The two soldiers, a man and a woman, were lightly to moderately injured. Images of the female soldier’s bloody face circulated on social media after she was injured by shattered windshield glass. She was evacuated to a hospital in Afula.
Video from the attack shows the mob haranguing and attacking the soldiers as they cried out.
An initial investigation found that the soldiers had been misdirected to the Palestinian city by the Waze navigation app on their journey from Shavei Shomron in Samaria to Afula in the Jezreel Valley.
A Palestinian Authority policeman intervened to protect the Israeli soldiers, ultimately firing into the air to disperse the crowd. Over 100 members of the PA security forces were called out to escort the soldiers to safety and return their jeep to Israel, according to a PA security official interviewed by the Jerusalem Post, who also said that the effort was made both to protect human life and prevent Israeli reprisals against Jenin.
Various Palestinian social media outlets have released images of a Colt CAR15 that appeared to have been returned to IDF forces after the encounter. The IDF has made extensive use of U.S. CAR15s, M16A1s, M16A2s, and even M4s for a number of decades, currently supplementing the IWI Tavor now in service with frontline troops.
Notice the earlier A1 forward assist and A1 rotary dial rear sight. In addition, notice the shorter telescoping stock which is signatory of the CAR15 series. Also note that the upper and the lower receiver don’t match, possibly indicating that the two parts were interchanged throughout the life of the rifle.
But more interesting than the rifle is the fact that the bolt and charging handle appears to be missing from it. This could have been intentional on the part of the Palestinians who captured the rifle.
The Israeli soldiers appear to have taken a beating but fortunately are still alive. They probably could do with a remedial land navigation course, and not rely on Waze to get from one tactical objective to another.
Russian PKP Pecheneg machine gun was earlier spotted in the hands of Syrian Armed Forces soldiers back in 2015. The top image of this article is taken in 2015. Lately, another image appeared in the web (see the image below) showing this machine gun again with Syrian Armed Forces. Reportedly, Pecheneg was acquired by Syria even before the civil war. It was purchased in small numbers to arm some special forces units.
Note the distinctive carry handle shape over the barrel jacket of PKP Pecheneg machine gun
PKP Pecheneg is a general purpose machine gun chambered in 7.62x54mmR. It was designed in the late ’90s by a Russian company called TsNII TochMash. This gun is based on the PKM machine gun. Most machine guns of this category feature a quick change barrel which allows to change the heated barrel in the battlefield and keep shooting the gun with the new barrel. In the case of the Pecheneg, the designers’ goal was to get rid of the barrel changing mechanism without compromising the firepower. To achieve that goal, they had to develop a system that would allow cooling the barrel. They incorporated a forced air cooling system into the design of this machine gun. After each shot fired, the gasses escaping from the muzzle create a pumping effect forcing the air to enter the barrel jacket and pass through its length thus cooling the barrel. The barrel of PKP Pecheneg is also ribbed.
The barrel jacket also reduces the mirage coming from the heated barrel. Another difference from the PKM is the location of the bipod. Unlike the PKM, Pecheneg’s bipod is moved forward to the muzzle – much like it is seen in RPK light machine guns. Despite the described design changes, Pecheneg still has a high rate of parts compatibility with the PKM (up to 80%).
Below are several images of the PKP Pecheneg machine gun.
“Krinkov”, where does it come from and how have we gotten to it? There are a number of theories about it, some truer than others, but we’ll examine each one, and I will provide what I have come up with so far.
The first theory is that it is Russian. At face value, this could seem true, by simply hearing the word “Krinkov” to a non-Russian speaker, it might sound Russian. However, this is by far, not the case at all. Tim from Military Arms Channel has an excellent dialogue on this, explaining that the Russians have an entirely different nickname. I’ll take an excerpt from Maxim Popenkers site, World Guns:
Since its introduction the AKS-74U, unofficially known as a “Ksyukha” (variation of a Russian woman name) or “okurok” (cigarette stub)
In addition from Max’s book Assault Rifles, we have this entry:
Since its introduction the AKS-74U, unofficially known as a “Kysusha” (a variation of a Russian female Ksenia), “Suka” (bitch), “Suchok” (small tree branch) or “Okurok” (cigarette stub)
And this is Tim from Military Arms Channel, explaining some of that from the Russian side.
