AK Rifles banner

The AK's role in the vietnam war

5K views 57 replies 18 participants last post by  Averageman 
#1 ·
Im sure this topic has been discussed before, but I have browsed through the first few pages of the forum and didnt see a thread, so figured I would start one.
First, I wonder at one point did the kalashnikov become the most common weapon of the NVA and of the vietcong. I know that its first appearence to the west was in the riots in budapest in 56. That was also when China started manufacturing AK's. So Im thinking the NVA probably adopted the AK as standard issue sometime around 63. I know they had a mix of Russian and chinese made Kalashnikovs. Now Im thinking that at least throughout a large part of the war, the AK was not as easily available to the guerillas in the south. I know I have seen photos of VC fighters with SKS's, mosins, and what appeared to be wwII era bolt action rifles from somewhere else. I think probably by 1970 or so though, even the VC probably fielded mostly kalashnikovs.


The second aspect of the AK I want to discuss is how much of a difference in the eventual outcome of that conflict, both on and off the battlefield. In a book about the history of the AK I read "The gun", the author discussed how during the begining of the conflict, the US was transitioning from the M-14 to the M-16 and at first the rifle wasnt performing all that great and the AK was, which maybe gave the NVA/VC a psychological edge that lasted. Also I think that the AK being a durable as it is was a big factor in serveral ways, particularly since one rifle ccould last the lifetimes of four or five fighters in the field. I dont know that the vietcong could have survived against the americans and south vietnamese for the amount of time they did if they had to depend on mosins PPSH's, french bolt actions, SKS's and whatever was made in shops along the ho chi minh trail(I will be making a thread soon about a 1911 made in a shop on the ho chi minh trail). The ability to train someone who wasnt familiar with firearms(especially inthe south, where many vietcong werent vets of the french war and guns were scarce in rural ares)is pretty important in guerilla warfare.
also, many other infantry rifles would not have been as easy to maintain i those climes. Overall I think the AK's performance, while not winning the war for the north/communists, did play an important role in how that conflict turned out.
any thoughs?
 
See less See more
#3 ·
In the early war years when I was there 65 66 we captured allot of french and US weapons some coming from the Korean War. We picked up allot of sks carbines and Chinese milled ak rifles. More sks than ak. But as time went on more ak rifles were found as supplied found there way into the Central Highlands. I did not see any Russian ak's just Milled Chinese
 
#6 ·
The First Cav captured 2 .50 browning MGs that were researched and found to have been issued in Korea during the Korean war. Lots of US Carbines thompsons and BAR rifles were also found. They could have come from ARVIN supplies. In some places the ARVIN left their camps and weapons to escape being captured by Viet Cong. Here I posted a couple shots of some of the stuff we captured the two .50s are there on improvised mounts.
 

Attachments

#9 ·
Far from an expert on the topic, but I feel like I remember reading that through most of that time China and the Soviet Union were at odds, so I don’t know how much stuff was getting funneled through China that was Soviet. At least after the beginning phases of it. From what I read at least the air defense missiles and all that came straight from the soviet union. Impression I got from reading stuff, is the Chinese provided a lot of the manpower and lower tech support, along with sanctuary, while the soviet union provided the higher tech stuff.
 
#16 · (Edited)
The NVA/Viet Cong used whatever they could get hold of. I have read of German WWII weapons, including K98’s, MP40’s and StG-44 being used. I have also heard that they re-used the “disposable” fiberglass tube from our 66mm M77 Light Anti-tank Weapon (LAW) as an improvised mortar tube. The NVA/VC were quite creative at improvisation. I was not in Viet Nam, I enlisted 3 months after Saigon fell. June 27, 1975 was my enlistment date. Just a bit too young to have been there. But many of the guys I served with were there. I did get to fam fire a captured Chicom AK-47 as part of our familiarization with the weapon. It was definitely Chinese, not Soviet. Thus began my love affair with the Kalashnikov AK. I liked it so much better than the AR. Still do. :smile:

GS
 
#18 ·
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/vietnam/hist-2nd-indochina-ussr.htm

An interesting read, I'm not vouching for their facts but it seems legit.

From the link,

"Beginning in November 1964, relations with the Soviet Union took a new turn, evidently because of Moscow's avowed intention to render active support to Hanoi in its political and military confrontation with the United States. On 17 November 1964, the Soviet Politburo decided to send increased support to North Vietnam. This aid included aircraft, radar, artillery, air defense systems, small arms, ammunition, food and medical supplies. They also sent Soviet military personnel to North Vietnam-the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Vietnam (DRVN). Some 15,000 Soviet personnel served in Indo-China as advisers and occasionally as combatants. The largest part of the Soviet adviser personnel were air defense officers."

