Percentage of AK-74 v. AKM in the T2kU ETO, c.2000

[Raellus]

What percentage of Soviet/Warsaw Pact service rifles encountered in the ETO during the Twilight War, c.2000, would be AK-74 pattern (5.45x39mm) v. AKM pattern (7.62x39mm)?

The Soviets began production of the AK-74 (and replacement of the AKM) in 1974. From what I can glean, the rate of production was high, and replacement of the older model AKs happened fairly quickly. By the mid-to-late 1980s (IRL), if not earlier, most WP nations were producing their own license-built versions of the AK-74. I use the v1 chronology, so in my T2kU the Cold War doesn't end at the turn of the 1990s.

Licensed Copies
East Germany (known locally as the MPi-AK-74N)
Bulgaria

Unlicensed Derivatives
PA md. 86 (Romania)
wz88 Tantal (Poland)

I have little doubt that other Warsaw Pact nations would have compelled to acquire Soviet-made AK-74s or buy the license to produce their own version, had the Cold War continued.

I used to follow the rule of thumb that Soviet Category A & B formations would be equipped with AK-74s and Category C formations would be equipped with AKMs. Similarly, Polish regular army units carry the 5.45x39mm Tantal, while ORMO and ZOMO field the 7.62x39mm PMK. I'm starting to second-guess this system. It might be too simplistic, and I may be underestimating just how many 5.45x39mm rifles the USSR and WTO would have produced/issued by 1996 or so. Production wouldn't have necessarily ended with the TDM- rifles and ammo are both items that could be produced post-TDM, albeit in reduced quantities.

I'd like to hear your thoughts and reasoning on the ratio.

-

[Vespers War]

In the Soviet Army, the AK-74 had officially replaced all AKMs by 1985. East Germany had ~171,000 license-manufactured AK-74s in 1991, with a peacetime military of ~175,000 personnel that was planned to grow to ~560,000 in case of war.

For a Twilight timeline, the AK-74M being introduced in 1991 gives an opportunity for the Soviet Union to replace the original AK-74 rifles and either keep them for reserve units or begin distributing them to WP nations. However, one question is how many RPK-74 will be available. Without LMGs in 5.45x39mm, taking on the AK-74 makes logistics even more of a pain, since a military will have the AK-74 in 5.45x39mm, the RPK in 7.62x39mm, the PKM in 7.62x54mmR, and the DshK and/or NSV in 12.7x108mm. Sticking with the AKM at least means your rifles and LMGs use the same ammunition, while the PKM uses the same caliber as your designated marksman's rifle.

I suspect it's more likely by Y2K that Soviet Category A & B units mostly have AK-74M with some AK-74, Category C units have the AK-74, and the AKM have mostly been shipped out to other militaries that are still using 7.62x39mm in other arms. Any "spare" AK-74 will likely go to East Germany to bolster their numbers for that wartime growth.

[Raellus]

Thanks for those figures and estimates, VW. That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for.

Originally Posted by Vespers War

However, one question is how many RPK-74 will be available. Without LMGs in 5.45x39mm, taking on the AK-74 makes logistics even more of a pain, since a military will have the AK-74 in 5.45x39mm, the RPK in 7.62x39mm, the PKM in 7.62x54mmR, and the DshK and/or NSV in 12.7x108mm. Sticking with the AKM at least means your rifles and LMGs use the same ammunition, while the PKM uses the same caliber as your designated marksman's rifle.

I find it odd that Warsaw Pact nations didn't follow the USSR's lead and adopt a 5.45x39mm version of RPK (i.e. the RPK-74). It's not like the USSR gave its client states much of a choice. From what I can find online, only Bulgaria and Romania produced 5.45x39mm RPKs, and production in the latter country didn't begin until 1993, after the Cold War ended (IRL). It seems even odder since most of the WP nations that produced copies of the AK-74 also produced carbine versions (i.e. the AKSU-74). Why not change the entire panoply? It seems like that would have been a more efficient, cost-effective approach, and, as VW pointed out, would have simplified logistics as well.

-

[ToughOmbres]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Thanks for those figures and estimates, VW. That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for.



I find it odd that Warsaw Pact nations didn't follow the USSR's lead and adopt a 5.45x39mm version of RPK (i.e. the RPK-74). It's not like the USSR gave its client states much of a choice. From what I can find online, only Bulgaria and Romania produced 5.45x39mm RPKs, and production in the latter country didn't begin until 1993, after the Cold War ended (IRL). It seems even odder since most of the WP nations that produced copies of the AK-74 also produced carbine versions (i.e. the AKSU-74). Why not change the entire panoply? It seems like that would have been a more efficient, cost-effective approach, and, as VW pointed out, would have simplified logistics as well.

-

I think having the Category A and B divisions with the AK 74 is realistic with Category C and Mobilization only with the AKM makes sense-simple in game terms means you can focus on other things.

Inventories of the AK-74 would probably be sufficient along with spare parts until the nuclear exchange. Afterward, losses to the attacks, battlefield losses, (armorers can only repair so many rifles by parting out unserviceable ones) and other losses would dwindle the numbers considerably in my view. The ubiquitous AKM would reappear in large numbers as would the SKS.

To play Devil's Advocate on the other hand, the much reduced personnel numbers by 2000 might allow for most, if not all, Soviet divisions and many NSWP formations still intact to be equipped with the AK-74. Just a thought.

The NVA and the thinly-veiled Soviet hatred of the DDR would encourage the Politburo not to allow the NVA to build up huge inventories of spare small arms. Always troublesome Romania would not inspire confidence from the Politburo either. Bulgaria, a pliant and loyal client state, was always relegated to military penury by the Soviets. These are all factors a referee could take into account with parceling out the AK-74-AKM levels.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I find it odd that Warsaw Pact nations didn't follow the USSR's lead and adopt a 5.45x39mm version of RPK (i.e. the RPK-74). It's not like the USSR gave its client states much of a choice. From what I can find online, only Bulgaria and Romania produced 5.45x39mm RPKs, and production in the latter country didn't begin until 1993, after the Cold War ended (IRL). It seems even odder since most of the WP nations that produced copies of the AK-74 also produced carbine versions (i.e. the AKSU-74). Why not change the entire panoply? It seems like that would have been a more efficient, cost-effective approach, and, as VW pointed out, would have simplified logistics as well.

Why would the other Pact nations have no choice? The Warsaw Pact wasn't exactly a homogenous organziation? Yes, divisions were structured similarly, but in the end, these nations each decided what they wanted for their armies, especially in terms of acquisition and budgets. Also, by the mid-80s the Pact was in a bad shape, thanks to economical decline and corruption in higher party levels. Everyone tried doing their own things first, including buying national: Poland and CSSR had their own upgrade programs for T-55s and T-72s, Romania was practically out of the Pact and produced its own tanks, that while the looked like T-55 knock-offs were not. Poland and CSSR built their own APCs and Poland was about to introduce the Tantal, which wasn't even an AK-74 clone.

Case in point, Poland had never introduced the RPK, remaining with the PKT on squad level instead. As such, they did what the Bundeswehr did as well and did not follow the lead nation of their respective alliance in going all squad automatic weapon. Sure, that means using two calibers and cartridges in a squad, but apparently that worked well before, too: AKM and PKT don't share ammo either.

In the end, we must not forget that all these nations were bitterly poor by US standards. Their defense spendings ate up considerable amounts of their coffers all the while their people starved or at least had troubles finding food let alone items of commodity. And none of them wanted a war, because they all knew: It would be them first, before the Soviet Union got the beating. And everyone was fed up with the Soviets anyway. So why buy their stuff and enrich one's own captors?

[bash]

Just to spitball without any exact figures, I'd imagine Pact armies that did switch from the AKM to AK-74 likely did so in phased rollouts on a company by company basis. Front line units would get AK-74s and then settle on RPKs or PKMs for their MG sections. Their former AKMs (and ammo stockpile) would go to lower readiness units and support formations.

If they already have doctrine and supply chain supporting squads with mixed ammo types (AKM and PKM) is not a big change to swap the AKMs. Going all in on the AK-74/RPK-74 means a lot of money on new weapons without much support from the USSR and leaves a ton of ammo with no users and little in the way of buyers. The USSR would likely block any attempts to sell old gear to non-aligned/third world armies because they would want those sales.

All conjecture on my part.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Unlicensed Derivatives
PA md. 86 (Romania)
wz88 Tantal (Poland)

I have little doubt that other Warsaw Pact nations would have compelled to acquire Soviet-made AK-74s or buy the license to produce their own version, had the Cold War continued.

I used to follow the rule of thumb that Soviet Category A & B formations would be equipped with AK-74s and Category C formations would be equipped with AKMs. Similarly, Polish regular army units carry the 5.45x39mm Tantal, while ORMO and ZOMO field the 7.62x39mm PMK. I'm starting to second-guess this system. It might be too simplistic, and I may be underestimating just how many 5.45x39mm rifles the USSR and WTO would have produced/issued by 1996 or so. Production wouldn't have necessarily ended with the TDM- rifles and ammo are both items that could be produced post-TDM, albeit in reduced quantities.

I'd like to hear your thoughts and reasoning on the ratio.

-

The Soviets certainly had their Category C division equipped with AK-74s by the end of the Cold War. We don't really see footage suggesting otherwise and even during the low-budget phase of the 90s, there are hardly photos or videos depicting Russians in e. g. Chechnya using the older AKM. Remember, Category C or - using the newer and more adequate nomenclature - _ divisions were still "active" units, just cadered to a large degree.

Only mobilization-only divisions would not have received the Ak-74 by the late 80s.*

It's more difficult with the Polish Tantal. Thought it's named "wz. 88" ("model 1988"), production only started in 1990 and troops received their first issues in 1991. From there, disarmament and peace dividend hit the Polish army fully, resulting in reduced production and a longer time for the weapon to permeate into all branches and units.

The second factor to keep in mind is that the Tantal is NOT an unlicensed copy of the AK-74. It is in fact built for the smaller caliber and cartridge of the AK-74 but technically based upon the AKM. I presume that was meant to circumvent licensing fees as well as giving greater autonomy to the Polish arms industry, something the Polish were keen on doing and pursued since the late 1950s.


---
*For more details of the Soviet Army readiness system see "CIA_The Readiness of Soviet Ground Forces - Interagency Intelligence Memorandum (1982)", link here: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs...00060007-7.pdf and an abridged version here: http://www.ww2.dk/new/army/readiness.htm

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

The Soviets certainly had their Category C division equipped with AK-74s by the end of the Cold War. We don't really see footage suggesting otherwise and even during the low-budget phase of the 90s, there are hardly photos or videos depicting Russians in e. g. Chechnya using the older AKM. Remember, Category C or - using the newer and more adequate nomenclature - _ divisions were still "active" units, just cadered to a large degree.

Only mobilization-only divisions would not have received the Ak-74 by the late 80s.*

I hadn't thought about the rifles predominantly used by both sides in the Chechen wars but now that you mention it, I don't recall seeing many AKMs at all. It was mostly all AK-74s. Thanks for bringing up this point, Ursus.

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

It's more difficult with the Polish Tantal. Thought it's named "wz. 88" ("model 1988"), production only started in 1990 and troops received their first issues in 1991. From there, disarmament and peace dividend hit the Polish army fully, resulting in reduced production and a longer time for the weapon to permeate into all branches and units.

IRL, yes. I use the v1 timeline, which eliminates the "peace dividend" and allows for faster adoption of new weapons/replacement of old.

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

The second factor to keep in mind is that the Tantal is NOT an unlicensed copy of the AK-74. It is in fact built for the smaller caliber and cartridge of the AK-74 but technically based upon the AKM. I presume that was meant to circumvent licensing fees as well as giving greater autonomy to the Polish arms industry, something the Polish were keen on doing and pursued since the late 1950s.

I was aware that the Tantal was not a direct copy of the AK-74. However, it's not an entirely different weapon. Internally, the basic action is the same, and structurally it includes a lot of features from the Soviet rifle. That's why they look so similar (to a layman, indistinguishable). For example, even though the Tantal has a 3-round burst option (which AK-74s do not), the selector switch looks and operates just like that on the Kalashnikov. I lumped the Tantal in with non-licensed copies of the AK-74 because it is, after all, a 5.45x39mm weapon and my main point was that almost the entirety of the Warsaw Pact was shifting to that caliber for their assault rifles by the late 1980s (IRL).

Your suspicion is correct that the Poles developed the Tantal to avoid paying the licensing fee. They'd actually developed a much more original replacement for the PMK that used an entirely different caliber round but the Soviets put the kibosh on its adoption and insisted that the Poles use the 5.45x39mm round instead. The Poles caved to Soviet pressure, but not entirely, hence the Tantal.

I originally posted about this in the Best That Never Was thread.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Apparently, the Poles were working on a modular rifle system. It would have been able to fire multiple calibers (but mainly a proprietary 7x41mm round) with a few parts swaps, and could be configured as an assault rifle, mag-fed SAW, carbine, and battle rifle. The Soviets put the kabash on it, as they wanted the Poles to pay for the AK-74 license. Those clever Poles still figured out a way to do their own thing, developing, adopting, and producing the just-different-enough wz. 88 Tantal instead.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/pro...-ak-in-7x41mm/

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

Why would the other Pact nations have no choice? The Warsaw Pact wasn't exactly a homogenous organziation?

I see your point. I probably overstated my case a bit, but I think that you overstate yours. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

The Warsaw Pact countries did have some freedom to develop and field their own homegrown armaments, but it was very limited. If push came to shove, the Soviets almost always got their way (see the example above about the Soviet-vetoed Polish modular assault rifle). Although there are a few exceptions to the general rule (the Romanian TR-77-580, the OT-64 SKOT), the general rule still stands. In most cases, the major weapons systems of the Warsaw Pact nations were either purchased directly from the Soviets or manufactured locally under license from Soviet proprietary designs. Warsaw Pact nations primarily relied on Soviet made or designed weaponry. Even though the Poles built and fielded their own SKOT, ZOMO formations still used the Soviet-built BTR-60. When a WTO nation stepped too far out of line, the Soviets could and did apply various kinds of pressure and, more often than not, the offending WTO nation would get back in line without much fuss. Every Warsaw Pact nation had Hungary, 1956 and Czechoslovakia, 1969 hanging over their heads like a Sword of Damocles. With that in mind, they would only push back so far.

-