U.N. Armament

[telemachus]

Does anybody know what standard-issue weaponry is issued to UN Peacekeeping Forces? Do they even have standard-issue weapons?

 

Thanks.

[Trebuchet]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Does anybody know what standard-issue weaponry is issued to UN Peacekeeping Forces? Do they even have standard-issue weapons?

 

Thanks.

No, there is no standard UN equipment. They use the equipment the member nations provide the peacekeepers. Since most peacekeepers are from second and third-tier militaries (such as from Pakistan or African Union nations), their equipment as a rule tends to be rather poor compared to the latest US or NATO stuff. They also tend to be very poorly trained and disciplined.

 

If the US or other top-of-the-line militaries put troops under UN command, those troops will use their nations' superior equipment.

[telemachus]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

No' date=' there is no standard UN equipment. They use the equipment the member nations provide the peacekeepers. Since most peacekeepers are from second and third-tier militaries (such as from Pakistan or African Union nations), their equipment as a rule tends to be rather poor compared to the latest US or NATO stuff. They also tend to be very poorly trained and disciplined.[/quote']

 

It's probably a safe bet to say, then, that most of those troops would be using something from the Kalashnikov family of firearms? Maybe even old Soviet surplus heavy and mobile weapons?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I may be mistaken, but aren't most peacekeeping troops light infantry? If that's the case, they'll have no armored vehicles, and not much in the way of trucks.

 

They'll have their AKs though.

[Trebuchet]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

It's probably a safe bet to say' date=' then, that most of those troops would be using something from the Kalashnikov family of firearms? Maybe even old Soviet surplus heavy and mobile weapons?[/quote']That's a reasonable assumption, but if the country was a former colony of a European power they may well have small arms from their former colonizer (UK, Belgium, France). But I would expect AK variants and M-16s to dominate the assault rifle category (The M-16 is well on its way to becoming the world's most popular assault rifle).

 

A few light tracked armored personnel carriers and wheeled armored cars with light cannon might add a bit more oomph. Peacekeepers might also have some minimal helicopter or air support, often provided by NATO countries.

[Comic]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Often, the nations the UN sends troops to limit what the UN may bring in by way of equipment.

 

Usually, for that reason, UN troops will be massively under-equipped.

[telemachus]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I may be mistaken, but aren't most peacekeeping troops light infantry? If that's the case, they'll have no armored vehicles, and not much in the way of trucks.

 

They'll have their AKs though.

 

True, I don't see them packing mobile artillery, but I did see some pics of light tanks and what were possibly APC's on the UN Peacekeeper Wiki. No info about armor or armaments, though.

 

Not quite sure what you mean about the trucks.

[telemachus]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

That's a reasonable assumption, but if the country was a former colony of a European power they may well have small arms from their former colonizer (UK, Belgium, France). But I would expect AK variants and M-16s to dominate the assault rifle category (The M-16 is well on its way to becoming the world's most popular assault rifle).

 

A few light tracked armored personnel carriers and wheeled armored cars with light cannon might add a bit more oomph. Peacekeepers might also have some minimal helicopter or air support, often provided by NATO countries.

 

That narrows things down very nicely. Thanks much!

 

The M-16 being a popular weapon came as a bit of a surprise. I thought it went the way of the dodo sometime in the 80's. "You can tell it's Mattel!"

[Trebuchet]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

That narrows things down very nicely. Thanks much!

 

The M-16 being a popular weapon came as a bit of a surprise. I thought it went the way of the dodo sometime in the 80's. "You can tell it's Mattel!"

Oh, yes. now that the kinks in the M16 have been worked out (and they were never as bad as was portrayed) pretty much the only people still using AK's were Soviet or Chinese clients. South America, southeast Asia, and the Middle East are largely armed with M-16's (even terrorist groups because the guns and ammo are so ubiquitous).

 

The M16A2 is a fine weapon; and there's now an adjustable carbine version of it, the M4, which is very popular for urban warfare. It has rails to mount various types of sights, including red-dot, night vision, and telescopic.

[Markdoc]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Oh' date=' yes. now that the kinks in the M16 have been worked out (and they were never as bad as was portrayed) pretty much the only people still using AK's were Soviet or Chinese clients. South America, southeast Asia, and the Middle East are largely armed with M-16's (even terrorist groups because the guns and ammo are so ubiquitous).[/quote']

 

I don't think that's correct: according to various estimates there's about 80 million AK's of various types in circulation versus a bit less than 9 million M16 variants. And it certainly doesn't match my own experience - when we hire guards (who are usually ex-military) they come with AK's as standard - whether it's Africa Asia or the Middle East and that's what soldiers you see on the street carry too.

 

Even in places where you'd expect the M16 to be ubiquitous (like, for example, Iraq) the AK is standard military issue - just look at the news photos (the Iraqi AK is made locally). In my experience, it goes like this (outside the developed world):

 

Personal guards of important people, presidential guards, etc - Expensive European weapons (H&K is practically de rigueur, although in west Africa you see French stuff instead)

Regular army elite, airport guards, non-coms, etc - M16s or AK74s

Everybody else - AK47s or AKMs.

