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

[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.