Think it would look something like this?Any thought that NATO, adopting either the 7.92 Kurz, their own 7.62 'kurz', or a 7mm caliber might have made an RPK-type weapon or belt fed RPD style version?
Think it would look something like this?Any thought that NATO, adopting either the 7.92 Kurz, their own 7.62 'kurz', or a 7mm caliber might have made an RPK-type weapon or belt fed RPD style version?
Any thought that NATO, adopting either the 7.92 Kurz, their own 7.62 'kurz', or a 7mm caliber might have made an RPK-type weapon or belt fed RPD style version?
Assuming no changes to the basic design, it seems somewhat likely.Think it would look something like this?
![]()
CETME had all sorts of crazy bullet designs. The Soviet system with the RPK and rifles backed up by their APC is what made me think about something like this. That and the NATO early use of the 'heavy barreled' FAL as a SAW.The G3 and HK21 would show where the development of the StG could go, either an alternate Germany or some "common" small arms program building on it under NATO or its precursor/parallel(s)? The CETME used a reduced power version of the 7.62, I imagine it began with Kurz and might have been intended for some new purpose made "intermediate" cartridge given the Kurz is compromise solution. All that said, I think for the increasingly mechanized NATO infantry the MG is simply too big and unnecessary since the APC/IFV provides organic "machinegun" fires. And it lets the truck mobile infantry/light infantry lighten up. Moving the MG to another echelon in leg mobile infantry and packed away for fully dismounted use by the "heavy" infantry, such as the defense (I believe Bundeswehr did just that in the Marder). Doctrine should have called it out as I believe the Soviets saw the same issue, perhaps more so given their cramped vehicles.
Assuming no changes to the basic design, it seems somewhat likely.
CETME had all sorts of crazy bullet designs. The Soviet system with the RPK and rifles backed up by their APC is what made me think about something like this. That and the NATO early use of the 'heavy barreled' FAL as a SAW.
IIRC the reason was to lower weight. The M113 was made with aluminum to keep weight down and mobility high. Also IIRC they weren't meant to be used as IFVs either, so gun use on the M113 was only when absolutely necessary for self defense.Indeed, in that stuff might lay some insight into where the Heer was headed given the engineers were taken from Germany. I see a lot of echoes of German thought playing out in Soviet developments, they both drew lessons from each other and the war in the East. I never understood what took so long to put shields on the M2 mounted on the M59 then M113, as if no one thought the enemy might shoot back? Even then it was supposed to be dismounted for ground action as far as I can tell. But then the US Army also assumed the M14 was it, the M60 never quite fit despite the obvious example of the Germans and the dire gap left by the BAR that spawned it as the Squad base of fire. The full-auto M14, an ersatz SAW, was the way the Army saw it. But that is not a true base of fire, even the RPD/RPK was not, but it seems to have been a workable compromise for troops elsewise supported by yet bigger and better fires. I can go on and on about the US evolution and how we seem to have gone right back into the same rut.
IIRC the reason was to lower weight. The M113 was made with aluminum to keep weight down and mobility high. Also IIRC they weren't meant to be used as IFVs either, so gun use on the M113 was only when absolutely necessary for self defense.
The US M60 was just a rip off attempt to ape the Germans as the BAR inadequacy was demonstrated, as was the need for a much more mobile LMG.
Soviet doctrine was partially influenced by the Germans, partially their own. The Germans never had anything like the RPK or RPD with their intermediate rounds and the Soviets started RPD development during the war, somewhat leapfrogging the Germans on that. I'd argue the RPD was a true SAW in the sense that the M249 is, but just in 7.62x39, while the RPK was an intermediate caliber auto-rifle, arguably a more reasonable BAR.
I wonder what impact an RPK-ed StG44 would have on US doctrine if they faced something like that during the war. The FG-42 made enough of an impact given it's impact on the M60 design and later US decision to make the M14 a BAR replacement as well as an M1 replacement.
Sure, I love docs.I can send you the Army's own analysis that was correct and promptly ignored on Squad weaponry.
Sure, I love docs.
If you have any others let me know.The Report itself, in three parts is located at http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ref/collection/p4013coll8/id/419
I can send those PDFs and others that analyze the Report and give some great insight into the history.
So would a 7,7mm kurtz rd. be better than 6,5mm kurtz rd. for a Japanese STG?
So is the M-4. Paying excessive attention to the label gets you to strange places like thinking the US Cavalry “combat car” is a very robust car instead of a quite flimsy tankThe SKS was a carbine:
There are many rifles built on the AK/RPK action chambered in full powered rifle cartridges so naturally the AK can cope with slightly more powerful intermediate cartridges. In this respect it is no different than the AR-10/AR-15 action or indeed the roller locking system used from MP-5 to G-3.Can the AK system actually swallow it without significant modifications? You've asserted it, but haven't sourced that.
OK, but what is? Definitions please.6.5mm Arisake is not an intermediate round.
Definitions again. What exactly is an Assault Rifle?Or does anyone here entertain some stupid ideas of claiming 35-55 Winchester was actually the 5.56mm NATO but back in the 1880's and Winchester was somehow visionary and attempting to bring the concept of the modern assault rifle, but everyone was just too stupid and stubborn to realize it?
You won't get one. The definitions would change every time someone came up with a new cartridge or loading, and I'm not drafting a list of definitions year by year since the advent of metallic cartridges to satisfy someone's nitpicking OCD urges.OK, but what is? Definitions please.
Historically usage is not super helpful IMO since it changes radically when people change ideas. At one point in time .300 Win mag and 9.3mm Brenneke were non-military hunting cartridges, until suddenly they became sniper cartridges, and .308 changed from a general issue cartridge to a ‘support weapon’ cartridge.
Definitions again. What exactly is an Assault Rifle?
If it is a light compact weapon chambered in a cartridge that allows high magazine capacity (relative to the standard rifle) and a high practical rate of fire (relative to the standard rifle) at practical assault ranges, suitable for gaining firepower dominance in the assault or defense against assault, then the Henry 1860 would qualify with ease. Possibly the M1 carbine and any SMG too.
If it must be full auto capable, must have detachable box magazine, weight max xkilos, recoil impulse y joules, cartridge delivering abc performance at blah blah metres etc then obviously one comes up with a very different set of answers.
As always with definitions, the problem is that one can always tweak them to make specific weapons like the AK47 or M16 fail to qualify, or to include things from the black powder era. Or even the 1903+Pedersen Device, for that matter.
So you don’t have an actual definition but you are quite happy to jump on other people for suggesting things that don’t match your personal non-definition. OK.You won't get one. The definitions would change every time someone came up with a new cartridge or loading, and I'm not drafting a list of definitions year by year since the advent of metallic cartridges to satisfy someone's nitpicking OCD
So you post firstHowever as noted, earlier non automatic weapons meet the general ideas and guiding principles behind the assault rifle proper.
And then in your next post say that this “stupid idea” is actually pretty much correct? OK.Or does anyone here entertain some stupid ideas of claiming 35-55 Winchester was actually the 5.56mm NATO but back in the 1880's and Winchester was somehow visionary and attempting to bring the concept of the modern assault rifle, but everyone was just too stupid and stubborn to realize it?
So you don’t have an actual definition but you are quite happy to jump on other people for suggesting things that don’t match your personal non-definition. OK.
So you post first
And then in your next post say that this “stupid idea” is actually pretty much correct? OK.
6.5mm Arisake is not an intermediate round.
...
The Japanese designed, and used, it as a full power battle rifle round, and by and large, that is 99.9% of what it has ever been used as.
Federov chose 6.5 Jap as the round because it was the lowest powered rifle round in any reasonable availability in Russia (due to their use of the Arisake and 6.5mm Japanese as a stop-gap). Had that happened to be 7mm Mauser, it's what he would have used, and it speaks nothing of the "placement" of the cartridge. Or the role of the Avtomat as a weapon.
Or does anyone here entertain some stupid ideas of claiming 35-55 Winchester was actually the 5.56mm NATO but back in the 1880's and Winchester was somehow visionary and attempting to bring the concept of the modern assault rifle, but everyone was just too stupid and stubborn to realize it?
Now the reality is that the Avtomat was utter crap as a practical general issue weapon, stupidly complex, and firing an overpowered round for an assault rifle. If anyone adopted this as their general issue arm, they'd be the laughing stock of every procurement board the world over.
You want an assault rifle?? Plan for 500m at the outside, and issue one or two guys in the squad with a K98 or an M1. If you try literally anything else, you've greatly missed the point.
Second 6.5mm Japanese, and everything else in that class, is too powerful to realistically handle on full automatic with a shoulder fired weapon of around 8-9lbs. You can train up to it, yes, but it is outside of the practical expectations of the average soldier's abilities when he's just coming out of boot camp, while even my 11 year old, 4'3" 78lb niece can take the recoil of a 5.56mm, admittedly in semiautomatic.
You chamber an assault rifle in 6.5 or 6.8mm or anything like that, then your goal is quite obviously to extend the reach of the weapon beyond that of an intermediate round. Ergo not really an intermediate round, if you're trying to use it to reach out to ranges near battle rifle territory.
Finally 7.92mm K was a perfectly acceptable assault rifle round. If you're replacing it in search of better performance, you don't understand what an assault rifle is.
Depends on how fast it is moving. Lighter bullets need speed to make up for the mass deficit they have against a wider bullet in terms of momentum.So would a 7,7mm kurtz rd. be better than 6,5mm kurtz rd. for a Japanese STG?
There were in fact several. These are just a few of what was developed before, during, and after WW1:There was no simple automatic hand-held weapon before ww2 so we can jump to the conclusion that Fedorov's gun was complicated, while being a far better and more realistic proposal than the Chauchat, G-41 or FG-42.
Oh, I've forgot that any gun made by Germans = sexy.