No, Germans Didn’t Design the AK-47: Kalashnikov Conspiracy Theories and How to Refute Them, Part 1

Airbrushed Completely authentic photo of Mikhail Kalashnikov's reaction to hearing that people don't think he designed the AK-47. Don't make Mikhtim sad by spreading hateful fascist lies!

Airbrushed Completely authentic photo of Mikhail Kalashnikov's reaction to hearing that people don't think he designed the AK-47. Don't make Mikhtim sad by spreading hateful fascist lies!

We are all familiar with the standard conspiracy theories: NASA faked the Moon landing on a Hollywood soundstage, President Kennedy was shot by another gunman who was working for the CIA/the mob, all world leaders are actually reptilian aliens from Alpha Centauri, and the others. If you’re a gun person, though, there’s one other conspiracy theory you probably know: The official history that Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the AK-47 assault rifle was a Soviet hoax, propagated by state agents as a propaganda narrative to promote the idea of Soviet exceptionalism.

And I’m here to tell you that this conspiracy theory is complete bunk.

A disclaimer is in order. I am not a fan of communism, nor of the Soviet Union. My thesis here is based on the evidence, not a political agenda or narrative. I have looked at the facts as honestly as I am able, and come to a conclusion: The idea that Mikhail Kalashnikov was not responsible – in at least the usual fashion that designers are responsible for their work – for the design of the AK-47 rifle is not at all supported by fact.

Now, let’s look at some of the common arguments that crop up under the umbrella of this theory and examine why they are evidently false:

 

1. The StG-44 was the first assault rifle, so the Soviets must have copied the concept from the Germans.

A staple argument of this conspiracy theory is that the AK-47 is a similar weapon to the German StG-44, which preceded it, and therefore isn’t a Soviet product or idea. It is certainly true that the Nazi sturmgewehrs were the first truly successful assault rifle designs in the world, but the relationship between the StG-44 and AK-47 is often presented in an overly simplistic way that ignores much of the surrounding context. It follows then that, to counter this argument, we need to understand some of the context surrounding these weapons.

The idea of an assault rifle was born in several Entente countries nearly simultaneously during and immediately after World War I, as a way to give assaulting infantry the ability to counter static machine guns. There is a strong argument to be made that the CSRG Mle. 1915 Chauchat, M1918 BAR, and “Assault Phase Rifle” designed by Colonel Lewis (which was the first weapon to actually be called an “assault rifle”) all represent the earliest incarnations of the concept, even though they fire full-power ammunition. However, intermediate-caliber designs existed at the time, as well, such as the American Burton Machine Rifle, French Ribeyrolles 1918 machine carbine, and Russian Fedorov Avtomat. After the war, the idea of an “assault rifle” persisted in engineering circles, and many different intermediate rounds were developed (and one – the 7.35x50mm – even adopted in Italy) along with semiautomatic and select-fire weapons to fire them.

Therefore, the appearance of the Nazi sturmgewehrs on the battlefield in World War II was not completely unprecedented. Germany had obviously taken the concept of an assault rifle further than anyone else before, but Soviet engineers would likely have been at least aware that the concept existed previously – not the least because the old Fedorov Avtomats had actually seen action in the Winter War of 1940 and in World War II! Indeed, Vladimir Fedorov would continue working as a small arms engineer well after World War I, and he was directly involved in the mid-1940s in the effort to adopt the 7.62mm short M43 caliber (then 7.62x41mm, later 7.62x39mm).

The original 7.62x41mm caliber developed in 1943 was a precursor to the now-ubiquitous 7.62x39mm.

The original 7.62x41mm caliber developed in 1943 was a precursor to the now-ubiquitous 7.62x39mm. This round was a direct response to the German 7.92x33mm Kurz, but it preceded the invention of the AK-47 by four years.

 

This isn’t to say that the sturmgewehr didn’t make an impression on the Soviets: It’s difficult to imagine an enemy small arm that had as much impact on Soviet small arms design as the StG-44, but put into context the weapon represents more the proving out of a pre-existing idea than the introduction of something completely new.

We should also consider the Soviets’ combat experience with their own weapons. The Red Army had successfully fielded millions of PPSh-41 and PPS-43 submachine guns, sometimes to entire battalions of submachine gun-armed soldiers. This experience demonstrated that even the limitations of a submachine gun were not such a disadvantage that these weapons could not be used as universal weapons at least in some cases. From that unique vantage point, the acceptance of the assault rifle idea seems entirely natural, even without the existence of the German sturmgewehrs.

