Gun question: other assault rifles?

[Adm.Lee]

I've talked a bit in other threads about the AK-47 and M2 carbine. I'm fuzzy on timelines, when did other countries (I'm presuming NATO) find out about the AK-47? When did they realize that was more than another SMG, and when did they start developing their own?

I remember vaguely there was a fight within NATO about standardizing on the 7.62x51mm round, was there a later push for something smaller?

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I remember vaguely there was a fight within NATO about standardizing on the 7.62x51mm round, was there a later push for something smaller?

The Brits wanted to go with a 7mm or .280 round (139 grains at 2,550 fps) and developed the Enfield EM-2 around it. The U.S. had to be obstinate about it and refused to standardize on anything smaller than .30, thanks to Garand-induced caliber bigotry. Damn shame; the EM-2 was a couple of decades ahead of its time and I don't think wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with the .280's ballistics.

I'm wildly speculating here, but if that 7mm round had been adopted, we might never have seen 5.56 and 5.45 become military standards.

- C.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I think the West became fully aware of the AK in 1956 when it was seen in public during the Soviet invasion of Hungary but it was probably considered to be nothing more than a more powerful sub-machinegun.
I think the West was aware of the 7.62x39mm ammunition because they knew of the SKS but probably didn't know specifics about the round or Soviet intentions for it. They did know that the Soviets had captured plenty of StG44 rifles and its 7.92x33mm ammo and probably figured that the Sovs were as interested in the 'short' rounds as they were.

The West seemed to completely misunderstand the employment concept for the StG44 and they appear to have carried that over to the AK as well, assuming that they were to be used as SMGs. It wasn't until the 1960s that the West (specifically the USA) started to invest in 'assault' rifles (after the West dropped the ball <cough-pressure from someone to adopt 7.62x51mm-cough> with the British EM-2 and the CETME Modelo 1 and Modelo 2 and even the French CEAM 1950 Carbine in .30Carbine)

It's been assumed for a number of years that the Soviets simply made their own version of the 7.92x33mm round but I've read other reports that state the Soviets were already investigating mid-range ammunition and so the German 7.92mm Kurz ammo simply confirmed some of their findings.
Incidentally, I have a vague notion that the British 7mm was influenced directly by the 7.92x33mm but I can't recall where I read/heard that so take that with a grain of salt.

The M2 Carbine was "almost" an assault rifle and I think the only thing holding it back from being classified as one is that the ammo was no more powerful than the .357Mag - so to be harsh, it uses a high powered pistol round rather than a rifle round but it pretty much hits all the right marks in other regards. To be fair to the M1/M2 carbine though, it was not intended as an infantryman's rifle so it was never designed as a replacement for the battle rifles then in use.

In something of a slap on their own back, the Soviets produced the AK which influenced the thinking that produced the M16 which then went on to influence Soviet thinking on micro-calibre rounds which thus produced the 5.45x39mm and the AK74 - an AK in an M16 calibre (not quite but you know what I mean!)

[StainlessSteelCynic]

As an aside, the Spanish produced a derivative of the StG-44 rifle but chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO, the Calzada Bayo model CB-57. It was a competitor for the spot won by the CETME Modelo A which itself was influenced by a series of French designs that themselves were derivatives of the StG-45(M) which was an easier to manufacture refinement of the StG-44 concept.

The key figure behind all this was Ludwig Vorgrimmler who was small arms engineer in wartime Germany and was assigned to the French zone of control after the war. He went on to design the CEAM Model 1950, basically an StG-45 in .30Carbine. He then went to Spain and helped CETME design the Modelo A based on his experience in German and French small arms design. The CETME rifle then went on to Heckler & Koch where it formed the basis for the G3 design.

So while the AK is not simply a copy of the StG-44 or Stg-45, it (and most of the competitors for the new Soviet army rifle at the time) where heavily influenced by the German rifle concepts and the G3 was directly influenced by the wartime German rifles... so it could be said that they are related, perhaps even cousins?

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The M2 Carbine was "almost" an assault rifle and I think the only thing holding it back from being classified as one is that the ammo was no more powerful than the .357Mag - so to be harsh, it uses a high powered pistol round rather than a rifle round but it pretty much hits all the right marks in other regards. To be fair to the M1/M2 carbine though, it was not intended as an infantryman's rifle so it was never designed as a replacement for the battle rifles then in use.

Yep. I love the M1 carbine but I do acknowledge its ballistic limitations. The cartridge doesn't have the legs to be effective within an appropriate infantry combat envelope and it's too slow for FMJ rounds to reliably produce a decent temporary wound cavity.

Really, to swipe a point from the recent Glock 18 thread, I'd classify the M1 Carbine as an early PDW.

Originally Posted by copeab

Heck, go back 20 more years to MacArthur killing the .276 Pedersen version of the Garand.

Sometimes I'm amazed we didn't send troops to Vietnam with something chambered for .45-70...

- C.

[dragoon500ly]

Sometimes I'm amazed we didn't send troops to Vietnam with something chambered for .45-70...

Well, the RVN was equipped with Korean-War issue M-1 rifles, M-2 Carbines, BARs, M-1919A4s, M-1917A1s and 3.5-inch bazookas. These were used right up to the fall of South Vietnam.

On the VC/NVA side, MAT-49s, MAS-36s, other hardware captured from the French, not to mention battlefield captures...from the Japanese at the end of WWII.

Captured weapons also included a variety of civilian bolt-action, lever action and even rolling block rifles.

So .45-70 would not amaze me at all!

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Yep. I love the M1 carbine but I do acknowledge its ballistic limitations. The cartridge doesn't have the legs to be effective within an appropriate infantry combat envelope and it's too slow for FMJ rounds to reliably produce a decent temporary wound cavity.

Really, to swipe a point from the recent Glock 18 thread, I'd classify the M1 Carbine as an early PDW.



Sometimes I'm amazed we didn't send troops to Vietnam with something chambered for .45-70...

- C.

Well there was a guy in SOG who had a .444 Marlin imported to Vietnam for the purpose of busting log bunkers.

[copeab]

To be fair about dictating rifle ammo, the US provided large amounts of ammo in exportsin WWI and WWII and imorted much less. I'm not saying this is a sufficient reason by itself, but it's not inconsequential.

FWIW, in my Weird WWII campaign, the Atlanteans dumped 10,000 assault rifles similar to the E.M.1 (in. 276 Pedersen) on the US Army, after the flop of them offering an assault rifle similar to the AK 47 (chambered for the. 30-30 round). The PCs actually prefered the "Atlantesn AK" -- if they wanted a more powerful automatic weapon, they broke out the BARs ...

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

<snip> Really, to swipe a point from the recent Glock 18 thread, I'd classify the M1 Carbine as an early PDW. <snip>

- C.

Absolutely agree with you on that.
I'll make a massive assumption here and say that you'd probably agree with me that that's exactly what they were making even if they didn't have our "modern" concept of a PDW.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Absolutely agree with you on that.
I'll make a massive assumption here and say that you'd probably agree with me that that's exactly what they were making even if they didn't have our "modern" concept of a PDW.

I agree completely. If you look at the original design intent, it's a near-perfect match for the PDW concept of the 1990s... and, quite frankly, I think the .30 Carbine is a more effective round than the 5.7mm FN or 4.6mm HK if you look at the terminal ballistics (absent soft armor).

- C.

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I think the West became fully aware of the AK in 1956 when it was seen in public during the Soviet invasion of Hungary but it was probably considered to be nothing more than a more powerful sub-machinegun.
I think the West was aware of the 7.62x39mm ammunition because they knew of the SKS but probably didn't know specifics about the round or Soviet intentions for it. They did know that the Soviets had captured plenty of StG44 rifles and its 7.92x33mm ammo and probably figured that the Sovs were as interested in the 'short' rounds as they were.

The West seemed to completely misunderstand the employment concept for the StG44 and they appear to have carried that over to the AK as well, assuming that they were to be used as SMGs. It wasn't until the 1960s that the West (specifically the USA) started to invest in 'assault' rifles (after the West dropped the ball <cough-pressure from someone to adopt 7.62x51mm-cough> with the British EM-2 and the CETME Modelo 1 and Modelo 2 and even the French CEAM 1950 Carbine in .30Carbine)

This circles back to a question I've had a for a few years, but never looked into. I read a LOT of WW2 stuff, but (outside of books specifically on small arms) I've never picked up on Western troops really being aware of the StG44. German MGs are feared, and their high RoF is well-known. The panzerfausts are sometimes pressed into service. Everyone knows about a Luger, and wants one for a souvenir. Apparently rifles are rifles, and anything else might be lumped into the "burp gun" category. So, how many of those things were used by the Germans? Did it affect tactics? Were there just not as many on the Western Front?

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

This circles back to a question I've had a for a few years, but never looked into. I read a LOT of WW2 stuff, but (outside of books specifically on small arms) I've never picked up on Western troops really being aware of the StG44. German MGs are feared, and their high RoF is well-known. The panzerfausts are sometimes pressed into service. Everyone knows about a Luger, and wants one for a souvenir. Apparently rifles are rifles, and anything else might be lumped into the "burp gun" category. So, how many of those things were used by the Germans? Did it affect tactics? Were there just not as many on the Western Front?

Quite a lot was used on the Western Front. While the first examples was confined to a few operations in Mid-Late 43, they really started being issued in late 44. There are quite a few pics floating about taken during the Battle of the Bulge showing German troops (Both Heer and SS) equipped with them.

I think why the western forces never took serious notice of them falls in the the concept that the truly feared german small arm was the MG42 - and it was probably felt that the bulk of casualties was caused by it - not the soldiers sporting the AR's - which was probably seen as nothing more than a upscaled SMG by most of the higher ups in the arms departments. Not an unreasonable thought since after all, the bullet used in the cartridge for both the 7.92 Mauser and the 7.92K was for all intents and purposes, the same.

Using my Grandfather for an example, he thought that while it wasn't a replacement for a proper rifle, it was a marvellous system for combat in area's that was more confined than an open field, but most importantly since he was a tanker, a lot easier to stow in his Firefly than a SMLE, and damn sight better than a sten or even the Tommy Gun he "didn't" have.

He told me back in the day, for the longest time he thought all the concept would be good for is specialised roles: Para's, armoured crewmen, and the like. Never as an replacement wholesale: The FAL in his mind was near perfect, he was never sold on the idea of replacing all the rifles in an army with suchlike as the M16 or AK. Ah well, even he couldn't call them all.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I've read estimates that production of the MP44/StG44 was as much as 5000 a month and as mentioned by Panther Al, it started to be seen in western Europe particularly during the time of the Ardennes campaign. I think however, that by the time they appeared in enough numbers on the Western Front, it was "too little, too late" for Nazi Germany and so the impact wasn't going to be anywhere near as significant as it was on the Eastern Front.

And speaking of the Ardennes campaign, enough StG44's were available on the Western Front that some of them showed up in Spain and were available for filming of the movie Battle Of The Bulge in 1965, (filmed in and around the Sierra de Guadarrama mountains near Madrid).
Internet Movie Firearms Database page for Battle Of The Bulge
There were also enough of them available in the US during the 1970s/1980s for them to appear, highly modified, as weapons of the Rebel Alliance on the planet Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back movie.


The StG44 may even have made an appearance in the Western Desert with the DAK, there's one on display in the El Alamein War Museum (although knowing how little effort is actually made by the Egyptians to research WW2, it's also possible that the example on display came from a post-WW2 North African conflict).

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

I'm wildly speculating here, but if that 7mm round had been adopted, we might never have seen 5.56 and 5.45 become military standards.

Heck, go back 20 more years to MacArthur killing the .276 Pedersen version of the Garand.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

The Brits wanted to go with a 7mm or .280 round (139 grains at 2,550 fps) and developed the Enfield EM-2 around it. The U.S. had to be obstinate about it and refused to standardize on anything smaller than .30, thanks to Garand-induced caliber bigotry. Damn shame; the EM-2 was a couple of decades ahead of its time and I don't think wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with the .280's ballistics.

I'm wildly speculating here, but if that 7mm round had been adopted, we might never have seen 5.56 and 5.45 become military standards.

- C.

The reason the 7mm round (and anything else NATO came up with) wasn't adopted was pure bullying by a now-superpower US. "We're not asking you what opinions you guys have -- we're telling you what your opinions are, and if you want to join in the Marshall Plan party, you'll agree!"

The EM-2 was so far ahead of its time that most people couldn't get ahead of its looks. Most of NATO liked the 7mm round -- the FAL and CETME-58 were originally chambered for it -- but they just thought the EM-2 looked too "sci-fi" to be taken seriously. Makes you wonder what they would think of the L85 and FAMAS.

[Targan]

The EM-2 rifle seems like such a terrific weapon. Waaaay ahead of it's time. So sad that most of the other members of NATO had the right idea and got bullied into a less optimal option by the US. I never realised that Winston Churchill could be such a soft-c*ck. He should have told the US where to shove it. If the UK and Canada (and in all likelihood Australia and New Zealand too) had gone ahead and fielded the EM-2 anyway the US may have eventually seen reason and gone with their own similar weapon in .280. A lesson here for all of us. Just because you are a superpower and have more money than everyone else doesn't always mean you are right!