WI: No MP44/STG44

There absolutely would. In 1942 the Soviets started to massively increase the proportion of Sub-Machine guns in their TOE's as cheap automatic firepower to match the German MP40-MG34 combination and at pretty much exactly the same point they strated looking for a longer range intermediate cartridge design. As others have said they went through a wide variety of prototypes some of which were more or less influenced in layout and design by the StG44. But unless you butterfly away them encountering the MP40-MG42 combo they are going to adopt submachine guns, they are going to start looking for a longer range, more powerful submachine gun and they are going to be working towards automatic intermediate cartridge firing assault weapon aka an assault rifle.

Now if you kill off the StG44 and Kalashnikov you might see the stereotypical assault rifle be a bullpup or with a different layout from the AR-15/AK but it would be an assault rifle.

I have no doubt that they would try to develop something. I just don't think it would not be the AK we all know and (love?) It's just that the 7.62 x 39 was developed after trials with the STG 44.

If it's just gone, I see the USSR adopting some kind of shortened down full auto carbine.



Maybe go back to the feed system from the FG42? Maybe even downsizing those rifles?
 
Nah, if it was history channel, I'd be blabbing about Ancient Aliens and how to pawn some ancient alien artifacts. It's cool though, because the store owner knows a UFO expert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akutan_Zero

There were other wrecks captured at Pearl Harbor too.

Captured wrecks of Zeros? At Pearl Harbor? One can learn anything every day. How one captures a wreck actually?
BTW - how about the source that confirms that Hellcat was brought about beacuse US armed forces needed something to counter Zeroes?
 
Captured wrecks of Zeros? At Pearl Harbor? One can learn anything every day. How one captures a wreck actually?
BTW - how about the source that confirms that Hellcat was brought about beacuse US armed forces needed something to counter Zeroes?

From wiki “Throughout early 1942 Leroy Grumman, along with his chief designers Jake Swirbul and Bill Schwendler, worked closely with the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) and experienced F4F pilots,[13] to develop the new fighter in such a way that it could counter the Zero's strengths and help gain air command in the Pacific Theater of Operations.[14] On 22 April 1942, Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare toured the Grumman Aircraft company and spoke with Grumman engineers, analyzing the performance of the F4F Wildcat against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in aerial combat.[15][Note 3]BuAer's LT CDR A. M. Jackson [Note 4] directed Grumman's designers to mount the cockpit higher in the fuselage.[18] In addition, the forward fuselage sloped down slightly to the engine cowling, affording the Hellcat's pilot good visibility.[19]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat
 

Deleted member 1487

Not much, Soviets were already well aware of the intermediate cartridge concept from factory inspections from 1940 and adopted their own in 1943 before the stg saw widespread adoption. The intention was always to have this be the new main infantry and machinegun round (again, before the germans had fully started to field the thing) at that point the path from the SKS to something more practical is inevitable.
There isn't evidence that the Soviets were aware of German intermediate cartridge designs pre-war and it appears their own design started as a result of encountering the MP43 and earlier the Mkb42, earlier prototype versions of the StG44 in combat tests in 1942-43. So of course they started development after encountering it in combat and realizing it's actual effectiveness.

The MP 44, or Sturmgewehr (assault rifle) is considered to be the first military production "assault rifle" with an intermediate cartridge. Although not a complete copy, the Soviets took some inspiration from it when they developed the AK47. It's reported that Hitler didn't much care for the stamped metal design of the weapon. So what if Hitler, for whatever reason, decides to put the kibosh on the MP44? How does this affect future rifle designs? The US stuck with full power rifle cartridges all the way up until the early stages of Vietnam, long after the Soviets. Would there be a Soviet intermediate cartridge rifle? Would the M16, or something similar ever exist?
Hitler did try to kill is before 1944 and the infantry board just continued to develop it and combat test it behind his back. He figured this out in 1943 after he had already killed it once before. So perhaps in 1943 it could decisively killed rather than Hitler just allowing the prototypes to be tested. If that is the case the Soviets might have already encountered it and started their version.

Post war the Wallies might have less reason to try out their own ultimately unadopted IOTL design developments (like the EM-2/.280 British), but that isn't going to effect the adoption of the 7.62x51 Nato standard. It probably wouldn't impact the M16/5.56 developments either as those weren't necessarily related to anything the StG taught the designers.

Now interestingly this probably would prevent the roller delayed blowback system of the CETME/HK G3 rifle. However it wouldn't prevent a different German design, which used a short stroke gas system of the Tokarev rifle and fully locked rollers of the MG42. IOTL the roller delayed system was figured out working on intermediate cartridges utilizing the gas piston-fully locked rollers system, so while it is unlikely that the 'bolt bounce' feature that inspired the roller delayed system would be discovered with a high powered cartridge like the 7.92x57, the OTL developed short stroke piston-fully locked roller semi-automatic rifle would actually get adopted in 1944 instead replacing the more expensive G43 rifle. IOTL this was the G44 rifle, but it was not adopted due to the adoption of the STG44 and 45.

So that means that during the Cold War CETME or at least some German company would develop the proprietary G44 rifle locked roller system, which would mean the G3 rifle would be quite a bit different than we know it and German/HK analogue design developments in small arms develops into something different that would be around today instead of being retired like the roller delayed system. It would be interesting to see how that would compete with the AK and AR systems out there during the Cold War.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Can you read? They were not developed at the same time (at least not prototypes). The Soviets tested the STG 44 before starting their prototype program.

Oh, did I hurt the internet tough guy's little feelings? Don't play innocent, you're the one who was being insulting in the first place.
This is WAY below the standards we hold here for discussion. There, are unquestionably, plenty of sites where this sort of attack the man, not the facts crap is full acceptable, hell, even encouraged. This Board IS NOT one of them.

I urgently recommend that you significantly alter your posting style upon your return.

Kicked for a week
 
From wiki “Throughout early 1942 Leroy Grumman, along with his chief designers Jake Swirbul and Bill Schwendler, worked closely with the U.S. Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) and experienced F4F pilots,[13] to develop the new fighter in such a way that it could counter the Zero's strengths and help gain air command in the Pacific Theater of Operations.[14] On 22 April 1942, Lieutenant Commander Butch O'Hare toured the Grumman Aircraft company and spoke with Grumman engineers, analyzing the performance of the F4F Wildcat against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in aerial combat.[15][Note 3]BuAer's LT CDR A. M. Jackson [Note 4] directed Grumman's designers to mount the cockpit higher in the fuselage.[18] In addition, the forward fuselage sloped down slightly to the engine cowling, affording the Hellcat's pilot good visibility.[19]


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat

I value your input.
On the other hand, same source notest that :
Grumman had been working on a successor to the F4F Wildcat since 1938 and the contract for the prototype XF6F-1 was signed on 30 June 1941.

The aircraft 1st flew on 26th June 1942, one month earlier than the Akutan Zero was found, and 3 months before theat Zero was flight tested. So if Grumman didn't used time machine, they will not be able to say themselves 'this Zeros are beasts, let's design a better fighter'.

IIRC Butch O'Hare didn't have much, if any combat vs. Zeroes before April 1942, he encountered and killed several multi-engined Japanese bombers in Feb 1942. But then, it makes much a better story: O'Hare ->Zeros-> development of Hellcat.
 
Trivia but the West Germans only went for the G3 as FN (somewhat annoyed about having been seized by the Germans for 10 years in the previous 40) refused them a licence to make the FAL. They would make and sell them to the Germans but not licence production. Britain, Canada and the USA were given a free licence to make FALs as a thank you.
 
I have no doubt that they would try to develop something. I just don't think it would not be the AK we all know and (love?) It's just that the 7.62 x 39 was developed after trials with the STG 44.
If it's just gone, I see the USSR adopting some kind of shortened down full auto carbine.
Maybe go back to the feed system from the FG42? Maybe even downsizing those rifles?

It's very easy to butterfly away the 7.62 x 39 and the AK-47, any POD before December '43, when the 7.62 was adopted, could see one of the other options be selected. Equally the mechanism for the eventual Soviet assault rifle is equally up in the air, though it's worth repeating they were perfectly capable of independently coming up with their own designs, not just looking at German designs and copying them.


As for "the USSR adopting some kind of shortened down full auto carbine." what precisely is the difference between that and an assault rifle?

Everyone in the pre-war era knew that bolt action rifles weren't the future, the Germans were working on intermediate rounds. The French and Americans had settled on semi-auto battle rifles as the answer as had the Soviets until the Winter War had convinced them that simpler, higher fire volume submachine guns were better.

So the Soviets had submachine guns and semi-auto battle rifles before Barbarossa and an infantry doctrine based on fire suppression. The odds of them discovering the the desirability of something in between is exceptionally high. Especially after they run into the German MP40-MG42 combo, which once again was a much more important driver in the development of the AK than the StG44. At that point some sort of assault rifle even if in a different calibre and with a different mechanism and then when one superpower has one everyone else will copy.
 
I value your input.
On the other hand, same source notest that :
Grumman had been working on a successor to the F4F Wildcat since 1938 and the contract for the prototype XF6F-1 was signed on 30 June 1941.

The aircraft 1st flew on 26th June 1942, one month earlier than the Akutan Zero was found, and 3 months before theat Zero was flight tested. So if Grumman didn't used time machine, they will not be able to say themselves 'this Zeros are beasts, let's design a better fighter'.

IIRC Butch O'Hare didn't have much, if any combat vs. Zeroes before April 1942, he encountered and killed several multi-engined Japanese bombers in Feb 1942. But then, it makes much a better story: O'Hare ->Zeros-> development of Hellcat.


Don't forget Claire Chennault wrote a complete report on the Zero from his experience in China, which was ignored. I always figured that after Pearl it was finally taken seriously.

It is my understanding that test-flying the captured Aleutian Zero gave the US data which was used to improve the F6F prototype...
 
Don't forget Claire Chennault wrote a complete report on the Zero from his experience in China, which was ignored. I always figured that after Pearl it was finally taken seriously.

I have no probelms with the unfortunate report. However, the 1st metal cut for the Hellcat prototype was done much before the US forces were aware of capabilites of the Zero.

It is my understanding that test-flying the captured Aleutian Zero gave the US data which was used to improve the F6F prototype...

I don't think so.
The major difference between XF6F-1 and -3 was that the -3 was using the R-2800 instead of R-2600. Grumman got a contract for the series production of -3 on May 23rd 1942, that was before even the Zero crashed at Akutan landscape. The turbocharged R-2600 was also considered as powerplant, earlier than May 1942.
 
Just finished catching up in this thread, and have seen no ref to the fact that one of, if not THE reason for acceptance of the M-16 in US service was the crazy guy running SAC. Curt was upgrading his flight line security equipment and was responsible for 2 innovations...the crew cab pickup truck and a select fire alternative for the M-1/M-2 carbines. The military in general was dragging its feet in LeMay's opinion, and he was never one to wait for others so he organized a competition to replace the carbine and the M-16 was the result. They got a nice big contract, and the rest is history. I was sure as hell impressed the 1st time I qualified with the M-16 instead of the M-1 carbine...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

It's very easy to butterfly away the 7.62 x 39 and the AK-47, any POD before December '43, when the 7.62 was adopted, could see one of the other options be selected. Equally the mechanism for the eventual Soviet assault rifle is equally up in the air, though it's worth repeating they were perfectly capable of independently coming up with their own designs, not just looking at German designs and copying them.


As for "the USSR adopting some kind of shortened down full auto carbine." what precisely is the difference between that and an assault rifle?

Everyone in the pre-war era knew that bolt action rifles weren't the future, the Germans were working on intermediate rounds. The French and Americans had settled on semi-auto battle rifles as the answer as had the Soviets until the Winter War had convinced them that simpler, higher fire volume submachine guns were better.

So the Soviets had submachine guns and semi-auto battle rifles before Barbarossa and an infantry doctrine based on fire suppression. The odds of them discovering the the desirability of something in between is exceptionally high. Especially after they run into the German MP40-MG42 combo, which once again was a much more important driver in the development of the AK than the StG44. At that point some sort of assault rifle even if in a different calibre and with a different mechanism and then when one superpower has one everyone else will copy.
The Soviets as I understand it had a dual approach; they recognized the value of the SMG, but as one weapon among several. They were still working on the SVt-40 ,which was to be the new standard rifle even in 1941 until they couldn't make enough of them once the invasion happened and they reverted to bolt action rifles. They also then moved on to a much simplified SMG in late 1941, which would be the PPSH 41 and one easier and cheaper to make than a bolt action rifle. The impetus for SMG platoons and companies came in 1942 from the simple fact that they simply could make more SMGs than rifles and just mass distributed them, especially as they were much easier to use for someone with minimal or no marksmanship training, which was generally the case for most conscripts as of late 1941.

As it was the Soviets generally found a balanced combo of PPSH41s and PPS43s with rifles and LMGs worked very well, so they might well try to make that work post-war with improved LMG designs and improved semi-auto rifles. Having never fought against intermediate cartridge weapons and seeing their battlefield effectiveness it is entirely possible that they wouldn't innovate it themselves for quite some time (like the US), as even the Germans had a lot of institutional resistance to the StG until after it had proven itself in combat in prototype form due to the strong efforts of innovators who believed in the concept.
 
As it was the Soviets generally found a balanced combo of PPSH41s and PPS43s with rifles and LMGs worked very well, so they might well try to make that work post-war with improved LMG designs and improved semi-auto rifles. Having never fought against intermediate cartridge weapons and seeing their battlefield effectiveness it is entirely possible that they wouldn't innovate it themselves for quite some time (like the US), as even the Germans had a lot of institutional resistance to the StG until after it had proven itself in combat in prototype form due to the strong efforts of innovators who believed in the concept.

I would agree with you expect for one fact. When they were working towards PPS to replace the PPSH41s in production they wanted two things. One something simpler and cheaper (the PPS) immediately and secondly something more powerful and longer range (which eventually became the AK) which could overmatch the MP40, which outranged the PPSH41s, this was in 1942. Assuming the Soviets use the PPSH41s against 9x19mm armed enemies they will start looking for something with an intermediate cartridge and automatic capability.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

I would agree with you expect for one fact. When they were working towards PPS to replace the PPSH41s in production they wanted two things. One something simpler and cheaper (the PPS) immediately and secondly something more powerful and longer range (which eventually became the AK) which could overmatch the MP40, which outranged the PPSH41s, this was in 1942. Assuming the Soviets use the PPSH41s against 9x19mm and enemies they will start looking for something with an intermediate cartridge and automatic capability.
They already have a long range support option from their SVT-40 and regular rifles; various rifle designs that eventually culminated in the AK-47 competition in 1946 only started in 1944. The PPS started production in 1943, but had been developed before the 7.62x39 even started development. The conference that even initiated the spec for the 7.62 intermediate cartridge only happened in mid-July 1943, well after the PPS43 entered service. Per the historian of the AK-47, C.J. Chivers, the Soviet first efforts to develop the intermediate cartridge and a series of weapons for it came after encountering the MP43, not before:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...k-47-questions-about-most-important-gun-ever/
It is easy for us today to claim that the intermediate cartridge was clearly the natural evolution of weapons design, but we can see that it was not the case at all and even the British designs were still stretching toward a large, high powered round themselves even after flitting with the .270, which was dropped from considerations for internal reasons before even pushing the .280 as a NATO standard. Even the early lower powered .280 rounds were supposed to be a 2000m ranged 'universal' round that was to be used in MMGs and weighed more and had significantly more power than even the 7.62x39 round. The US of course didn't even want an intermediate round, while for all we can tell the Soviets would have kept what worked during the war for them without having fought against an intermediate weapon system that was more effective than anything they had.
 
I'm fairly sure that the design requirements that led to the AK were set in the winter of '43 shortly after the 7.62x39 was officially adopted but that's a relatively minor matter.

The key question is whether the process that led to the 7.62 started in the July '43 meeting after and because the Soviets had encountered the 8mm kurz or was an independent process and the timing was a coincidence.

The answer to that is the started work on intermediate cartridges in 1939.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30026721
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm fairly sure that the design requirements that led to the AK were set in the winter of '43 shortly after the 7.62x39 was officially adopted but that's a relatively minor matter.

The key question is whether the process that led to the 7.62 started in the July '43 meeting after and because the Soviets had encountered the 8mm kurz or was an independent process and the timing was a coincidence.

The answer to that is the started work on intermediate cartridges in 1939.

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30026721
No source on that though on the site....and the 5.45 of 1939 if real wasn't the 7.62 intermediate

edit:
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/7,62_×_39_мм
FV Tokarev presented 6.5-mm automatic carbines (for the Japanese cartridge 6.5 × 50 mmwith a diameter of the basis of a sleeve of 11,35 mm). Work on the creation of an intermediate cartridge was close to completion in 1939 [6] . To study the issue, a 5.45 mm caliber cartridge was developed and the task was given to design a self-loading rifle for this cartridge. However, in connection with military actions, the designers were switched to more relevant work [7] .
D.N. Bolotin. The history of Soviet small arms and ammunition. - SPb: Polygon, 1995, p. 81

In July 1943, at a special meeting of the People's Commissariat of weapons to discuss the German automatic rifles were held MKb.42 (H) caliber 7,92x33 mm (diameter of the sleeve base 11.9 mm ), got to the Soviet troops on the Volkhov front in the winter of 1942-1943, and obtained from US carbines M1 Carbine caliber 7,62x33 mm (diameter 9.04 mm liner base). As a result of the discussion, it was decided to create a weapon of a similar class, with an effective firing range of about 400–500 meters, and to develop a new cartridge for it. With the active participation of V.G. FedorovIn the technical task for the new cartridge were laid several variants of calibers at once - 5.6 mm, 6.5 mm and 7.62 mm. The development of the base case was carried out in record time by the designers N. M. Elizarov and B.V. Semin , and already in October of the same year, at a meeting in the People’s Commissariat of Armaments, a new cartridge with a reduced capacity of 7.62x41 mm (base diameter of the sleeve was 11.26 mm) was adopted for further development , which had a pointed lead bullet and a bottle-shaped sleeve without protruding edges [8] .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top