If Soviets had had the AK in WW2...

[Dr.Rob]

The ak wasn't 'easy to make' in its initial run. It was not made from stampings, the Russians didn't have the capability to make a stamped steel rifle shoot a rifle cartridge. During the siege of Leningrad they made mountains of PPsh submachineguns--they didn't require a heavy receiver like a rifle.

The rifle would not have made a difference in the war.

If Germany had a lot of long range heavy bombers the war may have lasted a lot longer and ended in a truce, but that's another discussion.

 

[otomik]

The ak wasn't 'easy to make' in its initial run. It was not made from stampings, the Russians didn't have the capability to make a stamped steel rifle shoot a rifle cartridge.

to be clear you mean that the original AK-47 was not stamped or quickly mass produced with it's milled receiver. the AKM introduced in the late fifties with it's stamped receiver was lighter and suited to mass production.

 

[Dr.Rob]

The AK was always supposed to be stamped, the Soviets couldn't figure out how to get it right, hence the 'stop-gap' machined models. This process delayed the mass of the rifle to the troops. Making a folded sheet metal box that can take the repeated torsion/flexing/stress of an automatic weapon is, in fact, rocket science.

 

[Jaws]

An please don't tell a former grunt that a rifleman doesn't win a war....try winning one without one.

Remember, you were a grunt in the army that never had a bomb droped on it's grunts head for over fifty years. How did that happen? What kept the enemy from raining bombs and heavy shells on your head while you were grunt?

Coming back to the AK. It wouldn't changed too much. It could have done more damage if the Germans could capture it early on, mass produce it and use it with their superior tactics.

I think the AK was a natural evolution in the new Russian fighting doctrine. Sure the Germans had some influence, but i think they were more influenced by the cartridge than by the rifle. Saying that is just natural for any firearms designers to try to incorporate the best the technology offered at that time in their next weapon.

After the bad beating Russian troops got in the Winter War from submachine gun armed Finns, the Russian started using a lot of automatic submachinegun fire.
They sometimes armed entire companies with nothing but Ppsh submachine guns. Once they discovered the ingenious new German cartridge, 7.92x33mm, it doesn't take much to realise the great improvement this "medium range" cartridge could offer to their new tactics heavily reliant on mass automatic fire.

The AK-47 was not considered a "rifle" in Russia. was called "Avtomat". It was considered closser to a submachine gun or machine gun than a rifle.
When you take a reall AK out of "safe", the weapon goes in full automatic fire. Only when you push the safety all the way down the weapon goes in "Semi auto".
This goes directly hand in hand with their fighting doctrine based on mass automatic fire.
Before the AK was selected in 1947, there were a lot of good lessons learned by the Russian gun designers from their own experience or from other nations. When the Russians wanted a new weapon, they provided general guidlines to few design teams and asked them to provide prototypes for a competition.
From here on things are different. There was no such a thing as patent protection in communist Russia. After they select a winner, they get everybody together and try to figure out how they could further improve the winning design, with best things found on weapons from the other cometing teams.

 

[zstephens13]

I agree with Bill B. The Russians couldn't even feed their Mosin with 5 round stripper clips so would have been near impossible for them to supply their soilders with enough ammo to make a difference.

 

[Jeremy2171]

I agree with Bill B. The Russians couldn't even feed their Mosin with 5 round stripper clips so would have been near impossible for them to supply their soilders with enough ammo to make a difference.

Not sure what you mean....the clips work fine...

 

[KodiakBeer]

Stripper clips?



http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MGR343-1.html

 

[summerhelp]

I think he means they could not supply enough ammo for a 5 shot rifle much less a 30rd ak47. Not that the rifle couldn't take a stripper clip.

 

[KodiakBeer]

The Russians didn't have any ammo shortages once the war got rolling. They were issuing PPSH and PPS43's wholesale to entire companies.

 

[HKGuns]

It is my opinion that one of, if not THE BIGGEST, misconceptions assumed by many is that rifles are a significant factor of casualties in modern warfare (WWI to present).

In WWI, communicable diseases, the elements and lack of sanitation probably
caused 10x the number of casualties that rifle and machine gun fire did.

Huh? we're talking WW2 not WW1 trench warfare. Two entirely different methods of combat. Even in WW1 I think you're being absurd. Marching across an open field in the face of machine gun fire killed a lot of troops. Sure there was sickness as well, but I'd say you better check your facts.

 

[lwsimon]

Good to know I wasn't the only one thinking of this

 

[lwsimon]

Remember, you were a grunt in the army that never had a bomb droped on it's grunts head for over fifty years. How did that happen? What kept the enemy from raining bombs and heavy shells on your head while you were grunt?

Coming back to the AK. It wouldn't changed too much. It could have done more damage if the Germans could capture it early on, mass produce it and use it with their superior tactics.

I think the AK was a natural evolution in the new Russian fighting doctrine. Sure the Germans had some influence, but i think they were more influenced by the cartridge than by the rifle. Saying that is just natural for any firearms designers to try to incorporate the best the technology offered at that time in their next weapon.

After the bad beating Russian troops got in the Winter War from submachine gun armed Finns, the Russian started using a lot of automatic submachinegun fire.
They sometimes armed entire companies with nothing but Ppsh submachine guns. Once they discovered the ingenious new German cartridge, 7.92x33mm, it doesn't take much to realise the great improvement this "medium range" cartridge could offer to their new tactics heavily reliant on mass automatic fire.

The AK-47 was not considered a "rifle" in Russia. was called "Avtomat". It was considered closser to a submachine gun or machine gun than a rifle.
When you take a reall AK out of "safe", the weapon goes in full automatic fire. Only when you push the safety all the way down the weapon goes in "Semi auto".
This goes directly hand in hand with their fighting doctrine based on mass automatic fire.
Before the AK was selected in 1947, there were a lot of good lessons learned by the Russian gun designers from their own experience or from other nations. When the Russians wanted a new weapon, they provided general guidlines to few design teams and asked them to provide prototypes for a competition.
From here on things are different. There was no such a thing as patent protection in communist Russia. After they select a winner, they get everybody together and try to figure out how they could further improve the winning design, with best things found on weapons from the other cometing teams.

My understanding also is that the M43 7.62x39mm Russian cartridge predates the Russians encountering the 7.92 Kurz on the battlefield. My colleague wrote an SKS Review where he talks about the cartridge, and that was his opinion as well.

I'm curious - I don't have a first-hand source for this. Does anyone, on either side?

 

[zstephens13]

Thank you Summer Help. That's exactly what I meant.

 

[KodiakBeer]

US troop deaths in WWII:

Small Arms 20%
Shell Fragments 62%
Mines and Booby Traps 4%
Other 14%

From: Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War by T.N. Dupuy

 

[61chalk]

I repeat myself...please do not tell a grunt that a rifleman doesn't win a war.....as opposed to the poster who said rifleman do not win a war. Now let me try to spell this out because this may of gone over some peoples heads.....please do not tell the airboys that they do not win a war....please do not tell the navy they do not win a war.....Everyone involved wins the war or loses it....to the cooks to the civilians making the bullets to the welders......this isn't rocket science. Or is it?

 

[Pingn]

They definitely didn't have enough ammo for it earlier. Maybe later in the war.


As for which is more effective... grunts or trucks. I say neither. Not saying people are less important mind you. Just that they form a symbiotic relationship of sorts. Someone has to drive the tank. Someone has to fly the bomber. Grunts can't carry tons of steel on their back or flap their arms to fly. I look to Max Brooks via Arthur Sinclair's "tools and talent" statement for my reasoning on it. The supplies, the tools, and the people who know how to use them form an equally balanced triangle. Much like the one used to describe the ingredients of fire. When you take away one. The whole thing fails. The highest general is even a part of this.


Patton with an Abrams. I agree that the resources would have been too lacking. But if he had them I'm sure he would have drooled and been proud. Remember he was a big supporter of the tank and its future role. Can you imagine Patton commanding a bunch of fully equipped and supported force of Abrams on the race to Bastogne? After he made it there I would have told him to just keep going till he hit the Autobahn.
Ok well maybe not that far but I would have told him to use them to shock the crap outta Hitler.


I don't think disease caused as much casualties. Maybe took some out of the fight for a while in varying levels but I doubt most were fatal cases. Diseased have a wide range of definitions. From a case of runny nose (which I doubt got you off the line on D day), to an std (which may or may not have), to the black death (which I'm sure earned you a couple of days off).

 

[o Unforgiven o]

It would have made a difference, but it would have been impossible.

Because the Soviets Kidnapped Schmeisser and alot of other Germans who REALLY designed the AK... and then were sent off to die in the soviet Gulog (SP?) Except the ones they had already killed.

Kalashnikov Didn't invent (Self edit) "Stuff"

...They have only reciently BEGAN to admit it.

That can't be right, I don't see the germans making such an ugly gun.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Keep in mind guys the Russians had just tons of PPsH burp guns. They would ride the tanks and every man and his dog fire those guns at the Krauts as they charged. Think of the thousands of rounds raining down every second on the German trench lines.

The AK would have been a help, but so would the M1 Carbine if we had it in quantity in 1941. And imagine the M1 Garand in the hands of GIs in the Philippines in Dec. 1941! Might have put a dent in those Japanese and delayed to fall of the Philippines several more months.

Deaf

 

[BADUNAME13]

That can't be right, I don't see the germans making such an ugly gun.

What?

 

[PowerJoker6.0]

when i first saw this thread all i could picture was that movie with jude law about vassili zaitsev, in one of the first scenes they handed every guy a 5 round clip, and every other guy a nagant, and told them to charge. based on that, i would assume that even if they had AK's during the siege on Stalingrad, it wouldnt have made much of a difference because they didnt have enough ammo to hand out.


...Drags and 5 rounds to every man on the other hand... that may be a different story

 

[1stmarine]

The AK in WWII would have been just another rifle as WWII was the test ground for many systems. Like many new systems it had many issues that had to be debugged over the years. Listen to the complaints from Veterans on Brownings, 30cals, Thompson, etc... besides the ammo logistics nightmare situation. Only the Garands were the most satisfied. HORSE POWER BABY!

Kalasnikov was a joint effort. General Kalasnikov came with the brad concept but it was perfected in the next 17 years by a team of engineers at the Hizmazat plant. By the way, the saigas come directly from there and they are put together as they should be put together. Not like some other surplus junk some are trying to sell in the USA.

But, hey, if it shoots, we buy it! lol!!

 

[1stmarine]

LOL NOMAD!! I didn't see your post. LOL!
Yeah the germans didn't know anything about guns, still today they are trying to figure how guns work. I took a shot my my H&K the other day and a daisy flower came out!

LOL!!!!

...now on a side note the saiga .308 in 16" inches shoots the hell out of that round. That's my bed side baby.

 

[Wes_Allen]

Also, we shouldn't forget the early geek code breakers, on both fronts, that really put the hurt on Germany and japan.

Alan Turing and Joseph John Rochefort never really got the kind of credit they deserved...

 

[caribou]

Mr. Kalashnikov had an excellent idea, and as was the Soviet way, he lead a team of designers. Something he has said all along, that he had generous ammounts of help.
He certainly wasnt a John Browning, but he was able to form his idea into a working machine.
He not only passed muster with his ideas, Kalashnikov sucessfully navagated the political system, a major step in getting anything done in the USSR
The Russians have a loooong history of directly copying something they didnt invent simply because ,what ever it is they copy, works very well and they want it.....and said they "invented it" anyway..~~LOL!!~~
Guns, trucks, aircraft, they copied 'em all.
Hugo Schmiesser was brought by the Soviets to Izhevsk's arsenal after the war to flatten some hills and straighten some curves in the manufacturing process's when the Soviets were having problems producing the original sheet metal version. He had vast "weapons from sheet metal" experiance. He arrived well after the original design was developed by the team, but surly his MP/StG-44 was a major foundation of idea.
The Soviets still couldn't get it right and went over to the solid ,machined from a billet ,reciver untill the late 50's when they figured out how to keep it straight and uniform, and then went on to develop the AKM, the AK-47's sucessor.

"If" the Soviets had the AK-47 during the war, I dont belive they could have built enough, quickly enough, but they sure would have done well if the had if PRIOR to the war.
The blessing of the PPSH-41 was its ability to be stamped out of low grade untempered sheet metal, the assault rifles, MP-44, Ak's ,G-3's and such require tempering and the resulting warpage of parts was a major hurtle that the Germans had figured in the MG-42, MP-42 and such.
The original Kalashnikov teams AK-47 has a multi peice sheet metal reciver that had a very high reject rate when set into production, and it took 'em 11 years to get the sheet metal reciver consistant in quality in manufacture.
The Milled reciver was slow to manufacture, with the SKS rifle as a 'fill in' at the time as well.

 

[Vyacheslav]

I mean you could be looking at further soviet domination of europe as well as a soviet korea, hokkaido, manchuria

they could probably keep those countries under control a lot better than the un is now