Tim is correct in his explanation of what Russians would call it, but the biggest problem I have with his explanation is that he completely dismisses the role of the Afghan Mujahaden, saying that it is a “nonsense word”. In addition, he speculates that maybe the first AKS74U taken off a Russian who was named Krinkov. The theory doesn’t hold any weight because for one, Krinkov isn’t a Russian name or in any sort of Russian vocabulary. Also, the fact that Pashtun speaking Mujahideen could speak or even read Russian is very, very rare, many of them being illiterate in their own language of Pashtu (illiteracy is an extremely large problem even in current day Afghanistan/Peshawar, and was much more so in the early 1980s). Furthermore, the circumstances of the Mujahideen capturing weapons from the Russians involved very little live prisoners. We’ll get into this in a bit as well, but for the overwhelming majority of the time, the AKS74U was issued to helicopter and armored vehicle crew members. Contrary to popular belief, the amount of Russians captured in Afghanistan during the war, and the amount of Russians fleeing to the Mujahideen side was extremely low as well. Most of the time, the only way Mujahideen could get their hands on Soviet equipment was through disabled vehicles wherein the Russian occupants would already be dead, or through the corrupt selling of Russian arms to the Mujahideen by either Russians themselves, or Afghan government troops.
Most of the Mujahideen and Pashtun speakers that would have contributed to the name “Krinkov” would have been near Peshawar and in the eastern regions of Afghanistan.
The second theory is much more recent, but it originates from a gun shop in Naples, Florida. The shop was called “Krinks” and was run by a certain Paul Mahoney, who in the early 1990s was one of the first AK builders in the States to really take advantage of deactivated AKS74U kits, and put them together. The quality of them left much to be desired, but the fact of the matter is that the first mass producer of “Krink” kits in the United States was this guy Paul Mahoney with his gunshop “Krinks”. This might have certainly been one of the reasons why the name started to gain in popularity in the States, but it doesn’t help us at all in the actual etymology of the name.
My problem in the whole name origin is that we constantly see this theme of loosely attributing it to the Mujahideen, but yet there hasn’t been a single effort to get right to the source and really examine how that name might have even come about. Maybe it is ethnocentrism, maybe it is on account of laziness, maybe it is just accepting the status quo and not moving on. Either way, I’m going to present evidence that points to that fact that the name is actually a Pashtu word that has entered into our vocabulary, and is a testament to a twist in linguistics in the Pashtu language.
To begin with, we have to examine how the existence of this carbine became known about in the United States. I’ve often heard the claim that Soldier of Fortune magazine was the first entity to bring knowledge about the AKS74U, and even the AK74 to the West. I think this claim is more of a support for Soldier of Fortune’s reputation than any actual truth. Because just by looking at the facts, the famous Soldier of Fortune article that was run about the AK74 was in 1982, and the article about the AKS74U was in the July 1984 edition of the magazine. Looking at Jane’s Infantry Weapons from that era, and before, we see entries for the AKS74U, Sometimes labeling it as an AKSU 74, an AKSU and also as an “AKR”. This name most likely originates from Ian V. Hogg, as he was tied in with various intelligence circles at the time, that somehow came up with AKR. We still see this name in 1989, with Edward Ezell’s book, Small Arms Today.
Above is from Small Arms Today, and below is from “The AK47 Story“, both by the late Edward Ezell. Above he refers to it as the AKR/Krinkov, and below the “AKSU”. Both published in the late 1980s
But going on to who actually deserves the credit of “discovering” the AkS74U, we have a sentence from the July 1984 edition of Soldier of Fortune, in which David Isby does an entire article about reviewing this new carbine, while he and an American Army Major are in Pakistan. He claims that initial knowledge of the carbine is from Ian Hogg, who in turn heard about it from a certain Peter Jouvenal. This guy was a video journalist, who has been in and out of Afghanistan since the late 1970s, and is extremely important because he captured one of the only video shots of Taliban leader Mullah Omar in person.
Below is the text from the Soldier of Fortune article detailing the origins and name of the AKS74U.
Peter Jouvenal, right, with Osama bin Laden. Probably the actual “discoverer” of the AKS74U in the West.
Within the Soldier of Fortune article, David Isby takes the name from the Afghans he was with. However, he mentions two other names “Shrinkov” and “Shesakov”. These two names are also important, but because of the linguistics involved, I’ll get to that in a second.
As mentioned earlier, the difference between this article, and any other article on the internet, is that I’m going to the actual source of the name, which is from the Pashtu speaking peoples of eastern Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The name is not a “nonsense” word, it is a Pashtun word. I’ll start this off by showing a clip from a movie called Son of a Lion. Quite an interesting movie, it was made by an Australian EMT on his own dime, after 9/11, going to Peshawar and filming a storyline about a young boy who works in the arms trade but really wants to go to school to become educated. The culture and language displayed in the movie are phenomenal, but from a firearms perspective, it gives us an in-depth look at the arms trade in Peshawar. Apart from a few actors, the rest of the movie is completely shot amid the markets and daily life of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. There aren’t any “props” or staged settings. The locations are real, and so are the small arms portrayed. But in it, we have this one scene where the main character takes a “Krinkov” out to a customer to test fire it. He also mentions the connection with Osama bin Laden.
https://youtu.be/KzN1-M37RiY?t=17m40s
Now, to understand why the reference to Osama bin Laden was even mentioned, we have to understand a little behind why the AKS74U became prominent among first the Mujahaden, and then today among families of status. As mentioned previously, the weapon was only ever issued out to crew members of helicopters and armored vehicles. Contrary to popular belief, this wasn’t a favorite of the Spetsnaz at all, although it originally started out as a proof of concept for Soviet Special Forces. It was quickly ditched for the AKS74 because the longer barrel proved to be better in the vast distances that the Spetsnaz found themselves operating in. This from an interview that I conducted with Marco Vorobiev, a Spetsnaz Veteran of the Afghan war.
Miles Vining- I noticed in some of your talks that you don’t have much love for the AKS74U?
Marco- Well its alot of fun. Lets talk about it from a far away point here. The gun is a tool in a toolbox to complete a certain job. And the job could be a regular contact fight, lets say 500-400 meters, to include maybe clearing houses or compounds. So from that regard you want something small, maybe be able to use it in close quarter combat, something really, easy to handle, easy to maintain. Well that is fine, considering if you are a police officer going through a house. It shoots 5.45 as well, so thats good for wounding. On the other hand, as a carbine, you need to be able to hit targets out to 300 meters. You can do that with an AKS74, no problem, even with an M4. But the AKSU? You might if you spray half a magazine in that particular direction. But I even have one, I shoot it for fun, I get a big old smile on my face. It’s fun to shoot, it’s just like rrrrrrrrrrp, almost like a little toy so to speak. Mikal Kalshanikov himself told me that he loved it, although he was a very anti 5.45 guy, but he was a big fan of the AKSU for some reason. But you put yourself in an actual gunfight, with people screaming everywhere, trying to get comm up, you taste the metal of adrenaline in your mouth, and now you are trying to pick out targets in the distance… it’s really hard with that gun. We were always trying to get rid of it for the AKS74.
Thus, the weapon was strictly for crew members. And if we look at the context of the Soviet-Afghan War, the biggest hinderances for the Mujahideen, were the Hind attack helicopters, and the BMPs. In fact, if you look through Soviet photographs of the war, there is much evidence to attest to this, with helicopter crews even having thigh holsters carrying their AKS74Us. Thus, taking one of these monsters out of the fight would be one enormous victory for a small band of fighters, but more importantly, proving that you took one down would show everyone how brave or good you were. And what better way to prove it than to take a weapon that only these troops would have on them, an AKS74U? It not only proves that you were competent, but it also gives you something to defend yourself with. Even in the Soldier of Fortune article, we see just how rare and sought after these things were, even rising in price after word was passed around that an American was looking for one in Peshawar.
Now, Osama bin Laden claimed back to his Yemeni and Saudi buddies back home that he fought in the Soviet-Afghan War. But the actual truth of the matter is that he probably was never near any of the fighting, most likely staying in a rear echelon capacity, directing funds and supplies to the front (if he even did that). But, on his return to the area in the mid-1990s, we have a multitude of pictures of him, with an AKS74U by his side in the camera frame. This was very deliberate, to the point of the gun sellers in Peshawar even telling the customer that “This is the Osama gun”. Although Osama never took down a Soviet armored vehicle or Hind, the fact that he was carrying the carbine showed a status symbol, and he was able to identify much more easily with local Pashtuns who didn’t understand his Saudi background but absolutely understood his choice of weapon.
The placement of that AKS74U in the camera frame is entirely on purpose.
Somewhat off track, but this is important to understand how the name came to be, because even today, the AKS74U occupies a very lofty position as a status symbol in eastern Afghanistan and Peshawar.
A close Afghan contact from Jalalabad mentions two names for the AKS74U, the first one which is popular in Jalalabad, is “Kalakov” and the second one is “Krinkov”. If you hear somewhat of an “F” sound at the end of the word, that is because there isn’t any “V” consonant in Pashtu, speakers instead using an “F” or a “W” sound to simulate a “V”. Now, remember what David Isby said the other names for the carbine were? “Shrinkov” and “Shesakov”? Using a little knowledge of the Pashtu language, the names pair up to be the same word. There are two dialects of Pashtu, the southern, or Kandahari, and the eastern, or the Nangahari. So looking at this words, “Krinkov” and “Shrinkov” are actually the same word, just pronounced differently, while “Kalakov” and “Shesakov” are a little more different, but dropping the “la” sound, the words are also the same.
From the full form of the word on the right, going into the nickname for the AKS74U on the left, the differences between the top and bottom are in different Pashtu areas of speaking.
But how exactly did these words come about? As my friend mentioned, adding an “ov” to any word makes it Russian-ized in Pashtu. So that explains the last part of the word, and the first part is probably a bit of vocabulary added on, to signify the importance of the AKS74U as a status symbol. Because it isn’t just any old “Kalashnikov”, its a “Krinkov”, and you know I got it from that Hind I blew out of the sky a week ago. Another tidbit that my friend brought up after the camera was off, is that for some reason, in Jalalabad, the Pashtuns refers to the Kalashnikov rifle as that, a “Kalashnikof”. However, in other parts of eastern Afghanistan, the same name is actually pronounced “Krashnikof”. And this might actually be the truest jump to “Krinkof”, as going from “Kalashnikof” to “Kalakof” is very similar, as is going from “Krashnikof” to “Krinkof”. In both cases, the “L” in the first one, and the “R” sound in the second one are maintained in their nickname for the short rifle.
I hope this was an informative article and was able to really get to the point of “Why do we call it this?”. If anything, the most important part of all of this, is that the word isn’t a made up, nonsense word, but instead has very important historical and cultural attributes and an etymology that comes from a defining moment in history. There is much evidence to point to the fact that Afghanistan might just have been the straw that broke the Soviet Unions back, and this word directly came out of that struggle. In addition, it is a Pashtun invention, and is still very much alive and well in eastern Afghanistan and Peshawar.
Silah Report took some time to ask a native Afghan from the province of Mazar-i-Sharif to talk about various colloquial names that Afghans have for popular small arms in use by the Mujahideen and in the modern era. This interview is not verbatim and has been edited for clarification.
SR- Please explain the Dragunov?
Interviewee- So the Russian name Dragunov actually isn’t used in Dari, or in Afghanistan. Instead, we call it “Draz-nuf” (درازنف) In this case, “Draz” (دراز) Dari means long or lengthy, and that name is given to that rifle due to its overall length being longer than most small arms such the Kalashnikov, Krinkov, and Shinkov. That’s why they call it “Draz-nuf”, the “Draz” for “Lengthy” or “Long”. Likewise, with names like Krinkov, or Shinkov, these are names given to various small arms by the Mujahideen in the Soviet War. They don’t represent the actual Russian name for them.
SR- Was the “Draz-nuf”/Dragunov a special rifle among those who used it? Only choose Mujahids would use it?
Interviewee- I think so because they used it as a sniper rifle due to the optics that came with it. You can focus your target very well and then shoot it. That’s what I have seen in movies as well. But it isn’t as expensive or as sought after as the Krinkov as far as I know. Carrying a Krinkov is sort of a show-off, something a Captain, a commander, would do. Everyone would talk about how “That guy was carrying a Krinkov, or his bodyguards carry a Krinkov”. But that status symbol isn’t the same with the “Draz-nof”.
SR- What are some other names? Such as PKah, Makarov, etc…?
Interviewee- Yes, PKah, they call it by another name of “Grin-nuf”.
SR- What about the RPG?
Interviewee- This is sometimes called a “Rockeet” (راکت) or “Rockeet-Tandaz” (راکت تندز) This is because “Rockeet” is obviously the missile that is fired out of that barrel, and “Andakhtan” is the Dari verb “To Throw” (انداختن) so “Rockeet-Tandoz” is an instrument that is used to throw a “Rockeet”.
SR- What about the .303 Lee Enfield?
Interviewee- We call these “See-Sahd-See-Bor” ( سه صد سه بور) See-Sahd-See means three hundred and three in Dari, meaning the caliber .303, and “Bor” for the diameter of the barrel. I’ve seen these rifles in old people’s houses and people would say “My grandfather carried this”. And “Karabine”, is another kind of gun, but it isn’t a rifle, it is shorter, shooting single rounds instead of automatic fire. We also have “Dushka” for the DShK Heavy Machine Gun.
Afghan fighters hide during Soviet bombardment, Jalalabad, Nangarhar, Afghanistan, 1981
Ali Parsa is an Iranian scientist who has a lifelong passion for sailboats. He also knows a great deal about the history of the Mauser bolt action rifles that initially entered service in Iran at the turn of the 20th Century. He wrote this article examining the history of the Persian Mauser with its roots in the Czech VZ24 being license produced in arms factories outside of Tehran. This article was written almost a decade ago and he has very generously allowed Silah Report to republish it with express permission from himself. It initially appeared on the website that bears his name, Aaliparsa.com. This edition has been lightly edited.
Mauser rifles first appeared in Iran before the First World War. Looking at pictures of Iran’s Constitutional Revolution era, one can spot Mauser rifles and handguns in the hands of freedom fighters of Sattar Khan and Bagher Khan, as well as other Constitutionalists in different regions of Iran.
Iranian Constitutionalists, with their Mausers, in 1906
At the end of World War I, and as a result of the Versailles treaty arms ban, Germany no longer produced these rifles, but an almost exact copy was in production in Czechoslovakia. After Hitler became the German chancellor, the production was resumed in Germany.
Later, with the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the identical rifle was produced in Germany and Czechoslovakia.
Czechoslovak Army Drill, 1938
A major production center was in Brünn, or Brno, as the city is called in the Czech language. The rifles made in Brno, the Czechoslovakian model, are known as VZ24 (for Vzor24, or Model 24 in the Czech language) and had the word Brno imprinted on them.
Czechoslovakian VZ24
Markings of a VZ24
Officially, the Mauser rifle was selected for the Iranian army during Reza Shah’s time. But Iran didn’t go for the original German and ordered the identical Czechoslovakian version, the so-called Brno. The Czech firm provided Iran rifles made of many German parts. It was similar to the longer barrel version Germans designated as K98. Some official test results are available from antique arms dealers today, featuring signatures of the Brno factory representative, the Iranian in charge, and of course, satisfactory ‘grouping’ or bullet marks.
A 1934 test result document
Full length ‘Brno’ with markings in Persian
At that time two other rifles were in use and very well known in Iran: the British Lee Enfield and the Russian Mosin Nagant (Noghaan, or Naaghaan, (نوغان- ناغان) in popular parlance in those days). The exact reason for preferring Brno over its rivals is not known, but one can speculate that those in charge of the Iranian army, or maybe Reza Shah himself, tried to avoid dependence of Iran to either of the two neighboring powers. Besides, the Brno and it’s Mauser original were considered to be the best military rifle of its day.
The Iranian government ordered three versions of this weapon. It was manufactured in Czechoslovakia by two firms. One was called Ceskoslovenska Zbrojovka, or CZ. These rifles are known to collectors as Persian CZ98, Persian Mauser or Persian Brno.
A Pahlavi crown, lion and sun crest appears near the feeding ring, as an inscription in Persian (in Nasta’liq script) on the side of its magazine giving the model and the factory name, which was in Brno. From then on the name, Brno was used by Iranians to refer to this rifle.
Lion and Sun crest of a Persian Mauser
Persian markings of a Brno made rifle
One typical such inscription read “tofang-e nemoone 1309 karkhane-ye aslahe sazi berno” (“Rifle model 1309 Made at Brno Arms factory.” The number 1309 refers to the Persian year 1309 which is the year 1930 in the Gregorian calendar).
In the late 1940s Iran’s Taslihat-e Artesh (Arms Factories of the Army), popularly known as Mosalsal-sazi (the machine-gun factory), in Tehran started production of these Brno rifles. The needed machinery and technical assistance were provided to Iran through the industrial firm Škoda, which had a long history of cooperation with Iran. Iran produced two models: the regular VZ24 rifle (similar to the German Kar98k, overall length 1110 mm) and the short version (similar to the German G30, overall length 993 mm) known as “Berno kootah” (short Brno).
Berno Kootah (short Brno)
Under a licence from CZ. The difference was only in the markings on the side of reciever: instead of naming Brno as the maker, it was written “sakht-e aslah-e sazi-e artesh” (made by the Army arms factory).
Markings on an Iran made short Brno
The products are known among the collectors as Persian Mauser and are regarded to be the best and smoothest of the Mauser family of bolt-action rifles.
For many years Brno was the standard personal weapon of the Iranian armed forces, until it was replaced by the more modern, semi-automatic, American Garand M1, and later by the German Heckler & Koch G3.
The rifle was especially cherished by Iranian tribes, who are known to be firearms aficionados and able shooters. A tribesman sharpshooter would settle for nothing less than a Brno. Tribal rebels did everything to acquire one of these rifles, and they did get their hands on these in many tribal wars during Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah’s time. And probably the tribal chieftains, or Khans, did get shipments from foreign sources, to be distributed among their savars (mounted fighters). One single event, which contributed to the widespread availability of Brno rifles among the tribes in Iran, was the fall of Reza Shah following the invasion of Iran by the Allied forces in 1941. At that time the Iranian army, after a short resistance, was almost disbanded and many people, especially tribesmen, got hold of the Brnos left after the soldiers abandoned the barracks.
There are many stories of the gun’s accuracy among the tribes. When Dadshah rebelled against the shah’s government in Baluchistan in the 1950s, people said that his wife, Bibi Khatoon, who accompanied him in the mountains, at one occasion, took her Brno and shot a bullet right into the barrel of the gun of a poor gendarme who was aiming at her over a long distance. Its popularity among Iranian tribes was so much that it was mentioned in some of their songs. A version of a well-known Boyer Ahmad song has a refrain that says “Mastom, Mastom, Brno kootah be dastom” (I’m drunk and have a short Brno in my hand).
For the politically minded intellectuals of 1950s and 1960s, the rifle was a symbol of the Shah’s repressive rule. It can be seen in the pictures of soldiers attacking the house of Dr. Mossageq on the fateful day of 19 August 1953 (the infamous day of the US-British coup).
Soldiers attacking the house of Dr. Mossadiq, Aug. 1953
Gory pictures of executions of Tudeh party officers in the Chitgar shooting range in 1955 shows defiant young officers strapped to the stake minutes before execution, with Brnos present to do the task. When Navab-Safavi, the fundamentalist leader of Fadaiian Islam was arrested, Iranians saw his pictures being transferred to a prison under bayoneted Brnos.
Dr. Yazdi, the Tudeh party leader, after arrest in 1953, surrounded by soldiers with Brnos
Navab-Safavi, the Fadaiian-e Islam leader arrested
You can see it in pictures of 15 Khordad (June 1963) uprising in Tehran. In fact, when the Shah’s opposition cried against his “rule of the bayonet”, it was the sight of these Brnos with their bayonets attached that they were referring to.
Ordinary people usually had their first encounter with the rifle while passing a guard in the street, or when they were (willingly or otherwise) recruited for the military service.
A deserter is taken to military service in a Gilan village, circa 1955
In the 1960s the semi-automatic US made M1 replaced Brno in the Iranian army, and Brno use was confined to the gendarmerie and the game wardens for a while, before it was decommissioned from active use. In the 1970s it was used mainly in ceremonial occasions.
Girl cadets of the police academy in graduation ceremony, circa 1972
During the 1979 revolution, the gun reappeared in the hands of the revolutionaries and tribesmen, who never abandoned their Brnos. When Kurds challenged the newly established Islamic government, they used mostly modern assault rifles. But Brno still had a use: The Kurds claimed that with special cartridges that can pierce 2cm of steel, Brno can down aircraft and helicopters.
Kurdish ‘Peshmarga’s with Brno
Besides the rebels, the Islamic government too had a use for Brno: It was, and is, used in official Friday prayer ceremonies. The speaker is required to have ‘the weapon of the day’ by his side, according to the tradition of the Prophet (he apparently used a sword).
A different news source, but this shows a handgun being held by an imam leading the Khutbah.Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei with what appears to be a Dragunov derivative. https://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/07/20/can-you-spot-what-irans-khamenei-was-holding-during-his-speech-on-the-nuclear-deal-the-mainstream-media-ignored-it
The most likely reason for its use in such ceremonies is that it is long enough for the speaker to hold it like a walking stick while he is standing and preaching. The Mauser brothers would have been happy to hear that their rifle would be considered a ‘weapon of the day’ a century later.
For people of my generation Persian Mauser, or Brno, brings back many bittersweet memories. The coup, the executions, the NoghlAli (Iranian version of GI Joe) with his Brno in a watch-cabin, the pain of being hit by its butt in street demonstrations, the greedy gendarme guy looking for a chicken to steal, the poor poacher in a remote town using the old rifle to feed his family with meat once in a while. You see it in the old newspaper pictures of battles, ceremonies, riots and executions. It is a piece of history.
Thank you Ali Parsa for contributing to Silah Report!
Notice how the bipod legs fold onto the back rack of the motorcycle while the Chinese 12.7x108mm Type 87 is pointed to the rear to be transported easier. Now, it would appear that any driver on the motorcycle would have to push the machine gun to the left or right while he is driving it
At a recent weapons cache that was turned up by Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Forces in Baghdad, what appears to be two Iraqi Tabuk Sniper rifles were among the rifles discovered in the buried cache. The Tabuk Sniper is uniquely identified by the cutout in the rear stock. Based on the Yugoslavian M70, the Tabuk sniper is a variant of the standard Tabuk rifle with full wooden stock, and the shorter version with a folding stock. It is unique among designated marksmen rifles in that it is chambered in 7.62x39mm, a round not known for its accuracy in the years it was adopted and used.
The two Tabuk Snipers in this photograph are distinguished by the aforementioned stocks and the three vents in the wooden handguard. On the above rifle there does seem to be some doubt as the receiver looks to be milled instead of stamped due to the magazine cut out portion. In addition, it is difficult to tell if the pistol grips are plastic or wooden, a key identification point about the Tabuk and M70 series. The stocks themselves are actually reversed, you are looking at the left side of the stock when it should have been the right side if aligned properly with the rifle.
Ian from Forgotten Weapons has put together an interesting overview of the 12.7mm Zagros And 14.5mm Sahar Anti-Material Rifles in use by the Kurdish Peshmerga. These improvised rifles are making quite the headway in the current Syrian civil war, due to the prevelance of VBIEDs and the complexity of fighting in urban settings.
Due to the Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine, Hamas with its military wing al-Qassam brigades has developed their own tools of war in order to preserve self-sufficiency in order to not be affected by the blockade made on Gaza strip.
This article will spotlight on one of the more interesting craft produced rocket launchers in Gaza , which is literally underground since their production facilities are protected in underground bunkers from IDF air raids and artillery strikes.
It is designed and manufactured by Hamas, but they distribute the launchers to other resistance troops working in Gaza, including Fatah and the PFLP (Popular Front for Liberating Palestine).
History
The weapon is named after Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder and the spiritual leader of Hamas who was assassinated by Hellfire missiles shot from an Israeli AH-64 Apache Helicopter gunship on March 22, 2004, at the age of 67.
The Yassin RPG is a unique design that resembles the RPG-2 combined with RPG-7 with some improvised design features, From RPG-2 it took the launching tube design and the warhead external shape and the rocket motor which are very simple, but to improve the performance they added some features from the RPG-7 such as the nozzle at the launcher’s rear to deflect recoil generated by launching the rocket, they also added a rocket booster to be attached to the propelled grenade to extend it’s range, and the internal shaped charge of the warhead is enhanced as well.
The manufacturing process occurs in underground workshops using ordinary shop tools, but the conception and engineering of the weapon seem to have a high degree of sophistication and professionalism given the lack of technology of the design.
In Action According to the continuous improvements of armor in Israeli armored vehicles, the RPG is believed to be not effective against them. However, Saladin brigades (the military wing of the Popular Resistance Committee in Gaza) claimed to destroy a Merkava Mk.3 MBT by targeting a weak point of the tank. Yet, the weapon is very effective against brick fortifications and soft-skinned armor as it can penetrate a 21 cm steel plate from 150 meters.
Specifications
Model : Yassin RPG
Designer : Adnan al-Ghoul
Type : Anti-Tank, Anti-Personnel
Place of Origin : Gaza, Palestine
Manufacturer: al-Qassam brigades, R&D unit
In Service: 2004 – Current
Weight : 7 kg (15 lbs)
Length : 95 cm (37″)
Caliber: 40 mm rocket engine ; 85 mm warhead
Muzzle velocity: 295 m/s
Effective range: 300 m
Sights: Iron sights
Differences between RPG-2 (top) and RPG-7 (bottom)Yassin RPG featuring the combination of RPG-2 and RPG-7
Although former British Army officer Robert Johnson wrote his book, “The Afghan War of War” in 2011, his conclusions and observations are just as valuable, if not more valuable today than ever. The premise of his book is that very few authors, officers, or politicians have throughly studied the Afghan side of many of the conflicts that have taken place in Afghanistan, whether it be Afghans against foreign invaders/occupiers, or civil war within the country such as during the 1990s. What I especially liked about the book was a number of very useful points that Johnson raises, that I honestly had not thought of before. I’ll summarize some of these points below, as these were my key takeaways from the book.
A Nation of a Thousand Tribes
Johnson goes to great lengths to make the point that Western observers have seen Afghans as “unchanging”, the “Graveyard of Empires”, and “fierce tribal fighters”, and this has stereotyped impressions of the Afghans since the first Anglo-Afghan War in the 1840s. Throughout the book we have countless counter-examples where this doesn’t seem to be the case. Where Afghan tactics have changed, altered, and have been reactive to the threats faced, in addition to being proactive and forcing Western troops to be constantly on the defensive.
But there is one constant that hasn’t changed, and that is the tribal and group dynamics that have existed for several hundred years. What we see is that instead of seeing Afghanistan as a single entity, or even an ethnic group as an entity, what is really going on is hundreds of individual tribes, sub-tribes, clans, and families that are essentially looking out for the best option for their individual group. Whether they ally with the British, or with the King, whether the Mullahs decide to go to war at all, whether peace is on the table, etc… Any of these decisions are made for the benefit of the particular group (tribe, clan, village, etc…). And these often change. What is beneficial for a village one month, may be detrimental for it the next. This means that to the British, Soviets, or Americans, it can be increasingly frustrating trying to maintain alliances and agreements.
Something that Johnson doesn’t mention, but a personal observation that I’ve made is how economy plays into these decisions. The lack of a stable exportation or cultivation of any natural resource (other than crops and opium) has been a limiting detractor throughout the countries history and still affects national security today. But when local tribes and villages can’t rely on natural resources like oil, mining, etc… the need to fight tooth and nail for alliances, positions, and funds becomes even more apparent.
Foreign Invaders Unify Afghans
In the example of every invading or occupying force, one of the constant themes is that one of the only forces that has ever truly united Afghans of different ethnic origins in some fashion has been the need to expel a foreign one. Johnson doesn’t point this out explicitly but this is evident in his descriptions of the country before several conflicts. The state of the country under the King appeared to be on the brink of falling apart on numerous occasions, when senior leadership pushed for further hostilities against the British or during the time of communism, against the Soviets. Even under the Taliban during OEF, the need to unite under an Islamic banner instead of an Afghan, or Pashtun one was strategically necessary to be able to sweep tribal differences aside.
Differences in Technology
The first Anglo-Afghan War saw the widespread use of muzzleloading rifles and muskets on both sides of the conflict, with the British armed with the Brown Bess, and the Afghans with the Jezail muzzle loading rifle. Apart from the British cannon and cavalry, the two forces were somewhat equal in terms of actual hardware.
However in the second Anglo-Afghan War this dynamic dramatically changed with the introduction of breech-loading rifles that could not only be reloaded quicker, fired faster, but also more accurately and further. This changed the way Afghan tribesmen attacked British columns. They had to close in faster, not allowing the British to use their artillery, and often attacked at night.
Similarly, in the war against the Soviets, the use of Stinger MANPODS was brought up. The popular misconception is that Stingers helped win the war. Although they did strike fear among Soviet helicopter pilots, especially the Hind attack helicopters, their introduction was too late to make a difference in 1986, when the Soviet Union had already decided to being fighting a delaying action instead of an all-out offensive. In addition, by altering their flying practices to fly at higher altitudes, the Soviets realized they could go outside of the Stinger’s capabilities and lessen the risk.
In Operation Enduring Freedom, the prevalence of IEDs took precedence over light Infantry attacks that the Taliban initially tried to use against the British in Helmand, but suffered costly casualties due to the artillery and air assets. IEDs used by the Taliban deserve to be studied much more in detail due to the complex escalation’s and counter escalation’s executed on each other throughout the entire campaign.
One point I think the book could have been improved on is the OEF/Op Herrick. In retrospect, this isn’t really Johnson’s fault because the war is still ongoing, and he can’t have access to many of the after action reports, or even just the massive amount of experience associated with the current operations from hundreds of thousands of veterans and currently serving troops. He picks out specific situations and TTPs that are usually from the British perspective, that doesn’t typify what other forces might have faced in their fight against the Pashtun lead Taliban insurgency.
His conclusion though is flawless in that he identifies that any considerable gains going forward will have to be an Afghan solution to an Afghan problem. Personally I think this has to have enormous emphasis on the countries economy, and being able to become prosperous on exporting natural resources already present in order to actually provide some capitol for a government entirely propped up on international aid money.