With Soviet arms and supplies coming through China and being shipped directly to ports like Haiphong it is anyone's guess as to what was in those shipments. I have always been a little skeptical about the Soviet-China AK switcheroo stories. Sure it probably happened but I'm thinking it was just outright theft. In what ways were the Chicom AK inferior? Why just AKs, did they also switch RPDs, RPGs, D-74s, PT-76s and Dshks?

Fun discussion and Howie's pics are great. It would be nice to have more personally documented proof like that.
 
#19 ·
To that I would only guess that the Chinese had a similar SOP with all the other Russian weapons passing through town as well. It wasn't just limited to AK's. I'd imagine on the diplomatic side of the house the Vietnamese and the Russians agreed upon certain numbers of material units. That stuff... rifles, mg's, pistols, vehicles, magazines, various rockets, etc, got pushed through China and those guys grabbed everything they could to advance their cause. The Chinese really didn't give a shit about the Vietnamese people, this proven by the war they waged against each other in the late 70's. Their intentions were purely self-interest. Back then, China wasn't half the developed country they are today, so their policy toward acquiring technology was probably pretty aggressive.
 
#22 ·
Just as a quick aside for those of us that haven’t been there and seen that stuff for ourselves, wikipedia actually has a really interesting page on vietcong and nva tactics. It tends to get quite lengthy but it has some really interesting detailed stuff in it. Think it was called “NLF and PAVN battle tactics”, and maybe some of the associated links. Figure it might have some interesting stuff to at least someone. At least that’s what I thought once I stumbled upon it.
 
#25 ·
A book should be written. Then again politics play games. Truth can be scarce. Facts can be tainted. We'll never know truth so long as we let humans handle things. We're our own enemy.
We're better at killing ourselves than feeding our hungry. We've perfected the art of war and failed in the hopes of long term survival.
 
#28 ·
The info and data in Wikipedia is supplied by individials.
Not a closet full of wiki employees typing up history or how to fix a garage door opener.

Some of the data is spot on and some not so much.

I am no expert on the Vietnam War but I am a witness.
We captured a lot of ordnance.
Most we could ID was Chinese.
But there was a mix and at the time in 1970 not many Americans or GI's could ID firearms by sight.

Only in later years were the various Ak's and SKS and other weapon types really common knowledge.
 
#29 ·
I would not trust Wiki for anything other than generalizations and exacting numbers like dates, quantities, or timelines. Even then I'd only give it an "in the ballpark" legitimacy and it is regularly disproven. It's not an acceptable citable source for a thesis in any reputable institution.
 
#30 ·
Neither is an anecdotal account from a veteran a thesis based data source.

Wiki is a voluntary information collection database.Offered information is vetted by viewers and witnesses.

It is often pertinent but sometimes biased or incorrect too.
Like many war stories ., there are a lot of them..

Like most discussions the views and sources will vary. Different sides side of the war will have different stories to tell. They are sometimes very different and opposing views,
 
#31 · (Edited)
I used 3d-person interviews in my undergraduate thesis quite a bit(on insurgent and counter-insurgency operations in N.Ireland), and cited them in my bibliography. Interviews with witnesses is acceptable in most forms of journalism, and AFAIK know Nguyen Hoaxing Giai has been vetted. He is who he says he is and has done what he says he has done(fought for the communist for the war's duration). If we're going to discredit sources like this, why should we believe anything anybody has to say anything no matter what? I don't even know you but I'm pretty confident you're telling the truth. You were there, so was he. What's the difference?
 
#32 ·
No difference
But beliefs and truths differ depending on what side you were on.
Even where one served.

Debates over wars, tactics, who started what, best weaponry
, and why certain decisions were made is never ending. :)

Wars suck., whether the Chinese or Russians or North Koreans supplied the ordnance there was enough to outlast the US will to maintain a prolonged war.

The North Vietnamese and the VC were willing to keep fighting.

Invading a country is not an easy fight and Vietnam marked a change in the rules or pattern of engagement.

We won the body count but not the staying power or the support of the civilians back home.

The AK was a fine weapon but anything that shoots can be used when the engagements are of a certain type.
The use of booby traps was a big difference in that war.

We started using similar tactics depending on what area we were operating in.

A couple million stories in most wars.
 
#51 ·
You totally miss the point when you pretend you are comparing "an interview with an enemy combatant" to "Wiki" as if wikipedia were the source.

Wikipedia is simply a collection of information taken from real sources that have been published and vetted. Your "enemy combatant" might be a reliable source of information about what he did and what he saw but he has no credibility about anything where he did not personally take part. Your source is equivalent to asking some individual infantry private about how many bombs the US Air Force dropped during the war. He might remember something that he heard from someone, but he wouldn't actually know because he wasn't doing it and didn't have access to the actual information.
 
#34 ·
I have to say the Chinese sure did not have any issues with their weapons at all. I can vouch for the fact the early XM16E1 that the first cav. had were junk as well as the ammunition which upon hitting foliage deflected easily. The 7.62x39 went straight through most foliage and found its target. Also the bullshit stories about the M16 .5.56x45 tearing off limbs and wreaking havoc no matter where it hit a soldier was just that bullshit. The Chinese sks and ak performed excellently in combat there in 65 66 which I can vouch for. I refused to leave the States with the xm16E1 after carrying a select fire M14. I was a AR man in my squad. I instead got a M60 and carried that which performed well. The reason GIs and some officers liked the M16 was being able to carry 20 magazines for a basic load and a light rifle. But anyone that was there in Vietnam and payed attention noticed how wasteful GI's were with their ammo many just sprayed and prayed. If they had been carrying M14 rifles with 5 mags and bandoleers of ammo they would have not wasted the ammo as fast as the M16 guys did. Not only that but the 7.62x51 would have done the job with easier kills. Anyone who says Chinese weapons were not as good as Russian does not know what they are talking about (small arms weapons)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haris122
#35 ·
I have allot of photos to share of after the Vietnam war the guns left behind were gathered up and destroyed. Here is a few photos and if you want more I will add some. You will recognise lots of WW2 stuff French and German.
 

Attachments

#37 ·
The 5.56 and the 5.45 have proven to be effective in contemporary military firearms over the past 40-50 years.

In some military tactical reports a wounded individual is more disabling to a military unit than a KIA in terms of logistics, manpower to retrieve/rescue and other logistics such as medivac or other triage.

But the AK vs AR or .308 or 5.45 will be debated until those cartridges are retired for good. :)
 
#38 ·
Absolutely, but punching knitting needles through someone coming at you full bore from close range leaves a bit to be desired.

Curiously enough, in S. Africa they switched from .308 to 5.56 when they went from the FAL to the R4 and this was done for terrain and foliage reasons. Every Border War vet I've spoke to obviously loved the FAL, but I've never heard one of them bash 5.56. It's like their reaction to the change was almost opposite to what GI's felt 10 years earlier. I realize the R4 is not an AR but from a cartridge standpoint they all took to 5.56 much more readily than the US. However it must be mentioned that their SOF units by and large used Soviet Bloc weapons and therefor cartridges, although this was often due to their patrols being extended and long range. They commonly relied on captured ammo, but not always.
 
#39 ·
I trained on the M14 in Basic Training.
In Infantry AIT we transitioned to the M16.
I carried the M16 for a tour of duty in the infantry in Vietnam.
I welcomed the change to the M16.

Controllable in full auto, better carry and ammunition basic load carry.
But this discussion rages on adnaseum.
So it is. :)
 
#44 ·
You never experienced anything as bad as humping a M60 through jungle growth damn front sight caught on everything:) I carried 4 grenades, 50rds 45 in mags, 200rds 7.62x51mm in belts and 50rds in gun. 2 smoke grenades. C rats, socks, xtra medical bandages. k bar knife.
 
#43 · (Edited)
My uncle volunteered to be a door gunner in 64' when the US was discreetly flying around ARVN as "advisors". He said they told him it would be a foreign vacation in an exotic place with no fighting and that he and his friends had no idea what they were volunteering for. His younger brother then went two years later and was killed, at which time my uncle volunteered for a second tour. He has an SKS hanging on the wall in his computer room. I asked him about it as a kid and he said it was his first confirmed kill. A VC was running away from the helicopter on a bicycle with an SKS on his back. He made the pilot land so he could snap a photo and take the rifle. He moved to rural Alaska after the war for 10 years because he couldn't stand to be around people. He's one of the most interesting people I've ever met. I never knew what he meant by ARVN or what type of rifle it was until years later. He also said he used to drop off Hmong in the bush. He said they were paid mercenaries trained by the CIA and were the only soldiers the VC were truly afraid off.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top