 

2. The Russians captured German engineers after the war, so it must have been Germans who invented the AK-47, not Russian engineers.

There’s a certain logic to this argument, by way of analogy to the American rocket program in the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s. As part of Operation Paperclip in 1945, the United States captured hundreds of German scientists and engineers and put them to work wherever they could, most famously at the task of developing new rocket launch vehicles for use as military missiles. These experts became a crucial part of the later US space program, and to this day aeronautical engineer (and former member of the Nazi Party) Wernher von Braun is still the person most closely associated with the development of the Saturn family of rockets that took US astronauts to the Moon.

Wernher_von_Braun

Wernher von Braun is recognized as one of the chief architects of the USA’s space program after World War II. Here he is posing in front of models of some NASA rockets: Atlas-Centaur, Saturn I (unmanned and crewed), Saturn IB, and Saturn V. Before the war, von Braun was a member of the Nazi Party, and worked developing missiles for the Third Reich, most famously the V-2.

 

This history then creates the framework for a narrative where German technical experts are captured by the Soviet Union and put to work in a similar fashion – and indeed they were. However, this fact doesn’t imply that the results of Soviet post-war rearmament efforts were the products of German engineering, and in fact the evidence suggests otherwise. One of the most obvious facts is that the Russian program to develop an assault rifle was in high gear by early 1944, well before any German small arms engineers were ever captured. In fact, ten different Russian assault rifle designs competed in trials in early 1944, including designs by Tokarev (AT-44), Shpagin (ASh-44), and Sudaev (AS-44). Sudaev’s design in particular was so successful that trial quantities were ordered and the rifle saw limited service at the end of the war.

By the time German technical expertise was being incorporated in 1945-1946, they were not forming the core of a new program, but rather joining an already mature Russian design effort to develop an advanced assault rifle. In this light, the development of an assault rifle by Russian engineers seems entirely plausible, and it cannot be assumed without extremely explicit evidence that this history was created from whole cloth for propaganda purposes.

 

3. The Germans developed the advanced stamping techniques for the StG-44 that made the AK-47 possible.

It’s true that Germany was one of the biggest innovators in the field of metal stamping during World War II, but the Russians were no strangers to it, either. The aforementioned PPSh-41 and PPS-43 submachine guns were both stamped weapons made in very large quantities, and it stands to reason that the Russians would know that any new weapon designed to be made in similar quantities in the event of another world war should also be made of stampings.

One detail of special note is the substantial difference in the kind of stampings used in the AK and the StG-44. The Germans during World War II had a shortage of alloying agents like chrome and molybdenum, and one of the primary requirements for the new assault rifle was that it use as little alloy steel as possible – preferably none at all. As a result, the stamped receiver pieces of the StG-44 were made of weak mild steel sheets which were bent again and again in several operations to increase their strength, a process which gives the rifle its distinctive industrial looking ridges and bumps.

P1030616

The strengthening ridges are highly visible on the receivers of this MP.43-marked sturmgewehr. Contrast that with the very slab-sided look of the AK’s stamped receiver, below. Image courtesy of Alex C, used with permission.

 

The receiver of the AK represents a different approach to stamping. Instead of being soft iron with only a small amount of carbon, the receiver of a stamped Kalashnikov uses higher strength alloy steel (exactly what alloy is used depends on manufacturer; American AK manufacturers tend to use 4130 chromoly steel, while Izhevsk reportedly uses 30KhGSA steel for their receivers) that usually incorporates molybdenum, chromium, and silicon in the alloy. While the receiver shell of an StG-44 needs a series of complex ridges and bumps to give it strength, the receiver of an AK does not, since its strength comes from its composition more than its shape. As a result, AK receivers can be stamped in very few operations, and the rifles made more quickly.

wmtype-1-ak-eod-005-(1)

Note how there are no strengthening ribs or ridges on the receiver of this stamped Type 1 AK. To compensate, the receiver must be made of stronger alloy steel, but fewer operations are required for its manufacture. Image source: theakforum.net

 

