M-249s ability to use BOTH Box magazine AND belt ammunition. Thus it is an inferior Squad Automatic Weapon to the M-249 when these two factors come into play. They did NOT come into play when the US used the Old M1918 BAR, which also did NOT have these Features, thus the RPK is good enough given that it gives you complete training duplication with the AK (i.e. the only difference is the barrel length).
More on RPKs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPKhttp://world.guns.ru/machine/mg15-e.htmMore on PKs:
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg07-e.htmSecond to Rifles/Machine Guns would be Anti-tank Weapons. The Russians came out with the RPKs during the 1950s and every time the US has faced them, the RPGs have done damage. Are RPKs as NOT as effective Anti-tank weapon as the TOW or Javelin, but the RPG are considered better then the AT-4 and its predecessor the Light Ant-Tank Weapon (LAW). Unlike the AT-4, the RPK requires its operator to be dedicated to the RPG (like the Javelin and TOW) but is used at the Squad and Platoon Level, not the Company (Javelin) or Battalion (TOW) level. The Russians also have Javelin and TOW equivalents which I see Chavez obtaining, but I expect his to concentrate on RPKs and the Russian Equivalent of the old US Law. Both are Cheap and effective, not necessary against modern US Tanks, but Tanks need fuel and supplies and against the Trucks and other support vehicles the RPG is good enough. he RPG-29 has a good reputation for effectiveness and being cheap:
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_infweapons_soviet_rpg29.phphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl04-e.htmThe Russian Latest LAW version:
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl42-e.htmThe Third option I would be buying is Russian Portage Anti-Aircraft Weapons. These are kept at Battalion level in US units (Do to costs and lack of serious Aircraft threat in most US Action) but a few will keep US Helicopters higher in the air, then if all the Helicopters can fear is Machine Gun Fire.
50 Caliber Machine Guns (In both the Soviet Army and US Army originally an Anti-tank round then AA round):
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg02-e.htmThe Fourth Series of Weapons would be 82mm Mortars (The Russians use 82 mm instead of the West 81mm, minor difference). Mortar's would give any Guerrillas the ability to attack any Air Base the US builds in Venezuela. 120mm would provide more range, more blast, but at the cost of requiring greater effort to be moved. I would get both. And plenty of Ammunition for both.
Fifth I would improve overall communication ability. Any US invasion force would have they own, so if the US also had use, it would be of minor concern. I.e. Cell system so I can call anyone and quickly put it back in order if it is destroyed. I would also try to get a Secure system (i.e. underground) to maintain contact with my regular troops. I would provide duplicative Water and Sewerage system (The US likes destroying such system during an air attack). All to be able to take a hit and recover as quickly as possible.
Sixth, I would upgrade my Air Force. More to keep the Air Force happy about getting new jets then anything else. Chavez decided to upgrade his fighter to the Russian's best export fighter, the SU-30 (Export venison of the SU-27). This is considered the best Russian fighter and except for electronic equipment (Which the US is years ahead of the Russian Republic) the SU-27 series is considered as good if not better then the F-15 (Again a note that the better electronics in the F-15 makes it clearly the better plane).
Now he has to keep them maintained and pilots trained (This was the reason NATO had no problems with the MIG-29s NATO faced in the war against Serbia, lack of pare parts lead to lack of training that lead to the Serbian MIG-29s becoming easy pickings for the US and NATO Pilots).
The whole thrust of his Air Force must be two fold, first to increase the costs of any Air Attack and to keep out intruding aircraft. Second to give Chavez time to retreat to what ever safe headquarters he has built and start the guerrilla war. The same thought should go to any naval or regular army formation, i.e. increase cost of any invasion AND give time for the guerrilla war time to start. Thus I would avoid any purchase of Tanks, armored Cars or Artillery, except as needed to slow down a US invasion (i.e. tell your people any such weapons will NOT stop the Americans, only delay them, so count of them only for delay). If it can not be hauled by hand do not buy it unless you plan to use it in the first days of the war and then lose it. The SU-30s fit that bill, used for about 72 hours then gone. In those 72 hours the SU-30s will force the US to play as if the SU-30s can show up anywhere, forcing the US to plan and arm its troops for air Protection, Air protection that will be useless for any other purpose thus just an increase in the Cost of the Invasion. Presently he has 24 SU-30s, the real question is how ready for combat are the crews and planes. SU:30s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30From what I have seen that is all Chavez is buying. He is keeping the tanks he has (his 82 AMX-30 1960 era French tanks are more then what Columbia but his military is considered weaker then Columbia's for the tanks are NOT considered the most up to date and are believed to be in poor shape, i.e. to be used and lost, or maybe even abandoned without being used).
Venezuela Army:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Venezuela#Tanks_and_combat_vehicleshttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/venezuela/index.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
