Is the 7.62 x 39 an American Cartridge?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who was widely issuing rifle plates decades ago?
In 1973, the Army demonstrated at Aberdeen/Edgewood Arsenal that 7 layers of Kevlar (previously used to make tires) would stop a mid-speed projectile and widely publicized that fact as it had law enforcement implications. In 1974 the Russians replaced their service round with a much faster round designed to defeat armor at the expense of wound cavity size. They knew from Vietnam that even heavy ballistic nylon could stop a 7.62x39 at intermediate range and any improvements obsoleted the round. The timing of all this was not a coincidence.
 
They knew from Vietnam that even heavy ballistic nylon could stop a 7.62x39 at intermediate range and any improvements obsoleted the round.
Unless you're about to clad infantry in body armor so thick, heavy and comprehensive that frontline soldiers resemble Michelin men with inevitable associated mobility restrictions, calling any intermediate round obsolete is somewhat far-fetched.
 
In 1973, the Army demonstrated at Aberdeen/Edgewood Arsenal that 7 layers of Kevlar (previously used to make tires) would stop a mid-speed projectile and widely publicized that fact as it had law enforcement implications. In 1974 the Russians replaced their service round with a much faster round designed to defeat armor at the expense of wound cavity size. They knew from Vietnam that even heavy ballistic nylon could stop a 7.62x39 at intermediate range and any improvements obsoleted the round. The timing of all this was not a coincidence.

That must be why "rifle" armor only started becoming a thing in U.S. service in the late '90s?

Today, there are rifle plates that will defeat ANY rifle caliber, 5.56 included, that does not utilize a tungsten core or some other configuration that would make it impractical for mass issue.
 
The various comblock countries replaced 7.62x39 and surplussed all those those junky guns for a reason.
Some hold-overs exist. Finland was mentioned in this thread. Ukraine is another, so much so that they're running a project to re-arm with an AR-15 in 7.62x39 (at leat 50,000 rifles, possibly more). And then there's India, where INSAS was supposed to supplant the old AK, they're now talking about going back. Of course we don't count strange things like French police buying Bren 802 - they only wanted 68 guns total.
 
That must be why "rifle" armor only started becoming a thing in U.S. service in the late '90s?
The adoption of the 5.45x39 made it unattractive for the U.S. to pursue personal armor for use against front line Soviet troops since the higher velocities of the 5.45x39 would easily defeat the Edgewood design. Had the Soviets stuck with the 7.62x39 we would have pursued a kevlar/plate combination (such as Kevlar + Doron - modern plates would not have been required) vigorously and the Soviets would have been stuck with rifles with severely limited capabilities and too big a bore and too little powder capacity to overcome them even with tungsten. They knew this - the threat of the Edgewood tests (and preceding NIJ work) forced them to abandon the 7.62x39 at great cost.

In reality, the 7.62x39 was experiencing failures to penetrate against nylon+Doron flack jackets at medium range in Vietnam, even though those jackets were not specified to stop rifle rounds.
 
Some hold-overs exist. Finland was mentioned in this thread. Ukraine is another, so much so that they're running a project to re-arm with an AR-15 in 7.62x39 (at leat 50,000 rifles, possibly more). And then there's India, where INSAS was supposed to supplant the old AK, they're now talking about going back. Of course we don't count strange things like French police buying Bren 802 - they only wanted 68 guns total.

Sure, but we're talking about the posterior end of military preparedness there. They won't be the first or the last to double down on obsolete equipment.
 
The adoption of the 5.45x39 made it unattractive for the U.S. to pursue personal armor for use against front line Soviet troops since the higher velocities of the 6.45x39 would easily defeat the Edgewood design. Had the Soviets stuck with the 7.62x39 we would have pursued a kevlar/plate combination (such as Kevlar + Doron - modern plates would not have been required) vigorously and the Soviets would have been stuck with rifles with severely limited capabilities and too big a bore and too little powder capacity to overcome them even with tungsten. They knew this - the threat of the Edgewood tests (and preceding NIJ work) forced them to abandon the 7.62x39 at great cost.

In reality, the 7.62x39 was experiencing failures to penetrate against nylon+Doron flack jackets at medium range in Vietnam, even though those jackets were not specified to stop rifle rounds.

The U.S. didn't get to evaluate the AK-74 and cartridge until the early '80s, so how did anyone on this end know what level of armor would be sufficient or not?

Not to mention, the Soviet changeover from AKM to AK-74 took a long time, some troops didn't actually receive AK-74s until well into the '80s.

And as I mentioned earlier, the 7.62x39 still to this day remains in limited Russian service.
 
The U.S. didn't get to evaluate the AK-74 and cartridge until the early '80s, so how did anyone on this end know what level of armor would be sufficient or not?

Because it's almost entirely a function of velocity which we assumed was similar to 5.56. We gave them a bit too much credit there.
 
7.62x39 will kill a deer or feral hog almost as well as the .30 WCF / .30/30 at lower cost for hunters/varmint controllers on a budget.
That alone will insure a position as an "American" round.
 
Having a pretty good idea about the terminal ballistics of both 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 rounds as well as having done quite a few combat exercises and rehearsals in various levels of body armor, the practical difference between anything that would offer protection from the former but not the latter is marginal at best. Most tangible advantages of 5.45 point towards lighter weight of the ammo and easier recoil management in full auto. The exact same factors that gave 5.56 NATO an advantage over 7.62 NATO a few years earlier.
 
Llama Bob, perhaps you should come over and head to the range with me and shoot my CZ 527 in 7.62x39mm then have some tenderloin and steaks with me (taken with a x39mm) as we discuss how useless and inaccurate the round is and how much of a failure it was in the jungle in the late 60's when unfortunatley those peasants beats us with them.

Your welcome whenever

...and no its not an American cartridge. Like most everything we use in our day to day life its of foreign descent.
 
I don't know if the 7.62x39 is an "American" cartridge or not. I happen to like it and own several rifles in that chambering.

That said, so far as I'm aware, cartridges don't require citizenship papers, green cards or even visas to work in the United States. The round is known as the 7.62x39 Soviet, so it's from a country that no longer even exists. It has also resided and worked here for well over 30 years, seems like granting it naturalized status is the least we should do.

A person doesn't have to be born in the U.S.A. to be an American. We are after all, a nation of immigrants. Either you or your ancestors came from someplace else.

Why should we hold cartridges to a higher standard than we do people?
Some hold-overs exist. Finland was mentioned in this thread...
Sure, but we're talking about the posterior end of military preparedness there. They won't be the first or the last to double down on obsolete equipment.
Anyone claiming that Finland occupies "the posterior end of military preparedness" would be well advised to remember the adage: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
 
Anyone claiming that Finland occupies "the posterior end of military preparedness" would be well advised to remember the adage: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".
The Finns have SERIOUS problems in that regard these days. The entire active duty army can't match the equipment of a single Russian tank division - in reality they have about 1 brigade of less than top line equiptment.

What's Finnish for "speed bump"?
 
The Finns have SERIOUS problems in that regard these days. The entire active duty army can't match the equipment of a single Russian tank division - in reality they have about 1 brigade of less than top line equiptment.

What's Finnish for "speed bump"?

Do you have some links I could go to and read this for myself?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hq
Here's a link stating Finland's army size and equipment.

Maavoimat


From website link above:

Army
The Army defends the entire land area of the state and executes all three of the Defence Forces’ tasks.
The defence of Finland’s territory is based on the large reserve created by general conscription. Annually, the Army’s eight brigade-level units train around 20,000 conscripts. Refresher exercises, which maintain reservists’ skills, involve thousands of reservists each year.

The Army carries its social responsibility by providing assistance to other authorities some 400 times a year.

The Army leads the majority of the military crisis management operations that the Defence Forces are involved in. It also trains and equips forces for crisis management tasks.

Tasks of the Army
  1. Defend Finland's land area
  2. Provide support to other authorities in safeguarding the vital functions of society
  3. Participate in crisis management operations
The Army's wartime troops, 160,000 soldiers
Operational units
  • Demanding mobile battle missions in the entire country
  • Good equipment
  • Direction of the main effort
Regional units
  • Causing losses for the opponent, controlling areas (reformed land warfare doctrine)
  • Task-specific equipment
  • Central areas
Local units
  • Protecting targets, mobilising troops, cooperating with other authorities
  • Light equipment
  • Cover the entire country
The personnel strength of the Army
Salaried personnel - 4300
Soldiers - 3500
Civilians - 800
Conscripts - 19800
Of which voluntary women - 450
Reservists (2015) - 20900
Taking part in refresher training - 12100
Taking part in voluntary exercises - 2700
Taking part in exercises arranged by the National Defence Training Association - 6100
Crisis Management Operations - 500
Of which reservists - 350

Army equipment

e6460ff9-f332-4ded-92be-98a2665e3082?t=1455531102278.jpg
Main battle tanks - 200
Leopard 2A6 - 100
Leopard 2A4 - 100

a2a11fe2-4b43-4d85-a03a-ddbcb74c73f4?t=1455531570571.jpg
Mechanised infantry combat vehicles 200
CV9030 FIN - 100
BMP 2M - 100

46de4003-ec2c-4a88-a8ee-b691510f138c?t=1455531598639.jpg
Armoured personnel carriers - 700

a4e2a649-b6fb-4dda-9146-edb7be5d1652?t=1455531625889.jpg
Tracked vehicles - 1200

31ee0031-fd5b-4a7f-9902-10594a8cc80a?t=1455531655728.jpg
Field guns - 800

fb58cbed-b2e1-4aab-85a9-82b42e5277dd?t=1455531708790.jpg
Transport helicopters - 20
 
I would say that Finland's Army could give a Russian Tank Division a run for it's money.

Where most countries fall short is air superiority.
 
The Finns have SERIOUS problems in that regard these days. The entire active duty army can't match the equipment of a single Russian tank division - in reality they have about 1 brigade of less than top line equiptment.

What's Finnish for "speed bump"?
It's "hidastustöyssy".

Here's a tiny history lesson (a bit off-topic, sorry guys), instead of just trying to bench race by trying to play Top Trumps with statistical figures.

Stalin sent approximately three times the troops, 200+ (!!) times the number of tanks and 34 times the number of aircraft compared to the whole Finnish armed forces to invade Finland in - his estimation - no more than two weeks in 1939. After three months, a few dozens of miles of gained ground and half of the whole invading force destroyed by defending forces smaller than just the invader's casualties, he was forced to negotiate a cease-fire.

On the other hand, if an outcome is different, no invading army has a snowball's chance in h*ll keeping their officers alive for any meaningful amount of time in an occupation scenario. Think Baghdad sniper and IED activity in an immense scale in a sparsely populated, arctic, wooded country. Over half of male population is formally trained in guerrilla warfare and a third of them have received marksman training. In addition to a couple of thousand fully trained special forces snipers, by far the highest density of privately owned firearms in Europe and more seasoned big game hunters per capita than any other country in the world. Not to mention a woefully inaccurate gun registration database where even the ministry of interior can't figure out who's got what; almost as good as having none as far as general confiscation is concerned.

My oldest son finished his training in long range recon (green beret, eagle head insignia) a couple of years ago. He really surprised me by telling how much dirtier the common bag of tricks has become during last 28 years and just a chance of being on the receiving end of all that seems like a decent deterrent. At least it has worked pretty well for quite a few decades now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top