Soldiers Finding WWII Weapons in Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jimmie

Member.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
619
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,137040,00.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

BAGHDAD — While searching for weapons caches, American soldiers near Abu Ghraib often play the part of accidental archaeologists.

Iraq is a country steeped in history, but the artifacts that soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry have periodically stumbled on are not born of the Middle East. Instead, they have migrated from Europe and Asia, remnants of past battlefields that have been pressed into service again.

Rifles etched with the Nazi eagle and swastika, Tommy guns seemingly straight out of black and white gangster movies, and a British Sterling submachine gun familiar to any World War II enthusiast have been found among the weapons troves of insurgents. The weapons, often preserved in their hiding places in motor oil, are discovered in perfect working order, a startling incongruence to their surroundings in Iraq and modern warfare.

“Most of this stuff should be in a museum and not floating around,” said Capt. Rene Diaz, 29, of Puerto Rico. “You normally can only read about these kinds of weapons.”

The unit finds about two to three weapons caches per week, said Capt. Shaun Trinkle. The finds vary in size from a couple of guns with a few hundred rounds to larger caches with dozens of weapons and explosives. Trinkle, a 27-year-old from Fort Hood, Texas, said soldiers typically find a variation of the AK automatic rifle, a weapon common to many Iraqi households.

But on a dozen occasions, the troops have found weapons that date as far back as the 1930s and 40s. The weapons, from places like Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom, are worth tens of thousands of dollars to collectors, Diaz said.

Diaz, a gun enthusiast, spends time pulling apart the rare weapons, studying the sturdy design that has allowed them to continue performing more than a half century after their manufacture.

“These old weapons were designed to be pounded and punished,” he said. “In World War II they were made simple and easy to use. And here they still are.”

Trinkle, another admirer of vintage weapons, said it is anyone’s guess how the guns — some worth upwards of $25,000 on the antiquities market — could have found their way into dirt holes in the orchards and rutted fields of western Baghdad.

“Sometimes it amazes me,” he said. “Some of the guns may have been family heirlooms passed down. Some may have been surplus weapons sold by other countries to Iraq. Some may have been floating around on the black market.”

The appearance of British weapons has the most plausible explanation, the soldiers said. The guns were likely remainders of the colonial British presence in Iraq during the early part of the 20th century. Iraq achieved independence from the British in the 1930s.

“The weapons are pretty rugged,” Diaz said. “But a lot of them were destroyed after [World War II] so that’s why they’re collector’s items.”

Diaz said he hopes some of the antique guns are displayed at the unit’s home base in Fort Hood. The process of clearing the weapons for return to the United States involves a lot of paperwork, he said, but otherwise the guns will be destroyed or turned over to Iraqi authorities.

“This is real unique stuff that you definitely don’t see every day in the United States,” Trinkle said. “Here you just find them buried in the ground.”
 
I've seen a couple MG42s in actual use by the Iraqi army in the green zone, so yeah, they are out there, doesn't suprise me at all
 
I actually remember a post a few months ago with a picture of some Iraqis holding their weapons in the air. One of them was holding what appeared to be an STG44. It was held up next to AK-47's so it definately was not an AK variant.

That was always interesting. I wonder where they found 7.92kurz ammo?
 
I've seen a couple MG42s in actual use by the Iraqi army in the green zone, so yeah, they are out there, doesn't suprise me at all

Were they using 8mm WWII versions, or modern iterations chambered in 7.62 NATO (such guns are still used by the modern Bundeswehr)?
 
They can have a single weapon of a specific model type only per househould and are limited to a specified amount of magazines. Meanwhile the police cannot keep order, they are under occupation from people with a different culture, different morals, different appearance, and unreliable (may be made to split at any moment due to political pressure.)

Is it any wonder people ignore the law of the land and do as they wish?
I think our soldiers are great and I could just as easily be there right now beside them taking orders to do the same things. However I must honestly say that if I was a citizen of Iraq I would hate the people taking my arms, invading my security, forcing me to live by thier rules, unable to protect me, who will likely leave in the next election thier nation holds.

Our own government and top military personel were some of the key influances in the Iraq constitution which does not have any sort of RKBA included. That has got to tell you the position of our authorities on RKBA.

Would you be one of the insurgents if you lived in Iraq and every day was dangerous, every day kidnappings and violence nobody could protect you from happened and you were told that the only way to be law abiding was to be submissive and defenseless?

I imagine the lure of joining insurgencies is great in Iraq, in no small part thanks to such events as the plundering and looting of "weapon caches" and house to house searches. Would Chinese soldiers in your home after overthrowing our government (theoreticly) find weapon caches? How would you feel when they were taken from you (at the very least) in a time of crisis when they are most valuable to you? Probably like many felt when the police went confiscating weapons during Katrina from people in thier own homes (nevermind those taking them out with them for supplies or to travel in the dangerous environment with criminals everywhere, no those people actualy became criminals.)


As far as the weapons themselves, of course. This is in the region (Northern Africa saw a large amount of desert fighting, and with sparse population some of the spoils remaining would easily end up in parts of the middle east) where a lot fighting and various coups and ongoing struggles happen. A place where people smuggle whatever they can manage to get a connection on into the area for thier own protection, or to fight for the latest cause, or just to hide and have in case for that one day. When weapons are illegal they are that much more sacred and cherished. So older ones survive that much longer rather than being replaced. Some are going to be family heirlooms taken out to actualy put to use, or donated to the local insurgency they feel is fighting the right cause. Others are going to just be the personal collection or stash of an individual or family.

Regardless our troops are fairly resistant to small arms fire and allowing insurgents to feel capable of taking them on with small arms would be better for our soldiers than taking them away and causing them to import more modern weapons, and rely on IED's. When they attack with small arms it allows quick decisive retaliation against the people who identified themselves by firing on a position usualy without taking many if any casualties. When they use well placed rockets or well designed IEDs, or new replacements like the 50 caliber HS50 weapons, the situation can be very different. Being shot with an old tommy gun while wearing full protective gear and body armor (.45 caliber pistol rounds) is going to be a lot better than being shot with more powerful replacements you helped encourage, or blown up with explosives they are quicker to resort to when unarmed. So confiscating them is not only harmful to the civilians, but actualy may be putting our troops in more danger.
 
"...Sterling submachine gun familiar to any World War II enthusiast..." Somebody doesn't know his STEN from his Sterling.
Kind of makes you wonder why they're so surprised. Small arms of all types have been floating around the Middle East since long before W.W. II. Nearly every European country, as well as the U.S., shipped weapons there.
 
Last edited:
Sterling....?

The Sterling was under development late in WW II, and first issued in limited quantities in 1951. The British and Canadian forces (at least) have used the Sterling SMG for decades. They may well have been sold to an earlier Iraqi government. Good gun, and better than many later designs.

Even today, if given a choice, I would opt for a Bren as my squad automatic weapon. .303 Brens would be fine, but the later L4 Brens in 7.62 NATO would ease possible difficulties in finding .303 ammunition. Canada was still manufacturing military .303 ammunition up to the late '80s, at least, and I ran a good bit of that ammo through my own Bren.

Some years back, when our Marines went to Haiti, I saw a picture of a Haitian "militiaman" armed with a Garand. The caption contained some snarky comments about his "ancient" rifle....I figured he was better-armed than the Marine riflemen!

The fact that a gun is "old" doesn't make it any less-decent as a weapon. If it was a good design fifty or more years ago, it is STILL something to be reckoned with today. In fact, many of the older designs are better than current ones, and were replaced mostly due to today's less-expensive manufacturing methods. Witness the ongoing success of the .50 Browning HMG, for a good example of how "old" guns can still compete, or even actually out-do, many later designs. There are still a lot of Enfields in front-line service in Afghanistan, where they compare VERY favorably against the short-ranged AK variants.
 
Never assume that a reporter knows what he's talking about. He probably confused Sten with Sterling.

Mike
 
Of the types likely to be encountered I think old belt fed non russian items are less likely than the portable firearms using magazines or bolts. These are places were firearms are illegal and maintainence needs to be minimum. So while there is many fine weapons in existence from WW2, the most rugged and simple designs are what you would be likely to run across. So battle rifles, submachine guns, are going to be far more likely than light machine guns.

For light machine guns I think more modern soviet varieties (80-90's) will have displaced WW2 ones. Many of the American weapons of WW2 had the same qualities of more modern soviet firearms. Heavy, durable, reliable, less than perfect MOA accuracy. Now you have more precision, but far less reliable weapons. Falling in mud, crawling through sand, not taking it apart to clean it daily etc will make them fail on you. Personaly I would rather have the rugged durability of soviet small arms on a battlefield as the main battle rifle than most American designs. Encounters do not tend to take place betweens troops at 200 yards, and that MOA advantage is overshadowed by thier high maintainence and sensitivity. The only people that need that precision are the dedicated snipers. However they are issued seperate firearms anyways. So yes I think we had the right idea with World War 2 era firearms, and I would gladly take most designs of the period over an M4.

However with the exception of the Anti Material/Anti Tank rifles of the time, portable firearms good at defeating body armor and light armor being prevelant is more of a modern thing. With the BMG and similar rounds chambered in infantry rifles far more frequently. This means them replacing current firepower would modern firepower would make them more dangerous to people depending on body armor at long range, and thin skinned vehicles at medium ranges.

Personaly I think the firearm has limited use in a modern day insurgency. Rockets and grenades and mortars are far more ideal. They deliver serious firepower, kill both directly and indirectly and the speed in which they can be deployed and escape can be accomplished is for more favorable than with most small arms. Regardless of the armor worn by the individual the blast of one can still rip off limbs and send deadly blast waves into the tissue of those nearby in addition to shrapnel. In my opinion the only use for small arms would be in case people deploying such weapons needed some additional firepower to make thier escape. A skilled mortar team can have multiple mortars in the air and make thier escape as the first ones begin to land. Then the IED is essentialy the improvised version of a mine which can be invaluable. With shaped charges in use, movement of the opposition is limited to very heavy vehicles with limited mobility, giving further advantage to hit and run tactics. As long as one can escape before air power or artillery can be brought to bear on thier position they can continue to mount successful attacks. Small arms do not lend themselves to this very well. Mortars for longer range, rockets for medium range, and grenades for shorter ranges(given cover). Grenades are far more favorable in a gunfight by giving you the option of indirectly fighting rather than exchanging rounds with a superior force, in addition to disrupting organized movement by the enemy. One of the nicer things about rockets and grenades and man portable mortars is that the expense and technology is in the ammo. The launcher is little more than a tube and a simple firing mechanism which means it is worth little, and a new one can be created in short order. So if needed they can be left behind or discarded to make blending into the population and escape easier without much loss. A valuable and scarce BMG chambered firearm on the other hand is a different story. So IMHO I think firearms are of minimal use to insurgents facing modern militaries.
 
Personaly I think the firearm has limited use in a modern day insurgency.

Tell that to all the soldiers who have been shot.

A lot get hit with IEDs, but when your back is against the wall, the only thing that will be usable is a firearm. Firearms are not going anywhere anytime soon.
 
"...Canada was still manufacturing military .303..." Yep. IVI made it. Not anywhere near as accurate as the 1944 manufactured ammo we got in the early 80's when I ran a CF Army Cadet Corps. We got 1985 IVI later. 100% reliable, but not as accurate as the 40 plus year old DA Mk VIII. Cadets don't shoot anything but air rifles now.
The Sterling is gone too. Sniff.
 
If the NFA were to be abolished tomorrow, the number and types of weapons that would surface here in CONUS would shock many people.

Jeff
 
Hitler supported what has now come to be known as Islamofacism, so it's not all that surprising to me that WWII weapons have been maintained by Middle-Eastern warlords.
 
I would so ditch the POS M4 for a Chicago Piano or two if I were in a unit that found one of these...

No, you wouldn't -- I had a Thompson I kept in my jeep when I was an Adviser. They're heavy, the ammo is heavy, the range is short, and when you need to shoot through something (because people will get behind things when you're shooting at them) there isn't any penetration.
 
Quote:
I would so ditch the POS M4 for a Chicago Piano or two if I were in a unit that found one of these...
No, you wouldn't -- I had a Thompson I kept in my jeep when I was an Adviser. They're heavy, the ammo is heavy, the range is short, and when you need to shoot through something (because people will get behind things when you're shooting at them) there isn't any penetration.

Hmmm.....what about all the threads on how the .223/5.56 are perfect for HD since they don't travel through walls?

:evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:
 
That would be nice. I have a dewatted Sterling but it's basically a box of scrap metal.

I will give you a Grand for the Box of crap DEWAT sterling provided it will be transfered on a F5 or F1 to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top