This discussion of “pig iron” and “alloy steel” might give some the impression that I am being hard on the StG-44, but that’s not my point. Actually, the fact that the StG-44 did not use any valuable alloys was very beneficial to the Nazi war machine during World War II, as Germany did not have enough of these alloying agents to use for mere rifle production. Rather, the thrust is to highlight the difference between how these two weapons were made, and to drive home that “not all stamping is created equal”. From the executive summary of the Auto/Steel Partnership’s manual on high strength steel (HSS) stamping:

HSS often requires die processes different from those used for mild steels in order to achieve a quality stamping. Recent HSS studies at the Auto/Steel Partnership have shown that, in the range of 275 – 420 MPa (40 – 60 KSI yield strength), the wrong die process was a much greater contributor to poor part quality than material property variation. This includes the effects on wall opening angle, side-wall curl, offset flange angle and panel twist.

The product designer must understand the material characteristics and the proposed die process in order to produce a workable part design. Abrupt changes in part geometry and/or uneven depth of draw make HSS parts more difficult to produce.

[Emphasis mine]

The Germans gained a lot of experience in stampings from the sturmgewehrs, but not in doing the particular kind of operations that were eventually used in the AK-47 rifle. For what Kalashnikov’s design required, the Soviets would mostly have had to pave their own way.

Another reason we have to believe the stampings used to create the AK receivers weren’t significant beneficiaries of German manufacturing technology is how long they took to perfect. Consider that the Tupolev Tu-4, a Soviet copy of the American B-29 strategic bomber, took only three years to reach production from the 1944 capture of the originals. In contrast, it took Soviet engineers over a decade from the capture of German stamping equipment and expertise in 1945 to perfect the kind of alloy stamping needed for the eventual AKM. This fact leads me to believe that Soviet engineers were doing something with the AK that took a lot of innovating on their part, and not just copying work that Germans had already done.

 

There is so much ground to cover here that we really must take a break. Therefore, I’ve decided to split this post into two parts, with the second coming tomorrow. Please be patient, and stay tuned!



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Nicholas Mew

    It still puzzles me that people believe that the Soviets copied the STG for the AK. A fine article, I look forward to the next.

    • Tom

      I think it is largely a result of the belief in Teutonic infallibility when it comes to engineering especially weapons combined with the belief that the Soviets were essentially a bunch of primitives living in a pre-industrial society.

      • iksnilol

        Well, kinda industrial. I mean, they had hammers and vodka, right?

      • Bob

        I forget where I read it, but I believe I once read that the German efforts to produce a semi automatic rifle were significantly influenced by their troops going crazy over the “high tech” SVT 40 that was kicking their butts on numerous occasions. In other words, the so clever Nazis were being shot up by a superior piece of technology invented by the so backwards Russians…

        Oops, someone wasn’t reading the script I guess. I’m pretty sure it said Germans had the best tech of WW2, period, no contest. ;D

    • Richard

      It does get really annoying when people continually pass that myth around.

    • Be FARE

      The first assault or call it a battle rifle, or just an automatic rifle, was the FEDOROV avtomat circa 1915. PERIOD.

      Now, look at the M14 – it was inspired by Fedorov. The same look, the same concept. It is obvious. The Russians designed the first assault rifle. The Russians invented the concept. So, a discussion should start from this: the Germans adopted the concept of an automatic rifle from the Russians, as did the Americans with their BAR, and all the others.

      The Fedorov Avtomat was used in the WWI, and in the Winter War so it indeed was the first successful assault rifle.

      • valorius

        I’m sorry that’s just not correct. The Fedorov used a full powered cartridge, not an intermediate cartridge, which is one of the defining qualities of an assault rifle.

        It was also overly complex and not very successful.

        • Kivaari

          The 6.5mm Japanese is considered an intermediate rounds when compared to the other rounds in use. Compared to the .303, .30-06, 7.9mm and 7.6mm the little 6.5mms in use are quite a bit less powerful. Fedorov chose the round specifically for the fact that it was less powerful.

          • valorius

            The 6.5mm has a 50mm case and develops 2000lbs of muzzle energy. Come on now.

          • From a 31.5″ barrel. Out of the Fedorov’s 20.5″ spout, it produces just 1,420 ft-lbs.

          • valorius

            The Arisaka has a 26″ barrel, not 31″.

            The specs quoted for the cartridge on wiki are, one would assume, based on the performance achieved in the Arisaka rifle.

            Especially given that the Arisaka page lists the same performance specs as the wiki page for the 6.5mm cartridge.

            A 6.5x50mm cartridge developing over 2000fpe of energy is anything but an intermediate.

          • Kivaari

            I’d go with Nathan on this. The 6.5 Japanese is a small case. It is substantially less powerful than the 7.7mm Japanese.

          • valorius

            OK then, a 6.5x50mm is a small case. I guess that make the 5.56x45mm a peewee. 😉

          • ostiariusalpha

            The 6.5 Ari is not that small of a case, but it is a low pressure (and therefore weak) cartridge. Even the .243 Win, with puny 55 gr bullets, outperforms the 6.5x50mm.

          • Kivaari

            The 6.5mm rifle cases of the era (other than the Swede) are the same diameter of the 7.62x39mm. They had long necks and the usable case capacity was small compared to the Mauser based rounds like the .30-06, 7.9mm or 7.7mm. They were all small rounds. The Japanese load settled on a 139 gr. bullet at modest velocities.

          • valorius

            Cartridge capacities:

            5.56mm 28.8gr
            8mm kurz 34.3gr
            7.62x39mm 35.6gr
            6.5mm arisaka 45gr

          • Kivaari

            I’ll grant you that the 6.5mm rifles of the era are technically not true intermediate cartridges, they just perform like intermediate cartridges. The performance of those rounds is matched or exceeded by today’s intermediate 6.5mm and similar cartridges. Fedorov chose the round because of its lower power and recoil. A 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8 SPC are pretty damn close to performing like all those old rounds. They fit into an AR sized rifle easily.

          • valorius

            Your logic is infallable as always my friend. 😉

          • ostiariusalpha

            One has assumed wrong there, pal.

          • Kivaari

            Wrong. The type 38 comes in three barrel lengths;
            (Rifle) 31.45″
            (Medium rifle) 25.25″
            (Carbine) 19.9″

          • ostiariusalpha

            And that ft/lb measurement is very much from the 31″ barrel.

          • Kivaari

            AND Federov used the little 6.5mm because it provided less recoil and therefore better control in automatic firing and because it was already in common usage in the Russian military.

  • GD Ajax

    The Nazi’s invented the AK-47? Dumb ass wehraboos must be getting desperate these days.

    • Der Fuhrer’s Furor

      The AK was based off of the Stg44- the J#w Bolshie media would like everyone to believe otherwise. Nathaniel F now gets a cookie for being a good little tool.

      • Kevin Harron

        ^Dumbass wehraboo^ as mentioned above.

  • Spike

    Given how the Germans like to over engineer everything, how could the crude (sorry Mikhail) AK be mistaken for anything other than Russian?

    • Tritro29

      AK’s became crude because the GRAU wanted them cheap and under the production tempo of a Mosin (12 hours). That’s why it took 10 years to perfect. If the Paranoid people at the helm would have been more lenient, you could have a better universal rifle based on a different design with a better recoil management, ergonomics and probably a better sight system. But Uncle Joe and American military leadership taught us that quantity and logistics are the two hands you need to win anything. So we went with crude.

      • Renato H. M. de Oliveira

        But Uncle Joe and American military leadership taught us that quantity and logistics are the two hands you need to win anything

        Nazis (initially) had far more quality than anyone else could possibly manage to achieve. Their logistics also were second to none.

        Thankfully, they couldn’t couple such high quality and good logistics with the numbers necessary to crush the Allies. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f59c640da1a8a439c4d2673ae9ee93d3e240a05d6d543f335bfc815e32cf0c39.jpg

        • codfilet

          Good german logistics? They were still using mass amounts of horses in 1944, when we were moving our ammo, gas and food with a flood of 2 1/2 ton 6×6 trucks. So were the Soviets, with lend-lease Studebakers.

          • Renato H. M. de Oliveira

            They started the war using trains. By 1944 the Allies had all but crushed their railroads. They had no choice but to use horses.

          • codfilet

            No, they were using horses right from the start in 1939. They had small quantities of trucks, but they were too small, and not 6×6.

          • Kivaari

            Lots of horses in the ’39 invasion of Poland.

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            Absolutely correct. During the course of the war, the Germans went through over 2.5 million horses. They lost nearly 150,000 at Stalingrad alone.

          • Tritro29

            Nope Germans were using horses since forever. Train logistics are at Brigade level at best.

          • Der Fuhrer’s Furor

            It also took a 20M man armed contingent to defeat only 6M brave men of the Reich in their battle against the same International J#w banking cabal that enslaves the world in debt to this very day. “We fought the wrong side”- General George S Patton.

          • codfilet

            Well, I do think we should not have fought against Germany. Too bad they declared war on us first.

          • Der Fuhrer’s Furor

            England declared war on Germany initially

          • Kivaari

            Germany invaded Poland. The UK had a treaty with Poland that should they be invaded the British would declare war on the aggressor nation. Germany started it all. Filthy German fascists.

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            The Soviet Union invaded Poland 16 days after the Germans did. Somehow we forget that about our glorious Bolshevik allies.

          • Tritro29

            And France, UK and Italy accepted German occupation of Spain, Austria and even partitioned Czechoslovakia, that too we tend to forget about our glorious colonialist allies. Blame game.

          • CapeMorgan

            Germany never occupied Spain. Just stop. You are making a fool of yourself.

          • Tritro29

            Germany came illegally in defense of Franco, they were illegally occupying the territory of the Spanish Republic backing the golpists. Yes, I know they don’t teach history anymore in Potatoland, but you should try it.

          • CapeMorgan

            You claimed that they occupied Spain Comrade. You were wrong and have been concerning history on this thread the entire time. You just whitewash Soviet war crimes, genocide and ethnic cleansing using strange passive aggressive language. Your history ignores the Soviet attacks in 1917 against Poland, the Baltic Republics, Moldova, Ukraine etc. And you ignore the Winter War in the thirties. I imagine you applaud the Katyn Forest Massacre. Stop referencing your Soviet history books…they were made up history. Stick to guns. Like I said you just look foolish Comrade. Bless your little heart.

          • Tritro29

            They stationed illegally troops in a Spanish territory, that’s occupation. You want to be right, I understand that, but you can’t be right. I whitewash what exactly. Am I saying that didn’t happen? Nope I’m saying that didn’t happen ex-nihilo, there was a process. Now the schooling part.

            ° Soviet attacks against Poland in 1917? Ok, now you’re just too funny. Poland would be reinstated as an Independent country well after November 1918. The exact moment was June 1919, in France. And Polish territories, would only be settled (nevermind the Soviet Revolutionary war) in 1923, because Poles had these funny ideas about Polonizing territories and people, including the Independent state of Ukraine. The most difficult border to settle was with the German Republic.
            ° Baltic Republics. Well As I said, the Baltics per se, weren’t going to exist, because no one recognized the partition at Brest Litovsk. And with parties like Unity in Poland, Lithuania would have looked a bit … you know smaller.
            ° Moldova…how did the Soviet Union attack a country that the Bolsheviks created? If you mean Bessarabia, then it’s like the Russian Empire who took it from the Ottomans, then the Romanian chaps that simply annexed it during the Civil war turmoil. Not unlike what Putin did in Crimea.
            ° Ukraine, what is it going to be now, Golodibil or some other holocaust the Russians committed on the poor Ukrainians? It’s always the same thing with Russia’s Best Korea.
            ° Winter War in the 30’s…you mean like the last month of the 1939 until 1945? That one? The one we provoked by sheer stupidity, but that ended up being exactly what Finland pretended not to be, a Finish participation in the Axis by default? That one? From a strategical point of view, it was extremely logical to have the Finns pushed back, as the Siege of Leningrad proved. It was a disaster and utterly shameful, but I’m not going to be sorry when people make these decisions to protect themselves.
            ° Why would I applaud an horrible massacre, especially as it proved extremely counter productive, with most AK fighting us even more bitterly than the Nazis. Not that they needed Katyn to hate us more. After all we’re talking about the White Talibans here.

            Let me just say that your little cute speech with zero references, or intelligent input makes me laugh. Unlike you who seems specialized in PISS history made from potatoes and Ebil communists my graduation was done in Europe as I couldn’t enroll myself at the University, I was drafted and couldn’t pay to dodge it, which was a blessing because I got the chance to study abroad, partly. Poor White Taliban, thinking you know stuff, when you don’t know jack. Don’t worry, I pity you and your crusade for you have failed in the past due to the same idiotic mindset.