 

That matches with prices too - in most of East Africa, you can buy an AK for under 50 bucks, while M16s usually go for 200-400 dollars.

 

The only place M16s dominate seems to be South America and to a lesser extent, Asian countries friendly to the US (Thailand, for example). This is not a comment on their relative merits, simply on their actual numbers.

 

cheers, Mark

[Trebuchet]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I don't think that's correct: according to various estimates there's about 80 million AK's of various types in circulation versus a bit less than 9 million M16 variants. And it certainly doesn't match my own experience - when we hire guards (who are usually ex-military) they come with AK's as standard - whether it's Africa Asia or the Middle East and that's what soldiers you see on the street carry too.

 

Even in places where you'd expect the M16 to be ubiquitous (like, for example, Iraq) the AK is standard military issue - just look at the news photos (the Iraqi AK is made locally). In my experience, it goes like this (outside the developed world):

 

Personal guards of important people, presidential guards, etc - Expensive European weapons (H&K is practically de rigueur, although in west Africa you see French stuff instead)

Regular army elite, airport guards, non-coms, etc - M16s or AK74s

Everybody else - AK47s or AKMs.

 

That matches with prices too - in most of East Africa, you can buy an AK for under 50 bucks, while M16s usually go for 200-400 dollars.

 

The only place M16s dominate seems to be South America and to a lesser extent, Asian countries friendly to the US (Thailand, for example). This is not a comment on their relative merits, simply on their actual numbers.

AS I stated, the countries using AK variants are (or were) generally Soviet or Chinese clients. That's most of Africa, a pretty good chunk of Asia, and a large part of the Middle East. As you noted, there are still a hell of a lot of AK's out there simply because so many were made. I find the 8 million number quoted for M16's to be absurdly low. Given the number manufactured just for our own armed services since 1960 (not to mention it's also in service to over 70 other countries), only 8 million total manufactured worldwide in almost 50 years is simply not believable despite the much-vaunted expertise of Wikipedia.

 

The relative cost of an AK vs an M16 on the arms market should give you a pretty good idea which is more highly thought of.

[telemachus]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Even in places where you'd expect the M16 to be ubiquitous (like, for example, Iraq) the AK is standard military issue - just look at the news photos (the Iraqi AK is made locally).

 

What's really weird about that was the report of missing weapons that the US gave to Iraq- among them an estimated 110,000 AK-47s!! I'm not well versed on the arms biz, but that just stuck me as a tad bizarre, not so much by the sheer volume (which is just mind-boggling), but that they weren't even good old American government issue!

[telemachus]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I find the 8 million number quoted for M16's to be absurdly low.

 

Actually, that estimate comes from the manufacturer of the M16, Colt Weapons Systems. That number struck me as a little low, too (though I'd understood the AK family to be the most common worldwide), so I thought I should check into it. Here's the link:

 

http://www.colt.com/mil/customers.asp

[Markdoc]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

The relative cost of an AK vs an M16 on the arms market should give you a pretty good idea which is more highly thought of.

 

It has a lot to do with style. An old fashioned AK74 (with the wood grip) will go for about 100 bucks, while the later version with the black graphite stock, which is functionally identical will sell for about 50% more: in the same price range as the cheapest M16s. I think, as a whole M16s are better thought of than AKs but the real reason the AK is so cheap is because they are everywhere, in huge numbers.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Actually, that estimate comes from the manufacturer of the M16, Colt Weapons Systems. That number struck me as a little low, too (though I'd understood the AK family to be the most common worldwide), so I thought I should check into it. Here's the link:

 

http://www.colt.com/mil/customers.asp

 

Yeah, what he said. The actual number of M16 variants manufactured is higher than that: they were also manufactured under licence in several countries (in fact, the Belgians re-engineered and improved the M16 and then sold their design back to the US). However, the total number of M16 variants manufactured is probably not above 12 million all told (maybe as low as 10 million) - and of those, about 75% are thought to be still around: hence the 8-9 million figure I quoted.

 

The AK, on the other hand is manufactured everywhere: it's not only soviet or chinese clients who use them. The Finns, for example used a modified AK for years, as did the Israelis (the Galil). Non-communist client nations in Africa also use them (like South Africa - AK's are everywhere there from home defence weapons to to the police to - I kid you not - big game shooting. In South Africa the AK is nicknamed "the King of Rifles"). An AK variant is also India's standard issue, etc, etc.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

What's really weird about that was the report of missing weapons that the US gave to Iraq- among them an estimated 110' date='000[/b'] AK-47s!! I'm not well versed on the arms biz, but that just stuck me as a tad bizarre, not so much by the sheer volume (which is just mind-boggling), but that they weren't even good old American government issue!

 

It's not so weird - after the collapse of Saddam's army, the US ended up with hundreds of thousand of AK's, still in packing cases in armouries and billions of rounds of ammo. The Iraqi military is familiar with the AK and it's dead easy to strip and maintain - plus the Iraqis are used to it. Giving the AKs away made better sense at every level than shipping M16s to Iraq and then having to retrain the cops and soldiers to use it.

 

cheers, Mark

[Guest voodoo54]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I may be mistaken, but aren't most peacekeeping troops light infantry? If that's the case, they'll have no armored vehicles, and not much in the way of trucks.

 

They'll have their AKs though.

 

The Pakistani UN forces in Mogadishu during the 'Blackhawk Down' firefight had Tanks and Wheeled APCs. Which was a good thing or there would probably have been more dead Americans.

[megaplayboy]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Just curious if anyone knows...after the AK and M-16, where do other assault rifles "rank", in terms of usage/numbers in circulation?

 

M-14, FN-FAL(and related Nato 7.62 weapons), G-3, Steyr, Galil, etc?

[Inu]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

AK47 isn't just cheaper, it's also more reliable. Not that the M16 is unreliable, they just made different design decisions. It's a weapon that basically can't be maintained for too long without training in how to strip and clean it. The AK47 can be used by illiterate, uneducated peasants, with minimal training.

 

The price is also reflective of how many there are, and that the manufacture is much, much cheaper. Fewer tiny parts, much greater tolerances in design, standardised manufacturing process that hasn't changed much in 60 years.

 

One area it does get let down a lot is the ammunition. While the weapon itself is hard to make badly, the ammunition is a crapshoot. Rounds might be too smoky, not powerful enough, even more inaccurate at range than the gun is anyway (not that most people using it are exactly marksmen). Not the only gun that gets that, of course (one of the reasons the M16 was a letdown in Vietnam was because top-quality ammo was used in the trials, but not in the field), but being the third-world weapon of choice, ammo quality control tends to suffer pretty badly.

[Guest voodoo54]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Just curious if anyone knows...after the AK and M-16, where do other assault rifles "rank", in terms of usage/numbers in circulation?

 

M-14, FN-FAL(and related Nato 7.62 weapons), G-3, Steyr, Galil, etc?

 

That's a tough one, most countries that did not adopt the M-16 and AK family of weapons, usually use their own specific weapon. Such as the French with the FA Famas, the Brits with the the SA80 and so on. I would say probably the Steyr since the Austrians and I think the Australian and New Zealand military adopted this weapon.

[Toadmaster]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

Just curious if anyone knows...after the AK and M-16, where do other assault rifles "rank", in terms of usage/numbers in circulation?

 

M-14, FN-FAL(and related Nato 7.62 weapons), G-3, Steyr, Galil, etc?

 

 

My guess would be the SKS followed by the FN-FAL & G3.

 

The WW2 / Korean era weapons are probably still pretty common weapons in much of the third world. M1 Carbine, SKS, Mosin Nagant, Lee-Enfield & Enfield family, Mauser 98K, Springfield 1903, M3 smg, Sten, PPSh41 and MP40. These weapons were made in enormous quantities and still seem to turn up all over the place.

[cutsleeve]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

The normal UN equipment consists of a nicely visible blue helmet, a rifle, and empty magazines. Seriously the UN is real life is a joke they often aren't given ammunition and even when they have it they usually told to stand back and do nothing while people get slaughtered.

[Toadmaster]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

The normal UN equipment consists of a nicely visible blue helmet' date=' a rifle, and empty magazines. Seriously the UN is real life is a joke they often aren't given ammunition and even when they have it they usually told to stand back and do nothing while people get slaughtered.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately you are right, the UN is more like a bizare referee to make sure nobody interferes in the slaughter.

[Markdoc]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

The normal UN equipment consists of a nicely visible blue helmet' date=' a rifle, and empty magazines. Seriously the UN is real life is a joke they often aren't given ammunition and even when they have it they usually told to stand back and do nothing while people get slaughtered.[/quote']

 

Sure, after all, I can think of two outright failures (Rwanda, Somalia) and two missions (Lebanon) where UN forces have been useless. That means the other 70-odd successful interventions (like the UN forces still holding the line in Kossovo or southern Sudan, or Cote d'ivoire, or Cyprus, or Tajikstan) have been useless right? Anyway you never hear about those places anymore because the killing has somehow magically stopped, so who cares?

 

I mean all they're doing is saving lives, training police, building hospitals, etc, - you know, totally useless stuff.

 

cheers, Mark

[Vondy]

Re: U.N. Armament

 

I may be mistaken, but aren't most peacekeeping troops light infantry? If that's the case, they'll have no armored vehicles, and not much in the way of trucks.

 

They'll have their AKs though.

 

Not always true. Armored vehicles such as armored personnel carriers and armored jeeps are common among UN Forces, but Tanks and Mobile Artillery are unheard of. Also, light helicopters and civilian aircraft for surveillance are often available, but combat helicopters and military aircraft are rare as most nations have them in limited numbers are aren't sending them off to do peace-keeping missions. The exceptions are when you get major military powers conducting "intervention" operations, but that tends to be the exception to the rule and is almost invariably temporary (kosovo would be an example).