Org Mobile Site
Thread: Kalashnikov Dead
Originally Posted by Husar:
Err, silly question. Some are still in use today in third world countries, but not many were produced in the first place.
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.
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?Err, silly question. Some are still in use today in third world countries, but not many were produced in the first place.
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.
Originally Posted by lars573:
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?
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...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?
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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... 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
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...
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. 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...
Originally Posted by Lars57:
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?
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.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?
Originally Posted by Husar:
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.
The balanced recoil system on the 100-series rifles is actually a pretty significant improvement over the earlier versions. Felt recoil is largely eliminated.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.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Felt recoil is largely eliminated.
Then the entire point of having 7.62 is gone...Felt recoil is largely eliminated.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.
Are there any descendants of the Sten gun?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.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Are there any descendants of the Sten gun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_M/45Are there any descendants of the Sten gun?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_submachine_gun
http://world.guns.ru/smg/eg/port-said-akaba-e.html
Originally Posted by Husar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_M/45
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.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_M/45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_submachine_gun
http://world.guns.ru/smg/eg/port-said-akaba-e.html
"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."
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Then the entire point of having 7.62 is gone...
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.Then the entire point of having 7.62 is gone...
Originally Posted by Husar:
...What makes them interesting is that they are based on the old rifles but are almost completely ignored in popular media.
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?...What makes them interesting is that they are based on the old rifles but are almost completely ignored in popular media.
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.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
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.
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.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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.
Anything but urban warfare, and it seems ridiculous to choose 7,62 over 5,56. No?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.
Given that 90% of the fighting in Norway would take place in, and around, fjords... Well go figure.
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
Anything but urban warfare, and it seems ridiculous to choose 7,62 over 5,56. No?
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.Anything but urban warfare, and it seems ridiculous to choose 7,62 over 5,56. No?
Given that 90% of the fighting in Norway would take place in, and around, fjords... Well go figure.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.
So... You are doing it wrong then. 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.
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
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
So... You are doing it wrong then.
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.So... You are doing it wrong then.
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
Weight and recoil concerns are for girly swedes, not something proper vikings care about.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Weight and recoil concerns are for girly swedes, not something proper vikings care about.
I guess that is either a winning or idiotic statement. Weight and recoil concerns are for girly swedes, not something proper vikings care about.
Let's just say the jury is out on that one.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
So this is a Swede in action?
Showing that recoil is a bad thingy isn't REALLY an argument against me here, is it?So this is a Swede in action?
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
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.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
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? 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.
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?
Originally Posted by Husar:
Is HoreTore the new Vuk?
Nope.Is HoreTore the new Vuk?
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...
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Do you honestly think I argue in favour of military effectiveness?
Yes. I would never say something I do not really mean because I'm a German.Do you honestly think I argue in favour of military effectiveness?
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
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?
Actually, as Call of Duty teaches us, only an idiot brings anything aside from a knife to a gunfight.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?
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Actually, as Call of Duty teaches us, only an idiot brings anything aside from a knife to a gunfight.
Actually, as Call of Duty teaches us, only an idiot brings anything aside from a knife to a gunfight.
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.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
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.
The major advantage of the 7.62 was range - and as noted the M-16 has had it's wings clipped for valid reasons.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The major advantage of the 7.62 was range - and as noted the M-16 has had it's wings clipped for valid reasons.
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. The major advantage of the 7.62 was range - and as noted the M-16 has had it's wings clipped for valid reasons.
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.
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.
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO