How big a difference does having certain types of firearms make?

[mbt2001]

How big a difference does having certain types of arms make? While I would not relish being in a pitched gunfight when the perps had AK type weapons and I had a Lee Enfield from WWII and a service revolver, I would like to think that I would engage in a similar situation.

My understanding (and you can see from the first few frames of the video) was that there were only groups of terrorists ranging in size from 2 - 4 at a time, they were not platoon or brigade strength...

Anyway, I am sure that the tactics would change some depending on your gear, but I don't think that means that you will necessarily loose the encounter.

I think the biggest problem was they were lacking the old gun fighter adage, that take your time on the sights and get lead into them, otherwise the gunfight is protracted and the longer it is, the more likely you or someone else will get killed.

EDIT -

The "self loading rifles issued by the brits in 1950" (referred to in the article) were most likely FN FAL's. I don't think that gives up a lot of ground to the AK. Surprised that the Mumbai police didn't have more shotguns, as those are mainstays here in the US for police.

EDIT AGAIN -

If you read the comments, I think you will see most Euro's think "outgunned and this is dispicable" most american think "they should have been able to make due, maybe not trained well enough to use their guns / tactics properly."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5276283.ece

Indian police who bore the brunt of last week’s attacks on Mumbai had defective bulletproof vests, First World War-era firearms and insufficient weapons training, police sources have told The Times.

Many wore plastic helmets and body protectors designed for sticks and stones, rather than bullets, as they fought highly trained militants armed with AK47 rifles, pistols, grenades and explosives.

The contrast between them was vividly illustrated yesterday by CCTV footage of two militants attacking Chhatrapati Shivaji terminus, Mumbai’s main railway station, last Wednesday.

It shows the gunmen spraying automatic fire while two constables cower behind pillars, one armed with a .303 rifle similar to the Lee-Enfield weapons used by British troops in the First World War.

Related Links
Condoleezza Rice on mission to ease tensions
CCTV shows start of Mumbai massacre
Captured gunman ‘was sold into terrorism’
Similar scenes were played out at other targets in the first seven hours of the attacks, in which 16 policemen died, including three of India’s top officers.

“That’s 16 too many,” Maxwell Pereira, a former joint commissioner of Delhi police, said. “These casualties could have been prevented if they’d been properly equipped.” The abysmal state of police equipment helps to explain how ten gunmen managed to paralyse a metropolis of 18 million people for more than 60 hours.

It also illustrates how ill-prepared India’s 2.2 million-strong police force is to tackle another such attack.

“We’d react exactly the same way tomorrow,” Ajay Sahni, of the Institute for Conflict Management, said.

He described India as one of the “least policed” places in the world, with 126 officers per 100,000 people, compared with 225-550 per 100,000 in most Western countries.

Maharashtra state, of which Mumbai is the capital, has one of India’s better police forces, but even it is woefully ill-equipped because of a centralised and highly corrupt procurement system.

Y. P. Singh, who retired after 20 years in the Maharashtra police in 2005, said that he knew of two batches of body armour that had failed tests in 2001 and 2004. “They couldn’t take rounds from AK47 or AK56,” he said. “The bullets pierced the jackets.”

He now believes that the Maharashtra police purchased the defective vests and issued them to officers last week.

On Wednesday, television stations showed Hemant Karkare, the head of the AntiTerrorist Squad, donning a bulletproof vest and a battered tin helmet as he arrived at the scene in Mumbai.

He was shot in the chest three times soon afterwards and died.

Two other senior officers who were travelling in the same car as Mr Karkare and were also wearing body armour were shot dead at the same time.

“If they’d been properly equipped they might have only been injured,” Mr Singh said. “Their vital organs would have been protected.” Other officers were only issued 5mm-thick plastic body protectors designed for riot control.

That is because India has only 100,000 bulletproof vests for police and paramilitary forces, according to Anurag Gupta, the managing director of MKU, which supplies the vests to the Government.

“The helmets used last week were World War Two-era, not designed for combat,” he said.

Most of the police involved were carrying .303s or self-loading rifles like those adopted by the British Army in the 1950s.

Some officers said that they were not given enough weapons training because of a shortage of ammunition and shooting ranges. In theory, all officers shoot 50 rounds a year in training. In practice, senior officers get their full quota with small arms.

“The rest is all bunkum,” Mr Pereira said. “It’s target practice with a .303 rifle. I wouldn’t call it suitable knowledge of weapons and their uses in urban policing.”

All those interviewed said that the issue was not money: the Government allocated £154 million for modernising the police in 2007-08 alone. The problem, they said, lay with the Home Ministry’s procurement system, which is dominated by corrupt bureaucrats and politicians rather than technical experts.

“It’s a cartel,” Mr Singh said. “The Government is spending millions, but the police isn’t getting the equipment it needs.”

 

[BBQLS1]

While there is an equipment disparity, I think there is much more of a tactics and training issue than anything else.

 

[alistaire]

I would happily use aimed fire from a No.1 Mk3 Lee-Enfield angainst bozos spray&praying with AK-47, if trapped in a subway station with them.

 

[strambo]

If you have cover and they are "spraying" bullets...it only takes 1 round from that enfield to put a terrorist down.

It's not the soft armor's fault that soft armor doesn't stop rifle rounds, it isn't designed to.

How many of the 16 officers killed had no firearms at all? I don't think India issues guns to beat cops.

I wouldn't consider any semi-auto rifle vs an AK being used on FA as a disparity, but an advantage. I'd have rather been one of the cops I saw on the news with an FAL than been armed with an AK.

I any case, the terrorists had huge fields of fire to cover (basically a cop could theoretically come from any angle), so any pistol armed cop was just a few shots in a terrorist's back away from being armed w/ an AK.

Gee...an armed populace that has incentives to carry would have stopped this nonsense quick. It wouldn't be much better in the US because even in states w/ shall issue permits...very, very, few actually carry. Our police response would be faster and better though.

We won't pass a national conceal carry law or offer training and permit fee rebates to encourage said behavior though. Our govt fears a carrying populace (even with a background check) more than they fear armed terrorists.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Most of the success would be based on tactics. Walking into the open at 50 yards with an Enfield against an AK would be near suicidal but firing, in a surprise attack from behind cover at greater range, would make me choose the Enfield any time.

There are still several aspects of this operation that make me feel uncomfortable. The terrorists were well trained and well equipped. They deviated from the normal suicide bomber mode of operation which could have caused more damage and loss of life if that is what they desired. 10 suicide bombers each with a backpack containing explosives in Mumbais's cafes, stations, hotels and business centers could have killed countless more victims than they did as gunmen. Why did they split into such small groups? Why did they carry out operations that were clearly doomed to failure in fairly short order? It is almost as though their job was to distract the local security forces for a 2 day period of time as a cover for the preparation for a further terrorist act.

 

[alistaire]

Security cameras in the subway show a beat cop hiding behind a wall with an Enfield, while the terrorist struts around spraying from the hip. The cop had the tool, he had oportunity, he had the cover, he lacked will to pull the trigger.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Alistaire,
How do you know he had any ammunition?
I've seen guards on a NATO base guarding nuclear weapons with an empty SMG.

 

[beatcop]

Bingo! The guys didn't have the training and/or the will to act.

I would imagine their training is a joke. They probably don't follow the old "train like you fight" doctrine. They probably reflect the culture they're surrounded by...a bunch of sheep in an overcrowded & poor country. They just froze up and watched in disbelief.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Bingo! The guys didn't have the training and/or the will to act.

I would imagine their training is a joke. They probably don't follow the old "train like you fight" doctrine. They probably reflect the culture they're surrounded by...a bunch of sheep in an overcrowded & poor country. They just froze up and watched in disbelief.

An amazing amount of ignorance and prejudice in these posts. The police probably did not have the training that we would expect. In a country that has billions in population and that is still poor despite recent advances in some sectors what do you expect? Look back at past incidents in the US, did WE do any better? Virginia Tech?

