What if an AK-47 chambered for the .223 Remington had existed in 1933?

I am pretty sure if someone handed the military decision makers a 5.56 round and said “This is a superior battle round!” They would have had MP’s escort them off the premises pronto.

Also, the Army wouldn’t hand a bunch of infantry guys full auto guns due to logistical issues supplying ammo. Hell, the Marines didn’t even get Garands unless they got them from Army guys. They still went into battle with 1903 bolt action rifles.

I wouldn't doubt the effect of cannon on the battlefields.

I literally just finished Sledge's With the Old Breed, a WWII mortarman's diary of his assaults at Peleliu and Okinawa with the First Marine Division's K/3rd/5th. His accounts of not only being on the receiving end of Japanese mortar and artillery fire, but the devastation of witnessing mortar and artillery fire from naval vessels and land-based mortars/artillery/tanks on the Japanese lines, is brutal.

The Emperor's fighters were huddled in caves and pits dug deep into coral and rock...I can just imagine how nasty it would be in an artillery barrage out in the open steppes of Russia or hiding behind brick and mortar walls in cities.

Stay safe.

Riomouse911 said:

I wouldn't doubt the effect of cannon on the battlefields.

I literally just finished Sledge's With the Old Breed, a WWII mortarman's diary of his assaults at Peleliu and Okinawa with the First Marine Division's K/3rd/5th. His accounts of not only being on the receiving end of Japanese mortar and artillery fire, but the devastation of witnessing mortar and artillery fire from naval vessels and land-based mortars/artillery/tanks on the Japanese lines, is brutal.

The Emperor's fighters were huddled in caves and pits dug deep into coral and rock...I can just imagine how nasty it would be in an artillery barrage out in the open steppes of Russia or hiding behind brick and mortar walls in cities.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

That book was both a very hard read but excellent at the same time. War is hell and you really feel that when you read his account, and really feel his struggle to not lose his humanity in those awful situations.

+1 to many comments: There were very smart ballistics gurus, even in e.g. the UK government. Rejected. The decisionmakers are old generals who know how to fight the wars of their generation. Bolt rifles in the 30s still came with magazine cutoffs, because you can't let the average soldier rapid fire with a /magazine/ on tap! The mayhem!

Also 1000% agree infantry rifles barely matter. If you have a time machine and want your side to win/win-faster, then C4I is what could swing it. Better radios, night vision, thermals, radar (smaller, earlier). Give them a recon sat, or a JSTARs and it's over. No more surprises.

Too boring? Try: Air mobility. Give someone 100 medium helicopters (and parts, lessons, etc) and they can land and resupply 1,000 troops anywhere they want. Try: precision attack. Laser guided bombs. Cruise missiles would be neat, but lots of infrastructure to make them useful. Just target pods and LGBs and now bombing strikes from B17s can be infinitely more effective with 1/100th of the forces committed. Try: ATGW. PIAT, Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck and the first Bazooka were mediocre to awful depending on timeframe; give them a regular supply RPG-7, LAW, or for fun Javelin and enemy tanks simply no longer matter.

Had it not been for Germany’s head jackass they would have fared better. As mentioned above he micromanaged too much and cost time. Time that could have been used to make more stuff. Uboats to limit troop resupply, tanks to shut down allied armor and mechanized movements, planes that could have bombed London into surrender eliminating the big jumping off point that America used to bring in all the big items. Small arms? America did it right. Simple, cheap, and most importantly fast to manufacture grease guns were the ticket. If the US already had a stockpile of weapons they would have been given away in lend/lease but again, a well developed and uninterrupted uboat fleet could have prevented many from ever seeing action. We know uboats were patrolling near American harbors, if there were more then they could have held America at home. Still we talk small arms. Everybody talks small arms. They are the jewelry of war.

Europe was won with diesel
Russia was won with mass produced winter coats... and diesel fuel.
Pacific was won with high altitude bombers from airfields essentially captured by naval strategy. And diesel fuel.

It’s always simple. War is ugly and people get distracted. Men still need food, water, and proper clothing. The rest is a chess game. Always has been, always will be. Technology is your chess piece set, and you don’t go to war if all you have is a king and a rook.

Riomouse911 said:

I literally just finished Sledge's With the Old Breed, a WWII mortarman's diary of his assaults at Peleliu and Okinawa with the First Marine Division's K/3rd/5th. His accounts of not only being on the receiving end of Japanese mortar and artillery fire, but the devastation of witnessing mortar and artillery fire from naval vessels and land-based mortars/artillery/tanks on the Japanese lines, is brutal.

Click to expand...

Corregidor is another good example. I have read up a bit about the way that it was taken and holy hell that was a fortress that should not have fallen. The effect of artillery whether it be naval or land based is undeniable. The troops that got onto Corregidor and opened up a hole were armed in large part with knee mortars. Not exactly heavy artillery, but a lot more effective than an Arisaka, an AK, or anything in between.

WestKentucky said:

Corregidor is another good example. I have read up a bit about the way that it was taken and holy hell that was a fortress that should not have fallen. The effect of artillery whether it be naval or land based is undeniable. The troops that got onto Corregidor and opened up a hole were armed in large part with knee mortars. Not exactly heavy artillery, but a lot more effective than an Arisaka, an AK, or anything in between.

Click to expand...

Dont forget the most potent weapon the Japanese used against Corregidor- hunger.

NIGHTLORD40K said:

Dont forget the most potent weapon the Japanese used against Corregidor- hunger.

Click to expand...

And today it would be worse. Back then they still had a few animals handy to kill and eat. An MRAP may be a nice machine, but it don’t make much of a sandwich.

Well, based on what we know, had Hughes or Ford done something like that, Douglas MacArthur and his ilk, after they finished snickering, would have crushed the project, buried it, and probably have gotten J. Edgar Hoover to harass and threaten any backers of the project, with the connivance of the recently elected FDR, at least if it has been Hughes who did it.

There are a great many reasons that the Axis powers lost the war.

One of the biggest was the Russian front. The Germans thought they had an innate superiority over what they thought were a ragtag and disorganized military. Their defeat on the eastern front may have been the true VE day. No, an AK would not have helped. The supply lines were long and disjointed in Russia. The Russians had the logistics to deal with it and the Axis did not. Winter just flat out could not be dealt with. Very few throughout history have ever even considered Russia in any kind of economic or strategic way except other Russians.

The Axis was also just plain weaker. They had less of everything compared to the Allies.

Codebreaking, strategic bombing, aviation, artillery, naval superiority, and Hitler’s micromanaging all played bigger roles.

Small arms just don’t matter that much. It definitely would have delayed the inevitable.

Howard Hughes and Henry Ford helped greatly though anyway.

Myth about the AK is that it was an easy rifle built by one person. This is beyond false. These things are simple in concept but complex related to the build. This is why so many American companies that try to reproduce them fail miserably. Lancaster, Century, the list goes on. In the USSR factories the size of small towns were made to build these things. In China, the same is true.

I think the AK was a product of decades of small arms plus a team of engineers that tried several different designs. Many are in love with the romanticized proletariat fantasy that it was made by Mikhail himself, but it just isn’t true.

After that rant, my point is, I just don’t know if this hypothetical would have ever been so it’s hard to say what could have happened.

It would be 88 this year...

Tommygunn said:

I think they had more horses than tanks.

Click to expand...

They did... 90% of all German supplies, artillery, and ammunition were moved by horses. They also had some cavalry left over from WWI, but it wasn't used very often and was quickly disbanded in the early 40's.

Now, to the question:

I'm of the opinion, like the others, that it wouldn't have made a difference in WWII. However, the Garand in '06 is a more "formidable" weapon vs. the AK in .223; the downside being the Garand is limited to 8 rounds. It's fun to think about "what if" but in this case I'm glad that what "was", was.

Mac

In short the US bought the victory with man power and materials. especially materials. The US was an economic juggernaut that the axis did not fully appreciate until it was too late.

One simple example:
The US produced nearly 50,000 M4 Sherman tanks for WWII (across all variants)
Germany only produced ~26,000 Panzer tanks total ( Panzer I, Panzer II, Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panzer V Panther, Panzer VIE Tiger, Panzer VIB King Tiger)

Now remember the US produce modest numbers of other tanks. The US made almost as many M3/M5 Stuart light tanks (nearly 23,000) as the Germans made across all Panzers.

Not to mention the amount of armor the UK and Russian threw at Germany. Russia built over 84,000 T-34/T-34-85.

An AK would never pass the accuracy standard. At the time the power requirement was much greater. As a former soldier I can tell you that weapons matter. No two wars are the same. No weapon is perfect for every situation. Early in the war the Russians relied on mass attacks by largely barely trained soldiers some unarmed and expected to salvage ammo and weapons from the dead and wounded. Accuracy and range did not matter. I can't see how an AK would have helped our side much. Maybe in the Pacific at times, We had the BAR in WW2. debatable I know.

As WWII went by and large the Axis powers could not reach the bases of production of the Allied powers. American wartime production was beyond their reach. The Russians packed up their plants in danger of being overrun and moved them further East. The Germans could bomb part of the British Isles, but not all of them.

Once war time production began to spin up the Axis bases of production increasingly began to become in reach of Allied attacks. Reduction in supply combined with steadily mounting personnel losses while the Allied forces were growing in both production and manpower created an irreversible trend leading to the destruction of the Axis powers.

So far as rifles were concerned we could have fought the entire war with Springfields while the Germans and Japanese all had AKs with whatever caliber you care to choose and it still would not have prevented us from eventually winning. Casualty counts may have risen somewhat, but we still would have won.

My 2 cents: I don't think 5.56x45 would have been accepted for a primary infantry rifle at that time.

However; the AK design might have. At the least, the Army was developing the M1 Carbine at the time. I can easily see the AK design adopted to fit the M1 Carbine's role. At that point, it would have found its way into front line combat just like the M1 Carbine did. I could also see it being used by troops who used submachine guns.

The other part is semi-auto rifle design and refinement world wide changed a great deal between 1935 and 1950. Aside from sending an AK back in a time machine, it would take more than just money, but some talented designers to come up with an equivalent design in the 1930's. Also, stamped parts weren't really used in the US until costs and necessity brought them in.

MechAg94 said:

My 2 cents: I don't think 5.56x45 would have been accepted for a primary infantry rifle at that time.

However; the AK design might have. At the least, the Army was developing the M1 Carbine at the time. I can easily see the AK design adopted to fit the M1 Carbine's role. At that point, it would have found its way into front line combat just like the M1 Carbine did. I could also see it being used by troops who used submachine guns.

The other part is semi-auto rifle design and refinement world wide changed a great deal between 1935 and 1950. Aside from sending an AK back in a time machine, it would take more than just money, but some talented designers to come up with an equivalent design in the 1930's. Also, stamped parts weren't really used in the US until costs and necessity brought them in.

Click to expand...

The OP specifies 1933. The RFP for the M1 Carbine was issued in 1940. The Army in 1933 (at the peak of the Depression) was a different kettle of fish from the Army in 1940. MacArthur rejected the 276 Pedersen in 1932 as both "underpowered" and because of a desire to use a massive stockpile of 30-06 left over from WWI. You are absolutely right that a 22 caliber cartridge would not have been accepted in 1933. Period. And that MacArthur would have suddenly dropped the Garand design seems extremely contrary to what is known of his character.

As to the AK design, contemporary evidence makes it doubtful indeed, however, your case that it could be a replacement for the extremely expensive Thompson and as a rear echelon firearm is somewhat compelling. But it would likely have been chambered in 45 acp. It is possible that the later idea of an intermediate round based on the Win 32SL may have floated to the top in 1933, but my bet is that ammunition logistics and compatibility would have seen any successful sub-gun replacement chambered in 45 acp. Recognizing that militaries are almost all fighting the last war, a select fire weapon in a pistol caliber that was cheaper than the Thompson would have had traction. Such a weapon in the yet to be conceived "intermediate" cartridge would have been too much for a generation of Generals born in the 1880s.

Re micromanaging, I read that the General Staff expected to be ready to START to conquer liebenstraum in 1945. But the Head Wacko wanted to start sooner.

Re weapons and tactics, I figure that the rifleman's main job, especially in the German army mostly armed with bolt actions, was to keep people from annoying the machine gunner.

Re AK manufacture, I recall in the golden years of cheap Iron Curtain products, that milled receiver AKs were especially prized. The gun was designed to be stamped or "pressed" in European term and the milled rifles were a stopgap to make use of machine tools and machinists until they could get the large scale stamping operations going.

Re power, It is a puzzlement to me that the Japanese and Italians attempted to increase the caliber of their infantry rifles even after war had started, yet by the end of the war, Germany had at least some "intermediate" caliber autos and the Soviets were working hard on theirs.

Jim Watson said:

Re power, It is a puzzlement to me that the Japanese and Italians attempted to increase the caliber of their infantry rifles even after war had started, yet by the end of the war, Germany had at least some "intermediate" caliber autos and the Soviets were working hard on theirs.

Click to expand...

Assault rifles being effective presumes that your soldiers have some way to get to close range - either motorized transit to carry them there, or lots of cover to sneak through and get there (ie urban environment). If you're stuck on foot in a wide-open area, you want all the range your rifle can handle. Say you're on an open field, you have 100 soldiers armed with an M16 good out to 600 yards, and you're facing 100 enemies armed with Mausers good out to 1500 yards - you've now got a lot of unpleasant walking to do. Those Mausers don't even need to be that accurate if you give all 100 enemies a couple minutes to just take freebies at you (the "volley fire" from stuffy turn-of-the-century tactics books).

In the Sino-Japanese war in Manchuria, both armies were largely fighting on foot on open plains, and the Japanese upgunned their rifles because the Chinese 8mms were simply out-ranging them. Italians fighting in desert campaigns, same deal. The German and Soviet armies OTOH were both mechanized enough to bring their soldiers in close, and they found out quickly that big 30 cal bolt actions really suck when you're at 100 yards and in. So both tried to evolve out of that quickly.

That's why the notion of an assault rifle before WWII is so dubious - the auto industry only dawned in the 1920s, and the late 30s is about the earliest that armies had widespread motor vehicle transit for their infantry. Before that, they were stuck on foot, and the paradigm was maximum range for wide open battlefields, with some WWI concessions for point-blank trench busting (after those poor unfortunate souls had to walk towards the enemy trench). They didn't count on how much more maneuverable trucks and tanks would make things.

Look up Pederson device and 276? Pederson. Both developments that should have influenced later arms.
Even the 9MM luger should have influenced US weapons.
The people in charge were fighting the last war.

Thanks for the logic, Mosin.

Works better when you spell it right, earplug, Pedersen.

The .30 Pedersen Device cartridge influenced nothing I know of but the 1935 French pistols after they reneged on the GP 9mm from FN.

The doctor who examined the cadavers and animals shot in the semiauto rifle trials said the obscure .256 Pedersen was superior in wounding power to the .276. Probably didn't have as much of the hard target penetration an army needs. It would get a better reception now.

It wasn't a rifle that won WWII, It was a general. And that general was General Motors. As already mentioned several times, we just out-produced everyone else. We had the resources and manufacturing and nobody bombing us back into the stone age.

I read a comment from a captured German tank commander that summed it up in a more personal way. He said with some frustration to his American captors "My tank could beat 10 of your tanks..." then after a slight pause "...but you always bring 12!"

Jeff Cooper said it of his days as a Battleship Marine: "There was no doubt in our minds that we would just keep feeding in men and machines until the enemy was ground into garbage."

What if the Confederacy had been supplied with AK47s? There's a great Alternative History book on the subject called Guns of the South, written by Harry Turtledove.