AHC: spin-offs from the StG-44 as main players in the Cold war

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?
bpqvZNT.jpg
 
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?

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.
 

Deleted member 1487

Think it would look something like this?
bpqvZNT.jpg
Assuming no changes to the basic design, it seems somewhat likely.

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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 

Deleted member 1487

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.
 
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.

Until of course experience gets us the ACAV. The doctrine was that the APC merely a truck and should stand-off, but that was not how the things get used. [Insert laughter]. Especially when the infantry has an M2 at hand. [Insert rolling on the floor].

M60 never gets any respect, bastard son of an MG42 and the FG42.

I would agree, the RPD was something new but I suspect it was a lucky improvisation like how they equipped whole units with SMGs, it looked novel but really was just a supply issue. Once we get to the APC/IFV era the SAW comes into its own.

Sadly the BAR warped Army thinking to continue the pursuit of fore and maneuver in the Squad, it destroyed Army tactics over and over, the Army loved to step over the obvious to clutch at yet another wonder weapon to be yet again the BAR. The M14 was more BAR than rifle, the Army actually tested an all BAR Squad, it just could not get over the Rifleman who has a machinegun that is a rifle. I can send you the Army's own analysis that was correct and promptly ignored on Squad weaponry.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
6.5mm Arisake is not an intermediate round.

Purpose of design needs to be considered just as much as usage. Otherwise it would be a perfectly accurate to call the 7.62mm NATO a "widespread caliber for aircraft armament" and start making arguments about its viability against jets just because it's numerically widespread in armament subsystems for helicopters and certain gunships.


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.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
So would a 7,7mm kurtz rd. be better than 6,5mm kurtz rd. for a Japanese STG?

Depends on the case length making it a short round.

6.5x 40 would likely be quite similar to 5.56x45 NATO depending on the loading, but it would have the heavier bullet weight making it superior in accuracy in underbrush and wooded areas.

7.7 x 35 or even just a straight 7.7 x 40mm would basically be 7.62x39.


I suspect that the Japanese would go with the 7.7mm version, since they had already (incorrectly) been concerned about the terminal effects of the 6.5mm round.

Though I suspect 6.5mm would have proven objectively superior.
 
The SKS was a carbine:
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 tank
Can the AK system actually swallow it without significant modifications? You've asserted it, but haven't sourced that.
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.
For a proper military issue rifle no-one is going to be implementing a significant change in cartridge length and power just by taking a hacksaw to the mag well and stuffing in a repurposed magazine from another weapon. Look at the complexity of the Tantal project just to step down in power from 7.62 to 5.45.
6.5mm Arisake is not an intermediate round.
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..
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?
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.
 
Last edited:

FBKampfer

Banned
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.
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.


Suffice to say that really the "intermediate cartridge" is a concept rather than anything that falls between a set of strict parameters.

Mid-late 1800's, an intermediate round would be something like the 38-40, or the 44-40. An intermediate round as a concept is something that is sufficient out to a few hundred meters, or whatever the top end of your average range of engagement is, sacrificing energy and terminal effects at long ranges in exchange for comfort of shooting, retention of sight picture, ease of follow up shots, and often a higher magazine capacity (though with the advent of detachable box magazines, this is something of a holdover from the 1800's), on the basis that anything beyond (for example) 300m doesn't matter 80% of the time, and you can push it out to 400m well enough for the other 17%, and within 300m you're much better off with your lower power cartridge than you are with an overpowered one that's harder to shoot practically.


Extending this to automatic firearms, we need also include a clause of being practically controllable for the average trained shooter on full automatic.


The problem is that the specifics change. You could probably make 30x90mm controlable at 600rpm, it's just that your "rifle" is going to weigh so much that it's a crew served support weapon.

So you have to take it in context of what rifle is firing the cartridge. Generally this is implied and understood to be the general issue rifle for a given military, or a rifle of practical weight for extended daily carry.


I highly recommend you look at InRangeTV on Youtube, they have some great material that covers the broad topic.

Disclaimer: exceptions to rules are always found if one looks hard enough, do remember that this does not invalidate the concept as a whole..


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.

An assault rifle is a shoulder fired weapon chambered in an intermediate powered cartridge fed from a detachable magazine, capable of both semi and full automatic fire, with little or no regard to the sustained rate of fire due to heat buildup.


However as noted, earlier non automatic weapons meet the general ideas and guiding principles behind the assault rifle proper.
 
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 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.
However as noted, earlier non automatic weapons meet the general ideas and guiding principles behind the assault rifle proper.
So you post first
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?
And then in your next post say that this “stupid idea” is actually pretty much correct? OK.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
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 hard numbers now, and nobody who has a modicum of integrity, and is knowledgeable about the subject will give you hard numbers.

And this because any number you could give is either irrelevant or dependent on factors besides the cartridge.

Carp and moan all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you simply misunderstand the concept, and the relevant factors and principles behind the concept.


The reality is that 6.5mm Japanese is not an intermediate cartridge. The average shooter will not be able to control his weapon on automatic, his sight picture will shift meaningfully, his follow up shots will either be slower or significantly less accurate, and the range simply exceeds what is necessary.

Make 25lb infantry rifles a common thing, and suddenly it could be an intermediate cartridge, but that is simply not the situation we're addressing now, or in any likely situation from the invention of gun powder until powered exoskeletons become standard issue for somebody.

So you post first

And then in your next post say that this “stupid idea” is actually pretty much correct? OK.

The point, which you somehow have wound up miles away from, is that one should not attach meaning and intent to history.

Federov had no intention whatsoever of the 6.5 Jap being intermediate. He, in fact, wanted a stronger cartridge. But 6.5mm Japanese was selected for logistical reasons.

He wasn't a smart man (at least when it comes to automatic weapons, the Federov's internals makes that much clear), he wasn't some visionary almost a century ahead of his time, he just came up with a crappy automatic rifle that external factors forced him to chamber in a cartridge that happens to share a caliber range with some of the stuff were trying (and largely failing at) now.

Similarly, while some cartridges existed in the 1800's that, as applied by the frontiersmen, could be called the intermediate cartridge of its day, but attaching any particular meaning or brilliance to it is imbecilic.

One of the driving factors behind the cartridges in the old west was commonality of chambering or at the very least caliber, between one's rifle and side arm.

Additionally, it's almost certain that the assault rifle and intermediate cartridge were not conceptualized by cowboys riding through Nevada and Utah, but that they were simply trying to meet other needs, and ended up getting the advantages from the sheer providence of the cartridge choice paired with the tube magazine fed lever action repeater, which was really only popular in the United States for some reason.

Winchester themselves likely only had the vaguest of collective knowledge about WHAT they were producing for cartridges, and certainly no idea of the factors driving demand for them, but were simply responding to the market, like some ancient animal that had just evolved photoreceptors responding to the sunlight.



Your shortcomings are not that you are necessarily wrong (except with the Avtomat and 6.5mm Japanese, you're just wrong as hell there), but that you simply don't see the common ideas and underlying concepts behind everything you talk about.


You have a lot of superficial knowledge, but you're just not connecting the dots for some reason.
 
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.

The 7mm Mauser will not do it in a hand-held automatic wepon because it is much more powerful than 6.5 Arisaka or other intermediate rounds - bullet weigthing 9g was propelled at 900 m/s, vs. 770 m/s of the 6.5 Arisaka when fired from long barrel of the Japanese rifle, or 654 m/s when fired from Fedorov's gun.
That Japanese failed to introduce automatic, or at least semi-auto rifle in the 6.5mm Arisaka was their mistake, especially since they probably knew that was done 20 years before they pushed from Manchuria to China.

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?

Seems like you are to judge who is stupid and who is not, and if someone is found to be stupid, the mud throwing begins:

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.

Overpowered round?? 6.5mm Arisaka from Fedorov's gun develops slightly less muzzle energy than the AK-47, much less than EM-2 with .280 British, and same as the StG-44. 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.
What kind of automatic wepon have you developed that makes you decide what designer gets the mud bath?

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.

So the niece can handle recoil of 5.56 in semiautomatic, ergo anything more powerful is missing a point? Seems like nobody said that to the designers of the AK-47, StG-44 or the (original) EM-2. Nobody was issuing 8-9 assault rifles + 1-2 plain-vanilla bolt-action rifles to a squad, the 1-2 weapons were (L)MGs, sometimes the sniper versions of bolt-action rifles were added.
Quirk also being that 6.5mm, with better L:D ratio, will be more accurate above 300m than the 7.62-8mm bullets that weight the same, with less drop and less wind drift.

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.

Assault rifles issued on big scale were replacing both 'battle rifles' and SMGs. Thus being suited for ranges far greater than SMGs, while indeed touching, but not replicating the realistic ranges the battle rifle can reach.

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.

Luckly, you understand what an assult rifle is.
 

Deleted member 1487

So would a 7,7mm kurtz rd. be better than 6,5mm kurtz rd. for a Japanese STG?
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.


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.
There were in fact several. These are just a few of what was developed before, during, and after WW1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossignol_ENT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeyrolles_1918_automatic_carbine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cei-Rigotti
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1907#France
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21631/forgotten-weapons-americas-first-assault-rifle/

The FG-42 was actually less complicated than the Avtomat, especially the later stamped metal versions. The Federov rifle was very intricate and needed to be dramatically simplified to be mass produceable; as it was it was a swiss watch.
fedorov2.jpg

fedorov3.JPG

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't want to derail the thread but I'm curious now about how the FG-42 might have preformed chambered in 6,5mm?
 
Top