Soviets equip North Korean army with StG 44s

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Not necessarily wrong, but likely the only one left in it's class by then.

To be fair... The U.S. went to some effort to develop a copy of the MG42 in.30 06 and also fielded the M1919A6. It seems to me that there was likely an awareness by the later stages of WW 2 that the BAR was past its prime.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

To be fair... The U.S. went to some effort to develop a copy of the MG42 in.30 06 and also fielded the M1919A6. It seems to me that their was likely an awareness by the later stages of WW 2 that the BAR was past its prime.
The US MG42 project was hilariously poorly done, they cancelled the project after it malfunctioned because someone forgot to convert the ejection port from metric measurements to imperial. Seems like they kind of didn't want it to work.
The later effort that became the M60 was started to replace the aging and overly heavy Browning .30 calibers, not the BAR. In fact based on the studies I've seen of weapon performance in WW2 and future squad size they affirmed their love of the BAR as the squad automatic weapon and wanted to standardize on at least 2 per squad. The advent of the M14 was what killed the BAR, as it was thought that the new rifle would replace all squad weapons. When that didn't work out they moved the M60 down to the squad level to supplement the M14 and later M16.
 
While this is an interesting idea, small arms alone don't decide the way the battlefield turns. Additionally, the Soviets are still working out the kinks on the AK, and might need all the StGs to examine (although the AK is not necessarily fully inspired by the StG).

It was likely cheaper and easier to equip the North Koreans with all the surplus Mosin-Nagant M91/30s rather than the brand-new SKS, AKs or automatic rifles that would need more training time. Plus, with North Korea's proximity to the Soviet border, you'd need a huge amount of spare parts to be delivered straight from East Germany and Czechoslovakia, then transported across the USSR in the event of NATO blockades - which would take a lot of time.

Even if the AK was directly copied from the STG they wouldn't need to keep all of them to do so. The Soviets ended up capturing over 200K of the things. That's not counting numbers captured by the Yugoslavs and Czechs either.
 
The US MG42 project was hilariously poorly done, they cancelled the project after it malfunctioned because someone forgot to convert the ejection port from metric measurements to imperial. Seems like they kind of didn't want it to work.
The later effort that became the M60 was started to replace the aging and overly heavy Browning .30 calibers, not the BAR. In fact based on the studies I've seen of weapon performance in WW2 and future squad size they affirmed their love of the BAR as the squad automatic weapon and wanted to standardize on at least 2 per squad. The advent of the M14 was what killed the BAR, as it was thought that the new rifle would replace all squad weapons. When that didn't work out they moved the M60 down to the squad level to supplement the M14 and later M16.
Re the U.S. MG42 project. My understanding is that there were elements of the U.S. Army that wanted a similar weapon to the MG42. To map this conversation back to the STG 44, on the other hand I am not aware of anything like the same level of enthusiasism for a weapon similar to the STG44.
 

Deleted member 1487

Re the U.S. MG42 project. My understanding is that there were elements of the U.S. Army that wanted a similar weapon to the MG42. To map this conversation back to the STG 44, on the other hand I am not aware of anything like the same level of enthusiasism for a weapon similar to the STG44.
There was interest in a copy of the MG42, but it was not well funded from what I understand and a relatively minor hiccup killed the project quickly, so whatever faction wanted it apparently a lot more powerful faction was able to use that hiccup to end the project. Still that would be an interesting POD to have the US get that working and adopt it and then have it for Korea.

There was no enthusiasm for an rifle based on anything thing Germans or anyone else did, the faction that ran the rifle mafia was only interested in US designs. They were willing to do MG upgrades, but rifles were going to be enhanced Garands like it or not.

Now everyone else who fought in WW2 and came out on the winning side wanted their own perfected STG; the Soviets got theirs, the Czechs theirs, but NATO no.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny how everyone else took the exactly opposite lesson from the war.
And yet the US view prevailed. Money speaks louder than common sense. The M14 is probably the most conservative design for asemi auto rifle you could come up with after the war. Placed along side a FAL or a G3 it seem to be from an earlier age.
 

Deleted member 1487

And yet the US view prevailed. Money speaks louder than common sense. The M14 is probably the most conservative design for asemi auto rifle you could come up with after the war. Placed along side a FAL or a G3 it seem to be from an earlier age.
Indeed, with the US likely supplying the alliance and Churchill coming back to PM-ship and settling things on their end for the Americans it was effectively a done deal.

The French persisted with their own caliber and designs, but they basically just built the rifle they had designed pre-war and continued with their other pre-war designs until eventually bowing to NATO standard in the 1960s. The FAL really isn't an innovative design either, it was based on a pre-war project and is very similar to the SVT-40, the Soviet pre-war SLR, and the G43 rifle the Germans developed based on the SVT. The G3 is the most innovative one of the lot, but even then the operating system was not really meant for a full power, high pressure battle rifle cartridge.

Meanwhile the M14 has a more effective operating system than the FAL or G3 (short stroke, rotating bolt is basically the modern gold standard for a military rifle), but the overall design and build quality needed a serious upgrade (I mean seriously, no inline stock or pistol grip?). Even a muzzle brake would have made the rifle controllable in automatic fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I could see there being a lot of pressure from the Commonwealth forces fighting in Korea to get the No. 9 into production and issued to them regardless of what the US has to say about the NATO trials. Using Lee Enfields against an army equipped with assault rifles puts them at a significant disadvantage.

A bit OT but what if the North Koreans were widely equipped with SVT-40s instead of Mosin Nagants? The Soviets saw them as obsolete and withdrew them anyways so there were plenty available and there would be no ammunition problem. Would this be enough for the British to issue EM-2?
 
A bit OT but what if the North Koreans were widely equipped with SVT-40s instead of Mosin Nagants? The Soviets saw them as obsolete and withdrew them anyways so there were plenty available and there would be no ammunition problem. Would this be enough for the British to issue EM-2?
In that situation it's more likely that the Commonwealth Brigade in Korea is equipped with surplus US Garands.
 

Deleted member 1487

A bit OT but what if the North Koreans were widely equipped with SVT-40s instead of Mosin Nagants? The Soviets saw them as obsolete and withdrew them anyways so there were plenty available and there would be no ammunition problem. Would this be enough for the British to issue EM-2?
I guess it is a question of their accuracy, reliability, and condition. The SVT-40, though better than the -38, wasn't known for it's quality.
 
Top