The soldiers of India, carrying possibly just those 303 Enfields that their grand-children are carrying now, fought bravely and effectively against the Germans, the Turks and the Japanese in two World Wars. To criticize the individual Indian police officer because he lacks training or equipment is the height of arrogance and ignorance.



..

 

[beatcop]

Like I said....a lack of training, not that they were cowards.....A LACK OF TRAINING.

A FAILURE TO ACT can be traced back to a few root causes...(If we are going with the premise that some cops stood by and did nothing). I think it's safe to say that culture and training are viable factors.

I have been to 3 middle eastern countries (Iraq, Qatar, & Kuwait) and have spoken with quite a few Pakistani's and Indians, who have provided me with some accounts of their experiences (heresay, but food for thought).

-I particularly like the accounts of having to put money in with the vehicle reg, when stopped in Pakistan.
-The cruisers with windows rolled up and newspaper tucked into (shade) them in Kuwait....where's the driver? Sleeping...
-Ocassionally seeing Kuwait cops walking around without their sidearm!

But to address the point: Yes, it's hard to face down an AK w/ a handgun. I think the US may not have had the greatest track record in neutralizing active shooters, but we know what one is and have addressed it in training. I think North Hollywood would be about the closest thing I can come up with. Active shooters being ENGAGED by LEOs with handguns.

As far as the weapon system and whether they have ammo, that would seem to go to my point. You issue a rifle without ammo? Cultural/Poor policy? You carry a rifle without your basic load? Poor training/apathy?

 

[ZeBool]

I totally agree with the "not being prepared to act" argument. It wouldn't matter if he had the most advanced assault rifle in the world if he wasn't willing to use it.

 

[alistaire]

How do you know he had any ammunition?
I've seen guards on a NATO base guarding nuclear weapons with an empty SMG.

If the cop did not have ammo then the same people are responsible, as are responsible for the lack of training. The video on the telegraph site is too small to see if they have ammo pouches. They look as if they are working up the nerve to shoot which suggests that they have at least one clip (5 rounds).

 

[Deanimator]

The soldiers of India, carrying possibly just those 303 Enfields that their grand-children are carrying now, fought bravely and effectively against the Germans, the Turks and the Japanese in two World Wars. To criticize the individual Indian police officer because he lacks training or equipment is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

The British and later Indian led Indian Army usually was and is highly trained and motivated. In this particular incident, the Indian Army, especially its special operations forces seemed to do at worst an adequate and methodical job. I've heard repeated praise of the Indian MILITARY by foreigners rescued by them

But we're not talking about the Indian ARMY. We're talking about the Indian POLICE, and not any high speed, low drag sector of the Indian police either. Their performance was indeed pathetic. But then were the same thing to happen in Chicago, I would expect a similar level of incomprehension, incoherence, indecision, incompetence and probably cowardice. At least the Indian cops had Enfields. The Chicago PD doesn't even have shotguns in general issue.

 

[alistaire]

To criticize the individual Indian police officer because he lacks training or equipment is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

We are not criticizing the Indian Police. We are criticizing their paper-shuffling management, which seem to be worse than our paper-shuffling management. I would not be surprised if they have never been allowed to fire those Enfields, and probably had only one magazine load (10 rounds) each.

 

[mbt2001]

Uniforms, Equipment, commuinications, training, organization...

I would address ALL of these things before I ever even touched on the subject of re-arming the police.

I don't see anything wrong with standard issue being an Enfield and a Service Revolver. I do see something wrong with police that don't have reloads, don't have radio's, have uniforms consisting of a shirt and pants (Khaki colored with no ID no less) and AMONG OTHER THINGS 0 training in the weapons they have. I even saw a picture of a guy that had a PASGT looking vest and it was on backwards... Good God man.

But then were the same thing to happen in Chicago, I would expect a similar level of incomprehension, incoherence, indecision, incompetence and probably cowardice. At least the Indian cops had Enfields. The Chicago PD doesn't even have shotguns in general issue.

I can agree with that to an extent. The Mumbai attacks last 3 DAYS, I could see any PD being "overwhelmed" for 3-5 hours, but not for 3 days! North Hollywood lasted a few hours. Virgina Tech lasted a few hours, same with most other shootings.

Having superior commuincations, organization and mobility can discount the enemies superior arms.

 

[DarkSoldier]

Deanimator

In your last post your wrote:

"But then were the same thing to happen in Chicago, I would expect a similar level of incomprehension, incoherence, indecision, incompetence and probably cowardice."

Unless your experience with American Police officers is very different from mine, you might want to rethink that accusation.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[Rifleman 173]

So, let's see... A dozen Chicago cops are standing around near O'Hare Airfield. Suddenly a dozen terrorists jump out of a truck or bus armed with AK type rifles and start shooting up the place and people. Do you REALLY expect Chicago cops armed with 9 millimeter pistols to go toe-to-toe with terrorists armed with AK type rifles??? I wouldn't. Those bullets from the AK have better punch to go through walls and vests like nothing. The AK rifles have better accuracy and a LOT better distance of use. Unless the cops can get close and are really great pistol shots, they would be committing suicide going up against AK type rifles. Heck, I would imagine that no group of cops in the world are actually ready to take on a dozen terrorists armed with AK type rifles unless they are SWAT trained and SWAT equipped.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Many Indian policemen, as I understand it, are armed with lathis- sticks, in other words.

Also, RFI #2 and #2A Enfields are .308/7.62X51, not .303.

Please keep the tone of this thread more companionable, or I will have to take a lathi to it...

lpl

 

[Mr_Rogers]

When we try to relate a potential US domestic terrorist attack to the Mumbai incident we should see a starkly clear reality. It is unlikely that there will be enough armed and capable responders available at a well chosen attack location to make a difference.

Once upon a time I would not want to suggest prime targets to potential terrorists but I think we can now say that these people are smart enough to choose their own targets. Therefore, as an example, I would use a major sports event. Imagine what would happen in a crowd of tens of thousands if 6 BGs located high up in the stands opened fire with AKs.

a. They have an unrestricted field of fire providing thousands of targets.
b. Many fans would fall over each other in the rush to escape and many people would be crushed in the chaos.
c. It would be difficult for a person armed with a handgun to get within effective range to engage owing to the steep ascent to the BGs and the crush of the crowds.
d. In any case, firearms are excluded from many sports events.

We have to assume that any terrorist act against the US will be planned by (evilly) smart people. Our very freedoms and our preference for community events are our weakness as well as our national strength. And, despite our best intentions, the presence of any single person, or uncoordinated group of people, armed with typical handguns is unlikely to significantly change the course of events of a well planned attack.

We can, and promptly should, harden the defenses of obvious terrorist targets. However, I am afraid that if our intelligence organizations fail us then there is very little we can do to reduce the damage caused by a terrorist attack on our basic way of life unless we are willing to accept ever greater restrictions on our freedom. How many people here would accept the confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons to reduce the number available to terrorists? (OK, don't hit me, I am offering the obvious argument. The argument would be that you do not need an "assault" weapon to defend your home and you can't carry it on the streets so why do you need it at all?).

The risks we have asked our hard-pressed military to face may yet come home to be faced by the civilian population of the US. It may be that the best way we can respond to these events is the way we have told our military to deal with their problems, "Suck it up".


..

 

[DarkSoldier]

Rifleman 173

As you read this, please remain mindful of the fact that I have not criticized and will not criticize, the response of the Indian Police.

As to your last post, let me offer these thoughts. We can (and should) discuss the deplorable level of training and equipment provided to the average American police officer and we can even make predictions about the fact that, in such an attack, they would be unlikely to be able to prevent it or even to prevail once it came.

But to suggest, as originally posted by by Deanimator, that,-- "... were the same thing to happen in Chicago, I would expect a similar level of incomprehension, incoherence, indecision, incompetence and probably cowardice." -- is a blanket indictment of American Police officers that I cannot allow to stand unchallenged. It runs counter to my personal and professional experience. I stand by my response to that post.

American Police Officers are not Soldiers. They are not Seals, Delta, or Counter Terrorist Commandos. In the main, they are your neighbors, average men and women who, each day, choose to go out into what may well turn out to be extremely dangerous and potentially deadly situations for a citizenry that often disrespects, misunderstands and ignores them. Their "deployment" lasts twenty years or more, and anytime they step outside their home they are in "Indian country".

If they must use deadly force, the very best the officer can hope for is that the prosecutor will agree, after a grueling six month investigation, that the officer's split second judgment in that dark place was correct. The officer can then sit back and hope that the local media will finally stop splashing the officers name, and everything they can dig up about the deceased suspect and his family, all over the newspapers and TV news. Possibly then the officer's life and that of his family, who suffer with him, can return to some remote semblance of normalcy.

For those reasons alone, they deserve respect.

Twenty five years ago, after spending some time in England and France, I came home and told my co-workers that, based on what I had seen there, the first to fight and die in the next enemy attack on our Country would very probably be cops. The events of 9-11 proved me right. Unfortunately, along with Police Officers, great numbers of heroic firefighters and First Responders also gave their lives for those they were sworn to protect.

Now, Rifleman 173, I'll make another prediction. My prediction is that if (when) this scenario ever plays out on American soil, the Police officers who are first to face the terrorists will not have to listen to anyone accuse them of "...incomprehension, incoherence, indecision, incompetence and probably cowardice..." because, against those very overwhelming odds you described, like those fallen on 9-11, they will have died attempting to carry out their Oath and protect the citizens of their jurisdiction.

Mr. Lapin, I stand ready to submit to the lathi.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I think the Indian police might still have cowered in fear if they had fully automatic weapons, but not training. That said, I'd still rather have a kalashnokov than an enfield if I had to fight something like this.

I don't think the American police would cower like the Indian police did. As seen in the Hollywood shootout, they would probably try to barricade the shooter, even at their own risk.

Do you REALLY expect Chicago cops armed with 9 millimeter pistols to go toe-to-toe with terrorists armed with AK type rifles???

This is ridiculous, fully automatic AK-47s are illegal in Chicago

 

[qwert65]

Dark soilder very nice post.
The only thing I would add is that like soilders in "indian country" being out gunned isn't an excuse for inaction. our police officers know their jobs and I agree with you 90% will do their job whatever the personal consequences

 

[Templar223]

Good skills and tactics trump gear, any day of the week.

Have you seen a master at pool clear a table with a broomhandle? Yes, it has been done. It's not the stick, but the person behind it.

Same applies to firearms. A trained and skilled good guy with a wheelgun, with the element of surprise, will likely beat a goober any day of the week ending in -y, no matter how many bells and whistles goober has on his gun.

So, in short, it isn't the gun but the skill, tactics and bravery of the guy behind them.

Oh, and the guy who would expect cowardice from Chicagoland PD? Sure, some cops are cowards. More than a few are quite capable and competent. And I guarantee you they've fired their guns in the last ten years.

John

 

[mbt2001]

For those reasons alone, they deserve respect.

I RESPECT people's right to live other than that respect is earned.

Most of the police that I have met have "earned" respect, but IT IS AN AMERICAN TRADITION AND DUTY to be skeptical of our government and it's agents. If the police do not like that, then that is their problem. They can feel free to do something else.

 

[DarkSoldier]

mbt2001

You're absolutely right. Respect is earned, not commanded or demanded,
and once earned should subsequently be given.

My point, which you seem to agree with, is that these folks do earn that respect every day they walk out their door and go to work to protect you and yours, and me and mine. Why not give it?

We can remain skeptical and questioning of our governments, its institutions and its agents without using that as an excuse to be disrespectful across the board to the people who put it on the line for us.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier