Kalashnikov Dead at age 94
http://news.yahoo.com/rifle-designer...iacontentstory
What do you say about someone like this?
Printable View
Kalashnikov Dead at age 94
http://news.yahoo.com/rifle-designer...iacontentstory
What do you say about someone like this?
I say: Meh.Quote:
What do you say about someone like this?
Not christmas yet? Design is stolen, the Kalashnikov is the Sturmgewehr 44 that was developed in Germany.
Fragony is ofc wrong again.
Brilliant guy, hero of his nation when it mattered..
RIP
Nope, I am not, google will solve things very fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Looks familiar? http://www.efour4ever.com/sturmgewhe...ncross_920.jpg
Someone like what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
He was a weapon designer, he didn't force anyone to use them.
He had a job and he did it very well.
Although I don't care much for gun designers and would have preferred if his inventiveness was focused on agricultural machinery.Quote:
"Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer," said Kalashnikov. "I always wanted to construct agricultural machinery."
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Kalashnikov's AK was not all that brilliant of a design. It has only become iconic due to its patron state. The Warsaw Pact should have adopted Jiří Čermák's vz.58, but the Soviet Union never would have accepted non-Russian derived weapon system at a level so central to its propaganda efforts.
It depends how you look at it. There were more precise rifles out there, with better range and a rate of fire but Kalash did what it supposed to do. Simplistic design, easy to maintain, easy to use, cheap, reliable, functions properly even in extreme weather conditions...
I'm not an expert on rifles by any means, vz.58 could be a better rifle than ak 74, Czechs had/have a quite good armaments industry...
Sure I don't. What does it matter that he admitted it himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Frags:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
There is at least one source claiming that he denied such. This wiki suggests that the AK-47 inherited features from the M1 Garand and the Remington 8 (an antecedent of the BAR) as well as using a gas-operated system akin to that of the STG-44, but also akin to that of the SVT-38, a soviet automatic rifle that the Germans encountered (and snatched and used against the former owners). Implying that he "stole" the design is a little silly -- when enough features/ideas are taken from different places it's called research.
Now now, Seamus. It's rude to confuse Frags with this whole knowledge thingy.
The AK47 was build in cooperation with the Germans who made the Sturmgewehr 44. It isn't the revolutionary design people take it for. It's an evolutionary build based on the Sturmgewehr 44.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
He admitted this, you know better than the man himself?
@Kadagar_AV, stop falling in love with me, I said no and I mean it. I am not into that.
Just because rifles look alike externally doesn't mean that they use same mechanisms internally. The rifle PJ mentioned, vz.58 looks almost exactly the same as AK-47 but it's totally different inside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Ffs he even admitted it. The AK47 was developed in cooperation with Meinfeld who developed the Stg44 and was flown into Russia after the war. Just like the USA did fly out german scientists on their parts. Germans may have their mistakes but they sure are excellent engineers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
It. Is. A. Different. Rifle! Simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Wherever you read about that, it was bollox.
Fragony's post here is the third link on Google when you search for "Meinfeld AK-47", so there goes my attempt to find anything about that...
What I can find are theories about Hugo Schmeisser having developed the rifle instead, the Moscow Times calls it a fringe theory however, while the only sources claiming that Kalashnikov admitted that Schmeisser did it are apparently blogs, like this one.
Of course both sides have an agenda, some people hate the soviets and do not want to attribute such a wonderful rifle to them or they just love the Nazis so much that they do not think Russians were capable of coming up with anything decent (which is wrong of course). On the other hand the Russians wouldn't just admit if a German engineer helped design their iconic rifle just as Americans like to forget that they needed German technologies to get to the moon and to break the sound barrier.
Quite frankly I don't think it's important, I find it far more debatable and worthy of debate whether the development of that rifle or any other weapon is a good thing that ensures peace or makes one indirectly responsible for all the deaths this weapon causes. To me this doesn't seem really clear cut. Unless one considers the unlikely option that all humans would stop developing weapons, someone will always make the tools to kill people anyway, so why wouldn't he try to give his people an edge? What seems far less moral is giving them to shady people for money but even that seems inevitable. :shrug:
Just not exactly the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I thought we stole most of our sound barrier stuff from the Brits, just like we adopted their implosion calculations for Fat Man. The rest of the Moon program, as you rightly note, was Werner and crowd -- who actually bothered to read Goddard, unlike most of the U.S. establishment prior to the V2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Frags:
There are simply too many antecedent concepts from too many directions, ALL of which went into Kalash's development of the AK-47. Significant direct German involvement is unlikely because of timing (indirect plenty of course based on captures). While the weapon was adopted in 1947, that was following nearly 2.5 years of development, trials, and provings. German weapons design was certainly one influence, but by no means the only one.
RIP, I feel sad for him for having to sit back and watch his invention become hijacked by undesirable types... I suppose even turned against his own countrymen in Afghanistan and the like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swept_wing#DevelopmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I just remember reading in a book about how you (Anglos ~;) ) had problerms breaking the sound barrier because of structural problems at such high speeds. That was until one of the designers had a look at older German designs and found the solution in swept wing designs. Been a while since I read that and I do not have the book anymore but at least wiki seems to agree that German engineers figured that out relatively early before breaking the sound barrier was even a reachable goal.
Basically seems like we had a solution without really having the problem and you (the British/Anglos) then copied our solution when you actually had the problem.
Germany also designed the first stealth airplane in WW2 already, it took you years after the war to come up with such a design, although yours more sophisticated of course.
Not the only one, but the the model is based on the original design. After WW2 Russia imported German weapon experts, so did you. That shouldn't be new to anyone, I thought it was common knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
You seem to know everything about it, so why don't you start with explaining who Meinfeld is? Google obviously cites you as the only source on his work on the StG-44.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
The success of the Kalashnikov is due to its resilience and it simplicity. I learn to dismantle one just in looking at the mechanism. It s simple. If you try to do this with a FAMAS, you will go for big trouble (especially with the extractor system). The M.14 was inferior and the M.16 (and later) too sophisticated. At the time of the AK47 (47 being the year or production) look at what the others had to offer. About the Stgwhr 44, if it was so good, why no country used it?
Kalashnikov is the equivalent of Henry, inventor of the Winchester. He created a weapon that will be the symbol of the fight for freedom and independence for some and horrible dictatorships for others.
Err, silly question. Some are still in use today in third world countries, but not many were produced in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Not one piece of German WW2 equipment was produced after the war but quite a bit was used, Panzer IV and V were used in some countries and their 75mm guns continued to be useful for a while. The "problem" was that Germany was neither supposed nor allowed to build weapons anymore. That doesn't mean the AK-47 was bad, but there were definitely political reasons why the StG-44 wasn't used by any army after the war, there were probably not nearly enough to equip an entire army and have replacement parts left anyway.
Frags is just giving too much weight to dubious blogs. Even a layman could see the differences if both rifles were disassembled in front of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Seamus is right, AK-47 was influenced by various previous designs, but it isn't a copy of any single one.
RIP :bow:
a“Err, silly question”: Nope. The French did use the Panther after WW2, And Japanese planes as well, at the start of the Indochina Wars, but not the Stg44. The AK was simpler and that is it. It was better suit for fighting that the Stg44. Could be a problem of munitions. 7.92 mm was not the usual one.
Well, you didn't use the AK, but you did actually use the StG-44 according to wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
There is however still the problem that it was not in production anymore, Iran also still uses F-14s but they are becoming fewer and fewer because they have to cannibalize them to get spare parts. In most cases armies also do not want to give rifles to half of their infantry and completely different rifles to the other half of their infantry. With fewer than 500,000 StG-44 produced and probably even fewer available after the war, no serious nation could have equipped its entire army with StG-44s and thought that this was a somewhat future-proof equipment. I wouldn't even say the AK-47 is worse, it has quite a few advantages, but to cite the number of users as proof given that one rifle was basically limited in the numbers available is quite odd. It's a bit like saying the VW Golf must perform better than a McLaren F1 because it has more users.
Every single invention in the history of mankind is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
We're standing on the shoulder of giants, ya know.
Also this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-UZnDrgzck
Then explain how the MG-42 and the Walther P-38 were both put back into production as the MG-3 and Walther P-1 in the late 50's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
In the late 50ies? Are you kidding me? Of course the StG-44 was completely superfluous by the late 50ies. The G3 was produced in the late 50ies...Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
Unlike the other weapons it was also the first of its kind. Let me repeat myself, it was not the best assault rifle ever made, but to say the AK 47 was vastly superior simply because it had a lot more users ignores quite a few things and is funny given that the StG-44 was not produced in 1947. Not a single western ally bought the AK 47 after all, why is that? Obviously they all must've thought it was a really bad rifle.
Oh yeah, I got something else totally wrong because the Ho-229 wasn't as good as the B-2. :rolleyes:
While the MG-42 is no longer in service, the M3 and M74 -- both direct descendants -- still are. The design was a "peak" design for its category and is still in use.
The STG-44, being a wartime model, was a bit too heavy for it's role. Lighter materials would have been too costly and difficult to obtain. When the Bundeswehr reformed they chose the G3 as their assault rifle...a rifle designed by some of the STG team (taken to France in 45, later emigrating to Spain) and developed directly from the STG-44. In effect, the Germans DID go back to using it...they just preferred the modern improved version to the heavy antiquated one. Pretty smart choice really.
According to Wikipedia the G3 was based on the StG-45, which was a very late war prototype by Mauser, while the StG-44 was produced by the "C. G. Haenel Waffen und Fahrradfabrik", that's right, weapons and bicycle manufactory... :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The difference was apparently in the firing mechanism as well given that the StG-45 looks relatively similar to the StG-44 otherwise.
What I find interesting about the AK rifles are the more recent 100-series, AK-107 and so on, they also look very similar to their older models, come in black and seem to have mostly interior/minor improvements. What makes them interesting is that they are based on the old rifles but are almost completely ignored in popular media.
Further there is the AN-94, which has some features (fast two-round burst using a rotating bolt, delayed recoil) that sound similar to the ones of the H&K G11, although I'm not in a position to say whether the mechanisms have much more similarity other than something close to the bullet rotates. ~;) It still looks a whole lot like an AK in design though.
So if Mister Kalashnikov nailed one thing, it was probably the Russian taste concerning gun design. :sweatdrop:
I'm not suggesting that Russia should have adopted a more advanced Western style rifle. That would not have satisfied their doctrinal requirements. What I'm saying is that the vz.58 was a better AK than the AK. It is lighter (both the gun and the mags), shorter, more reliable, more accurate, more versatile, better balanced and ergonomically superior with less recoil and last round bolt hold open. And while it does have a milled receiver, production time and cost was only slightly more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
After the war, the US forced NATO aligned countries to adopt .308 battle rifles instead of assault rifles. It can be reasonably assumed that had the Germans gone with an assault rifle of their own design after the war, it would have been based on the STG44.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars57
The balanced recoil system on the 100-series rifles is actually a pretty significant improvement over the earlier versions. Felt recoil is largely eliminated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Then the entire point of having 7.62 is gone...Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Are there any descendants of the Sten gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_M/45Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_submachine_gun
http://world.guns.ru/smg/eg/port-said-akaba-e.html
I enjoyed this bit in the description of the Sterling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
"The primary user complaint with the Sterling series is that there are projections in all directions, and carrying it on a sling frequently results in the weapon catching on clothing, load-bearing equipment, foliage, and doorways/hatches, as well as annoying (sometimes painful) poking of the user."
As is the 7.62. the 74, 107 etc. fire the same "high class varmint" sized ammo that most USA and NATO ordinance rely upon. The soviet version was even 5.45 compared to NATO 5.56.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
US media does not ignore them at all....it simply calls them all AK-47s. Why bother with accuracy when you can use an iconic label?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
There's much more inherent "evil" in saying "AK-47 ASSAULT rifle" on your news broadcast. Some of the more educated among them call them "Kalishnikovs," even though he hasn't been the lead designer for a goodly time. So many Americans, "informed" by the vaseline-smiled ignoramati.
That I get to fire my AG3 is the only reason I'm still in the home guard. If they ever swap to 5.56 girlguns, I'll declare myself "critical personnel" and quit instantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Anything but urban warfare, and it seems ridiculous to choose 7,62 over 5,56. No?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Given that 90% of the fighting in Norway would take place in, and around, fjords... Well go figure.
Uhm, what? The 7.62 was chosen due to our fjords(or more specifically, our northern wasteland), and the 5.56 is introduced because of its urban abilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
So... You are doing it wrong then.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
No wonder Sweden trampled you in each and every war.
Only positive with the 7.62 is the penetration in, say, concrete.
If you talk about effect on the human body, 5,56 wins. It also has less recoil and weights less (VERY important if you are an actual soldier).
There is a reason why all modern armies switched to 5.56 from 7.62
As Seamus explained above, the 7.62 was introduced all across Nato back in the day, and the last batch of AG3's are from the very early 70's. The battle rifle has a longer range than the assault rifle, while the assault rifle is far less bulky to drag through doors and alleys and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Weight and recoil concerns are for girly swedes, not something proper vikings care about.
I guess that is either a winning or idiotic statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Let's just say the jury is out on that one.
So this is a Swede in action?
Showing that recoil is a bad thingy isn't REALLY an argument against me here, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
The argument from me is more: The viking with less recoil will have a better chance at playing warfare.
See, with 5.56 you can have a assault rifle in one hand, and a two handed ax in the other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :clown:
Kadagar:
Each round represents different concepts/preference.
.30 rounds have a great deal of impact and are designed to kill a human target at range and to knock down any target hit even without a kill. Man-stopper. Assault rifles less so than old-style battle rifles, but still the emphasis is on stopping power.
.223 rounds do not create the same impact on a target, and were originally designed as a "wounding" weapon that would force an enemy to expend resources removing wounded warriors from a battlefield rather than gathering the ammo of a dead comrade and pushing forward.
Both will penetrate cinderblock at combat distances. The 7.62's mass is more destructive, but a human on the other side of the cinderblock still gets hit. Both will punch through small widths of steel. Functionally, penetration with standard rounds is probably a wash. The only real point of advantage for the 5.56 is against soft body armor, where its high speed and narrow hitting area allow it to exceed the tensile strength of the armor fibers slightly more effectively than the 7.62.
For those fjord-fights you allude to, where precision at distance would be of value, the real issues would be barrel length, bullet stability, and optics. A Garand might be better than any assault rifle in such conditions.
Logistically, the 5.56 allows a soldier to carry significantly more ammo and to fire a weapon for which the vast majority of the recoil can be cancelled out. Since most bullets in combat are used as suppressive fire, and a typical human is no less likely to duck when shot at with a 5.56 instead of a 7.62, more ammo is generally a useful idea.
5.56, particularly in its original American 55gr M193 form, actually causes far more damage to the human body within normal combat ranges than 7.62 due to fragmentation. Not so, however, with the current 62gr rounds being fired out of such short barrels. The US had a very potent weapon in the original M16, but has neutered it quite a bit over the years.
You've explained this exhaustively before, in a thread where Vuk said everybody in the US military should use 7.62 and train to be a marksman on US Marines standard. I wonder why we have to go over this again. Is HoreTore the new Vuk? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
This thread is also related.
That's all very well Seamus, but what are the ballistics of swinging a two handed ax one handed whilst firing a 5.56 assault rifle held in the other?
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Do you honestly think I argue in favour of military effectiveness? I argue for increased recoil solely based on the fact that recoil is cool.
And it's all a moot point, since Norway collaborates...
Yes. I would never say something I do not really mean because I'm a German.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Actually, as Call of Duty teaches us, only an idiot brings anything aside from a knife to a gunfight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I remember dual Glock 18s being the best combination in Modern Warfare 2 (sprayed a lot of bullets all over the place in a very short time), in addition to the mighty knife of course. Don't know about nowadays as this was the second and last game of the series that I bought. I've always wondered why no military equips soldiers with Dual Glock 18s nowadays, they're clearly the superior choice in urban warfare. Always remember to jump and duck hastily left and right while you fire them.
The major advantage of the 7.62 was range - and as noted the M-16 has had it's wings clipped for valid reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Any enemy, even the most ruthless, has to expend more time on a wounded soldier than a dead one.
Aside from that - 5.56 allows for more ammo but does tend to jamm more in icy conditions for reasons I'm not clear on.
Swedish army use AK5, with 5,56 ammo. I can assure you it is fully functional in even extreme cold. We were out, 500 guys with lots of shooting, in -37 to -45 degrees Celsius.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Weapons worked great..
Here, only our special trained urban warfare regiments use 7,62.. As well as some sharpshooters (for specific tasks).
If swedish arctic rangers feel comfortable with 5,56.. That should count for something..
I think the thing with the 5,56 and cold is due to USAnian mag's were made of a plastic that didn't do to well in the cold...
I just now remembered a officer telling me about it more than a decade ago. You need cold steel mags up where I fight, once you have those it really isnt an issue...
But let's remember USAnian troops are equipped by the lowest bidder... Swedish arctic rangers are equipped by the state. Therefore, I guess, plastic vs steel.
The new composites (graphite fiber I think) handle it just fine. The first few years of M-16s did have a lot of problems resulting from the characteristics of the early bakelite plastics though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Logical would be that carbonites is more versatile as iron shrinks in low temperatures and expands in higher ones. Keep in mind that I am no expert in this, so don't be cruel to me if I got that wrong.
I believer there were some issues with 5.56 barrels and shrinkage too - something to do with a difference in rifling.
*shrug*
Anyway - M-16 kinda sucks - we get it.
Blame the weapon system or nation funding it, not the ammo...
Yes 5,56 worked damn bad in cold climates, for USAnian troops with weapons produced by the lowest bidder.
Swedish soldiers serving our King have had absolute nil such issues.
What Seamus said is right, USA used plastics for mags.
I must honestly say I was way impressed with the Swedish equipment we had. Not many forces in the world can be on 100% combat effectiveness in -47 degrees Celsius.
Such small solutions as having gloves with mittens on top, mittens having the ability to be folded back half way so we had the (gloved) fingers free to shoot, meant we could have warm fingers holding the trigger. I noticed LOADS of such small practical details that is worth life and death in a real situation :)
Standard issue magazines for the M16/M4 are aluminum, not plastic. Soldiers were briefly allowed to use polymer based magazines during our recent conflicts in the desert, but you would not have seen those a decade ago. Also, there is very little difference in cost and material quality between the ARs Colt supplies to the US military and the FNC copy used by Sweden.
I guess it is all about the skill then :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger