WI Kalishnikov Assault Rifle developed in 1937

[NapoleonXIV]

WI Every WWII Russian soldier had gone to war with the AK-37?, identical to the 47 but made in 1937. Assume it's designed from study of warfare and the new Russian Army philosophy that it's a soldiers duty to fire at the enemy rather than conserve ammo.

 

[Hierophant]

i the main issue is actually going to be arming all there men, I mean they had real problems doing that without a gun that eats bullets

 

[mog]

As well as Justin Greens very valid comment, there is also th problem that the design of the AK was prompted by the Stg44 (ie started production in 1944)., a german weapon , first production assault rifle.

 

[randomkeith]

Had the Soviets invented the AK-47 in 37 i feel that the Nazi's would have somehow aquired a copy of it and massed produced it way before the Soviets were in any possition to do so. It might have given them the edge at Stalingrad and on the road to Moscow but the end consequences would remain the same.

 

[ranoncles]

Had the Soviets invented the AK-47 in 37 i feel that the Nazi's would have somehow aquired a copy of it and massed produced it way before the Soviets were in any possition to do so. It might have given them the edge at Stalingrad and on the road to Moscow but the end consequences would remain the same.

The Germans found out in field trials in ’43-’44 that the great advantage of the assault gun was that it gave the soldiers more confidence (auto-fire available at the flick of a thumb) and it allowed units to cover much larger fronts. Coupled with panzerfausts, it allowed the average grunt squad the ability to withstand anything but a full-blown assault.

Both were particularly handy for an overstretched Wehrmacht which was scraping the bottom of the German manpower barrel.

Manpower limitations were not really an issue for the Russians. Increased infantry fire would be nice but that would not really change the huge gap in quality and tactical doctrines in the early years of the war beyond making infantry close assaults more deadly for the Germans.

As an aside, does anybody really believe that Kalashnikov, a tank soldier of all things , actually designed the AK47 instead of Hugo Schmeisser, the designer of the StG44, who was captured and taken to Russia in 1945 together with the machine parts and design drawings of his assault gun ?

 

[MrP]

As an aside, does anybody really believe that Kalashnikov, a tank soldier of all things , actually designed the AK47 instead of Hugo Schmeisser, the designer of the StG44, who was captured and taken to Russia in 1945 together with the machine parts and design drawings of his assault gun ?

I think the question's been addressed on here before, and the consensus came down in favour of Kalashnikov. However, I can't remember beyond that because it didn't concern the guns of battleships.

 

[Stalker]

As well as Justin Greens very valid comment, there is also th problem that the design of the AK was prompted by the Stg44 (ie started production in 1944)., a german weapon , first production assault rifle.

Not quite. The principles utilised both in Sturmgewehr-44 and in AK-47 are the same and were known before WWII that, BTW, imposes some common features on the way they look. Beside that, Stg44 and AK-47 have little in common.
Justin Green's comment has also little to do with reality. By 1941 USSR had accumulated HUGE arsenals of small firearms. Even with great losses of summer campaigns, Red Army had little problems arming new infantry conscripts with Mosin carabines 1891/30.
The real problem lies in a different realm. That is if prewar doctrines were so revolutionary to understand the importance of assault rifles without three years of war experience? Was prewar industry and science of whatever industrial power ready to mass-produce CHEAP and SIMPLE assault rifles without need of urgent experimentation and revolution in materials? We've got an excellent Russian saying: "Unless there's thunder with lightning, the peasant is not going to draw the sign of cross upon himself". Is'n it the case? All revolutionary doctrines in military practice despite all efforts of General staffs of all countries were being born during wars themselves but not in the between-the-wars periods on basis of bloody experience. And it often happened that the experience of former wars was useless or obsolete by the time of a new war.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

OK, it's not produced in 1937. It's whats made instead of the PPSh41 submachine gun. In about the same quantities.

Now what happens?

 

[randomkeith]

Again i have to say that some how the Nazi's get hold of the design possibly during the Ribbontop pact period. Realise they have a real winner here and mass produce it then stomp on the Russians.

 

[alt_historian]

Not quite. The principles utilised both in Sturmgewehr-44 and in AK-47 are the same and were known before WWII that, BTW, imposes some common features on the way they look. Beside that, Stg44 and AK-47 have little in common.
Justin Green's comment has also little to do with reality. By 1941 USSR had accumulated HUGE arsenals of small firearms. Even with great losses of summer campaigns, Red Army had little problems arming new infantry conscripts with Mosin carabines 1891/30.
The real problem lies in a different realm. That is if prewar doctrines were so revolutionary to understand the importance of assault rifles without three years of war experience? Was prewar industry and science of whatever industrial power ready to mass-produce CHEAP and SIMPLE assault rifles without need of urgent experimentation and revolution in materials? We've got an excellent Russian saying: "Unless there's thunder with lightning, the peasant is not going to draw the sign of cross upon himself". Is'n it the case? All revolutionary doctrines in military practice despite all efforts of General staffs of all countries were being born during wars themselves but not in the between-the-wars periods on basis of bloody experience. And it often happened that the experience of former wars was useless or obsolete by the time of a new war.

True. We have a saying in the UK which has basically the same meaning. I can't remember the precise wording, but it is along the lines of:

"Armies are always ready to fight the last war."

Yes, I think that essentially the Soviets would have needed the experience of a war in the 1930s, one in which they realised that a medium-ranged automatic rifle would be very useful in the future. WI the border clashes between Japan and the USSR in the 1930s had not worked out in favour of the Soviets - specifically in a way which suggests that personal automatic rifles would have been useful?

 

[tallwingedgoat]

OK, it's not produced in 1937. It's whats made instead of the PPSh41 submachine gun. In about the same quantities.

Now what happens?

I don't think that's possible. The AK-47 was much more expensive than the PPSh-41. The former used milled steel receiver while the latter used stamped sheet metal. Even the stamped receiver AKM rifles which came about in the late 50's were morre expensive than the PPSh.

Let's say for whatever reason, the Soviets did manage it, it would translate to less Soviet casualties and more for the Germans. Urban battles like Stalingrad and Berlin would be won more quickly. However it would not have strategic effect on the war itself. As great as it is, the AK is still just an infantry rifle, not a revolutionary tank or artillery piece.

 

[CanadianGoose]

Yes, I think that essentially the Soviets would have needed the experience of a war in the 1930s, one in which they realised that a medium-ranged automatic rifle would be very useful in the future. WI the border clashes between Japan and the USSR in the 1930s had not worked out in favour of the Soviets - specifically in a way which suggests that personal automatic rifles would have been useful?

Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT-40. Russians understood need for personal auto/semi-auto rifle since before Russian Empire became USSR. When Duma (Parliament of the Russian Empire) grilled Czar's Military Minister's in 1915 AD (2 years BEFORE revolution) about "rifle hunger" (Empire did not prepare mobilization stock of rifles, which resulted in severe lack of weapons in the beginning of WWI) Minister answered that he didn't see it fit to spend budget on obsolete weapon system, as it was his feeling that semi-auto infantry rifle was coming in couple of years. He was wildly optimistic, of course, but Russia adopted "Avtomat Fedorova" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avtomat_Fedorova) for limited service in the end of 1916.

R&D on automatic infantry rifle continued in USSR in mid-20s and culminated in adoption of AVS-36 in (you guessed right) in 1936 and SVT-38 in 1938. Neither completely replaced Mosin-Nagant, but in a Soviet infantry division's one-third of rifles were supposed to be SVTs, although in practice this was seldom achieved. Neither system was as good as AK-47, but they're closer to it than to K98k (main German infantry weapon of the time).

Bottomline - adoption of AK-47 before WWII would not seriously affect it's initial stage. Wars between great powers are not won or lost thanks to infantry rifle.

 

[Earling]

It takes a war to change doctrine.
It doesn't take a war to change hardware.

Unless I am mistaken, the introduction of an AK-47 in '37 would have made it considerably superior to its rivals. This would be self-evident in any trial.

Unless its far more expensive the likelyhood is it would have been adopted.

 

[Tony Williams]

But the doctrine determines the hardware you want...

For instance, even after the experience of WW2, the US Army demanded a replacement automatic rifle firing a .30 cal cartridge powerful enough to reach out to 2,000 yards. They thereby ended up with the M14 and 7.62x51 combination, with too much recoil to be controllable in auto fire. Only when the unrealistic long-range fire requirement was dropped did they end up with an assault rifle: the M16.

The Soviets were well aware of the advantages of a medium-power selective-fire rifle (the Federov Avtomat was still in service in the Winter War) and Federov himself was still around and arguing for the concept, but due to a combination of inertia and other priorities, they did nothing about it until after they'd seen the first German assault rifles.

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

 

[CanadianGoose]

The Soviets were well aware of the advantages of a medium-power selective-fire rifle (the Federov Avtomat was still in service in the Winter War) and Federov himself was still around and arguing for the concept, but due to a combination of inertia and other priorities, they did nothing about it until after they'd seen the first German assault rifles.

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

Fedorov Avtomat hadn't been in service during Winter War, it had been stored in Red Army's armouries (which at this point had certain numbers of virtually any domestic/trophy weapons being used by any force in Russia since 1870s, with Italian Vetterli rifles being issued to militia units in the beginning of WWII) and briefly reissued to long-range recce groups during Winter War. It may be called "specialist weapon" at best.

History of 7.62x39 round is a lot more complicated than simple (and untrue) statement "they did nothing about it until after they'd seen the first German assault rifles." To begin with, cartridge been officially adopted for Soviet service in 1943 (with first batches of rifles designed for it being issued to frontline troops in 1945), while Russians hadn't had an opportunity of being on receiving end of StG before end of 1943. There's an evidence that Soviet development had been influenced by the intel about German Kurzpatrone (developed in 1941), though. What we're looking at is probably case of idea diffusion. But I do agree that "combination of inertia and other priorities" delayed adoption of 7.62x39-chammered semiautos and selective fires by couple of years.

 

[Tony Williams]

History of 7.62x39 round is a lot more complicated than simple (and untrue) statement "they did nothing about it until after they'd seen the first German assault rifles." To begin with, cartridge been officially adopted for Soviet service in 1943 (with first batches of rifles designed for it being issued to frontline troops in 1945), while Russians hadn't had an opportunity of being on receiving end of StG before end of 1943. There's an evidence that Soviet development had been influenced by the intel about German Kurzpatrone (developed in 1941), though. What we're looking at is probably case of idea diffusion.

I have an extract from a Russian history of the 7.62x39 cartridge, which I used for my article on the history of assault rifle cartridges published last autumn in "Small Arms Review" magazine. To quote:

"Attention now switches back to the USSR. The key date was 15th July 1943 when a meeting was held of the Technical Council of the People's Commissariat for Armament (NKV). They had met to consider "New foreign weapons firing lower-powered rounds" and studied examples of both the US .30 M1 Carbine supplied by the USA, and the German MKb 42 (H) in 7.92x33 which had been captured while undergoing troop trials. The meeting concluded that the new German gun and cartridge were important developments and decided that a new reduced-power round must be designed. Responsibility for this was handed over to the OKB-44 design bureau, which produced the first prototype of what became the 7.62mm M1943 round only a month later, with the first batch of ammunition loaded with flat-based lead-cored bullets being range-tested that December. This kept the same caliber as the 7.62x54R rifle/MG round for production convenience, but adopted a new case which was slimmer than that used by the 7.92x33. A pilot series-production run began in March 1944, and before the end of the war the round was combat-tested in prototypes of the Degtyarov RPD light machine gun and Simonov SKS carbine. At that time the case had a length of 41mm, but development work continued, resulting in a boat-tailed bullet shape being adopted and the lead core being replaced with mild steel. The case neck was reduced to the final 38.7mm to keep the overall round length the same despite the longer bullets. "​

and:

"Some sources claim that the 7.62x39 was no more than a copy of a German Geco cartridge for the Vollmer M 35 carbine, designed in 1934/35 by the aforementioned H.G.Winter. However, as we have seen, the cartridges designed for that gun were quite different, having larger case diameters. The round often cited as the model for the M1943 is the 7.62x38.5 "Mittelpatrone", but the diameter of that case is also larger than the M1943's and, according to Dynamit Nobel (Geco's postwar parent company), it dates from 1960. There is therefore no known German cartridge of which the 7.62x39 M1943 could have been a copy. The authors of a Russian history of the M1943, who had access to Soviet archives, were unable to find reliable information as to whether the USSR had any previous knowledge of the development of intermediate rounds in the West."​

 

[CanadianGoose]

Hello Mr. Williams,

Seeing that you co-authored books with Max Popenker, I'm sure that you aware about glorious Soviet tradition to substantiate every R&D with references to "foreign experience". Inferiority complex ran deep in the minds of Soviet leaders, so they could not believe that Soviet engineers could produce advanced design of anything (that could very well contribute to USSR's demise but that's another topic). Why am I telling this? Because it may explain references to "New foreign weapons firing lower-powered rounds", as Soviet engineers could use reference to sell their own designs to their superiors, as opposed to actually copying those foreign designs. Mkb42 did not have a chance to be captured before Winter 1942-1943, and, although I don't have references handy, I somehow doubts that M1 Carbine was supplied to the USSR within lend-lease before mid-1943 (remembering that American closest ally Great Britain gained access to them in the mid-1943), leaving Soviet designers with precious little time to actually copy new round.

P.S. Thank you for bit of a trivia regarding dogged Western quest to deny Russians any creative skills. I mean, tracing M1943 from 1960 German round? Brilliant, just brilliant! My two previous favourite stories of this crusade were "Conkordski" and I-16/P-26, but they both have too little time gap between Western and Soviet designs to be appreciated by neophites who don't know anything about length of R&D cycle. "M1943 copy of round developed in 1960 AD" tale is much easier to enjoy

 

[Hapsburg]

Maybe an earlier Winter War, say 1931-34, or so. The Russkies get the shit smacked out of them somehow (earlier Stalinist purges?). Then, by a stroke (haha!) of luck, Stalin has a minor stroke, is out of action for a while, and a triumvirate or something rules in his stead. They see the sense in a change of doctrine, appoint better military leaders, and start changing the hardware. Maybe the '31-'34 war showed that soldiers start engaging in much closer rangers, making the bolt-action rifles totally crap, and they decide to mass-produce fully-automatic small arms, starting with a submachine gun in early 1936. They continue development, and in late 1937, they make a variation chambered for more compact rifle rounds, rather than full-rifle rounds. Stalin recovers by mid-1938.

When the second World War rolls around, as it inevitably would, the Soviets are much better prepared, and Stalin's purges haven't hacked away at the Soviet military of the late 1930s.
Bye-bye Barbarossa, hello Nevsky.

 

[alt_historian]

Maybe an earlier Winter War, say 1931-34, or so. The Russkies get the shit smacked out of them somehow (earlier Stalinist purges?). Then, by a stroke (haha!) of luck, Stalin has a minor stroke, is out of action for a while, and a triumvirate or something rules in his stead. They see the sense in a change of doctrine, appoint better military leaders, and start changing the hardware. Maybe the '31-'34 war showed that soldiers start engaging in much closer rangers, making the bolt-action rifles totally crap, and they decide to mass-produce fully-automatic small arms, starting with a submachine gun in early 1936. They continue development, and in late 1937, they make a variation chambered for more compact rifle rounds, rather than full-rifle rounds. Stalin recovers by mid-1938.

When the second World War rolls around, as it inevitably would, the Soviets are much better prepared, and Stalin's purges haven't hacked away at the Soviet military of the late 1930s.
Bye-bye Barbarossa, hello Nevsky.

That's a nice one... my only quibble is with them letting Stalin back into power at all. I mean, OK, the massive purges haven't happened by the time he has his stroke (AFAIK), so he won't be seen as evil incarnate, but still...

 

[Smaug]

Quality is nice, Quantity has a beauty all its own.....