          • CapeMorgan

            The Soviets stationed troops in Spain too. That is history, not even the Politburo can change that. There was a civil war in Spain which obviously is too complicated for you to understand. After WW1 the Soviets attacked Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia, Moldovia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Fact. They used forces to keep toher Republics in the “Union”. Fact. You can slander people by calling them White Taliban Comrade but that just shows that your conditioning by the Party was successful and you must have scored well in the Party ranks. Unfortunately, Russia had a chance to become a democratic nation twenty five years ago but they blew it. They always do. All you do is inflame folks with your party rhetoric and inane name calling. You have been schooled repeated and advised to just stick with guns. That is your problem. You are lucky that University in Europe does not require entrance exams or you would not have gotten in. Class is over. You are dismissed. Bless your little heart. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            °Unlike the Germans the Soviets were called upon by the Spanish Republic. That’s the whole point of legitimacy and legality. Yes your demagogue ass can’t change that. If you want to know more learn why the Germans couldn’t be seen in Spain and why their U-Boote and their planes fought without insignias initially. There was no civil war in Spain, as for the whole 1936 year the Spanish “rebels” which were colonial troops for most part, spearheaded in Spain by Italian and German firepower. So now because there’s a civil war there’s no more legal government? Did you knew that the Spanish Republic would be backed verbally by the LoN until the very last day?

            ° Now which is it going to be. After WW1, During WW1 make up your mind, mister revisionist.

            -Polish issue. Soviets tried to reclaim what they had lost, Poles tried to go beyond the Curzon line. If you know jack you wouldn’t talk about Bolshevik Agression. Because the Curzon line was taking out territory that was “Russian” to begin with. However, because you are a nice little White Taliban, you missed two things. First the Soviet-Polish war was caused by a Polish attack on Kiev (May 1920). Second this was done in concert with the last large scale White Army offensive in Russia. Basically this was a concerted aggressive effort from to further destabilize Russia and get away with its land. You know history.
            -Lithuanian issue. Subsequent to the Soviet-Polish war, the fate of Lithuania was settled. Half of its Imperial territory was taken by Poland under jack-all reasons. Mainly the French wanting to keep Poland as a client.
            -Latvian Issue. Given the percentage of Latvian Bolsheviks in the first years of the Revolution, I’d say we had to use some White Talibans, called Red (Taliban) Streloks for our own purpose. Furthermore, Latvia never managed to become fully independent in the sense that they had to ride along with Poland during the whole interwar period and give up an important stretch of land in exchange of Polish support.
            – Moldova, was attacked and occupied by Romania as early as September 1918. Which was dead in the middle of the Allied offensive on the Western Front. The Democratic Republic of Moldova never wanted to become part of the Romanian Kingdom. That is an historical fact.
            -Belarus? What now? Belarus was attacked by the Independent state of Ukraine the Poles and even the frigging Freikorps and the Germans during the “defense” of Latvia. Why would the Soviet attack their most prosperous hotbed of bolshevism (Jewish settlements)? Do you have any clue about the Russian Civil war or are you trying to make up this as you go?

            Russia inflames people with party rhetoric?I don’t know what to say, because in general Russian people are extremely apathetic when it comes to party nonsense. The only thing that Russians get riled upon is svidomites that come out of nowhere and try to pretend they know something about us. Schooled? By whom? You? Half your examples were based on thin air, there rest on crass ignorance. At some point, you made me regret some other posters around here who at least are wittier and funnier. You can always dismiss your pakol, mister white talibanana.

          • CapeMorgan

            There was a civil war in Spain. Fact. You are so used to the Soviets changing history that you can’t even tell anymore what is the truth. The LON was neutral. They supported an arms embargo. Fact. Soviets attacked Estonia, Latvia, Poland. Fact. Estonia declared independence and Soviets attacked. See Treaty of Tartu. Soviets violated treaty in 1940 by occupying Estonia. Mass deportations followed. Fact
            Latvia declared independence in 1918. Attacked by Soviets in 1939. Leadership liquidated. German Baltic citizens deported. Fact. Treaty of 1920 violated. Fact.
            Lithuania declared independence in 1918.In June 1940, the Soviet Union occupied and annexed Lithuania in accordance to the secret protocols of Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. The occupation was followed by mass arrests and deportations as usual. Fact.
            Moldova. Bessarabia proclaimed independence from Russia on February 6 1918 and requested the assistance of the French army present in Romania and of the Romanian army, which had occupied the region in early January at the request of the National Council. Fact. In 1940 was seized by Soviets under their pact with Germany. Fact.
            Belarus. Declared independence in 1918. Attacked and incorporated into Soviet sphere. The Rada BNR still exists as a government in exile and attempts to lobby for interests of the Belarusian diaspora in countries where it has its representatives. Fact.
            I won’t bother mentioning Poland or Ukraine. It is well researched in reputable history books. You should read them. Suffice to say, Soviets attacked Poland/Ukraine in `9`8/1920 and deported and liquidated citizens as per their standard policy of terror. Soviets goal was spreading their rule into Germany. Fact.
            You get riled up because you are wrong and sensitive about past crimes and apparently you miss the Empire. That is on you. Get over it the Soviet era is over. School is out, and class is dismissed. You failed. Bless your little heart.

          • Tritro29

            °Once again, recall me whose delegation was at the LoN, Franco’s or Republican one? Recall me who claimed a non-Intervention policy in Spain? The LoN or France and the UK? LoN could never support an Arms Embargo as it couldn’t be voted in, the French and UK effectively ran a parallel non-intervention platform. Who failed, just like they had failed to stop Italy in Ethiopia.

            °Potatolond White Taliban still doesn’t understand that Poland was no innocent victim at the end of WW1? Recall me what was exactly the aim of the Polish Kiev offensive? Why Kiev? And why Poland insisted on going as deep as possible through Belarus? Simple fact of life, Poles were as aggressive and imperialistic as anyone at the end of WW1. Explain to me how innocent White Taliban state went to Cherkassy, open a map to understand where Cherkassy is? Explain to me why these democratic Taliban wanted to take Minsk, Kiev and Vilnius? I’m not counting on the rest of their “demands” by July 1920. It would be indecent.
            ° Treaty of Tartu came while the Soviets were facing three armies. Once again it was Russian imperial possession, I can very well understand why the Soviets thought it was a good idea to take up. The Curland pocket would be a sore thumb for the whole WW2. Strategic thinking has nothing to do with democracy or freedom. You might not like it, but I don’t think any difference from past such maneuvers.
            °Lithuania. Once again, the shortcuts are nice and short, which is normal, White Taliban can’t do much complicated, it boils your little head. Lithuanian territory was carved up by Poland, right until Poland ceased to exist. In 1939, the Lithuanian Republic even got back Vilnius during the invasion. What can I say, we started from Soviets attacking after WW1 (I bet had the US been dismantled they would have gone to the offensive as soon as they could fight back).
            °Rada of the BNR, see this is again one of the oldest tricks in the book. I see you have only two other posts excluding this nice conversation, which makes me think this is a sock puppet account. And this is why I think you’re just a casual troll, fighting for the usual crapola as far as you can “hit” on the Russians.
            The Belarussian National Rada wasn’t “chased” by the Soviets, but it was rendered inoperable by three things.
            – Non international recognition. No one would recognize the BNR (except Lithuania which did so again Poland).
            – Polish occupation of parts of Belarus and the Occupation of Minsk, Lida definitvely destroyed any hope for a Natinalist Belarus, especially as the BNR wanted to ride the Polish tide to get its partitioned republic.
            – Competing SFRB which was viable and had enough backing to regain most of its territory and keep it until this day. Yes Criminal Soviets managed to do what “diaspora” BNR couldn’t do in 100 years.
            ° Moldova proclaimed independence while being occupied and attacked by Romania? How come they didn’t stay independent these Moldovans, you know just like today? Because the Moldovan “independence” was the forefather of the Crimean referendum. Romanian “pacified” Bessarabia, cleared it and then “voted it” as part of the Romanian Kingdom. Yes it’s easy when you’re not a white Taliban. You can’t have two same phenomenons be different in their legality. That’s simply impossible.
            ° Ukraine should be funny and interesting, because Ukrainians themselves can’t agree on it.

            So Soviet attack Ukraine and Poland which both are warring factions in the russian Civil War and Polish war of expansion (notably in Ukraine) and are attacking each other, while attacking the White Russian armies and the Soviets? No Polish Grand Offensive in 1919 or Polish push towards Daugavpils or Polish imperialism in Galicia? No, no, no, just the Soviets which were demons. Nothing can explain better things that some half-assed reason that includes people being crazy and criminal. Soviet goal wasn’t to “spread” their rule into Germany, the goal was to “liberate” the working class. Germany happened to be mature for a working class takeover, which it was. Ironically, many Russian Nationalists claim that Russia was defeated by Germans sending Lenin back to disrupt and destroy the Empire. I’m sure you believe that one too. I get riled up because your have the historical accuracy of WW1 bomb, which is not much and are politically motivated to prove one point. Russia is ebil. OK.

            So far I’ve pretty much nuanced, destroyed and made look like a Wikipedia fool. You can try and try and try. It’s bemusing.

          • CapeMorgan

            Sorry Comrade. You can dance around the facts all you want. The Soviets attacked countries after WW1 and attacked countries prior to WW2. Fact. In those countries they committed war crimes and ethnic cleansing. Fact. Grow up and deal with it. You are acting like a child. There are plenty of real history books available…stop regurgitating the Party indoctrination. It is pathetic. and sad. Bless your little heart. Like I said I am tired schooling you. You are dismissed. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            I made a thorough rebutal and explanation of all the points you try to make.
            Bolshevik Policy and military campaign stems from the circumstances they found themselves out. Pretty much like the French Revolutionaries. I don’t exactly have the time to bash your head on a history book again and again, because the point is else, I’m not refuting ANY of the crimes you’re accusing the Soviets be that in retaliation or in a strategic, planned fashion, not that the Bolsheviks were hell bent to go Final Solution on anyone.

            However you have gone from trying to support a string of ill prepared propaganda points (I’d say those reek of post Cold War staples) to taking nice and cosy short cuts. Like ethnic cleansing, war crimes bla bla bla. Yes, great discovery, the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Unions have gone to war…and have gone to war for tactical, strategic and sometimes petty reasons.

            I don’t defend any of those positions, at best I’m tried to put them in context. But as said before you seem to run out of substance pretty fast. Pretty, darn, fast. Typical of the White Taliban.

            i can’t be schooled by people who haven’t seen the broad side of a dictionary for ages. You’re funny like that.

          • CapeMorgan

            Sorry Comrade, you did not make any rebuttals…you were being incoherent as usual and just spouting propaganda…as usual. That is a typical Russian characteristic; as in constant lying. That is your problem. The days of Empire are over for you..deal with it. Like I said my child, school is out, class is dismissed. Go away and play with your Empire toys.

          • Kivaari

            It’s hard for this American to come to positive feeling about the Germans (and allies) and the Soviet Unions wanton destruction of life prior to and during WW2. Two of the most evil governments man has created leave little to respect in either society. Germany was wrong on every level of the war. The Soviets were so wrong on everything they did from the Revolution on. Now the Russians are once more being viewed as a threat. It doesn’t have to be, but it seems greed has taken hold in Putins mind.

          • Tritro29

            I don’t understand how an American can talk about evil given your founding history. However i don’t care you can think what you want.

          • Kivaari

            It’s just that the 1900s saw tens of millions killed compared to tens of thousands. Nothing excuses the abuses of the white man towards the indigenous people of the Americas. But, when the Spanish observed the thousands of people murdered in religious ceremonies they were shocked. That resulted in the death of the leaders and the enslavement of the natives. All bad stuff.
            There is nothing quite like the intentional murder of so many people during the 20th century.

          • Tritro29

            It’s always hilarious when principle-driven gentlemen quickly switch to a numbers race to the bottom when tackled on their principles. Don’t change.

          • Kivaari

            It has nothing to do with simply the math. All the killings mattered. We are a vicious species and we would hope we would develop beyond the ISIS level of thinking – or the Russian bombing response in Alleppo. At least we try to avoid civilian deaths. WE try to avoid civilians, we do screw up. Today the Russians are intentionally bombing civilians.

          • Tritro29

            … Sure. Another special case of Russia-Ebil.

          • Kivaari

            If they were not so aggressive outside their borders that might help their image.

          • Tritro29

            Is an American talking about Country X being aggressive outside national borders, really? Really?

          • Kivaari

            Different motivation. We go to do good that benefits the majority of the worlds people. The fact that so much of the world does see us as the worlds policeman. I know I look at Russian going into Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria it strikes me as not being done so for good causes, just greed.

          • Tritro29

            … Wow this is a whole new level of trolling. Greed? I think I’m going to need a whole pharmacy worth of aspirine after reading this. Just remember Because you supposedly did “good” in Iraq, we’re forced to deal with ISIS, AQ in Syria and a whole band of Jihadis. If anything your interventions have resulted in utter disaster these last 4 decades. Way to do “good” man.

          • Frank Martin

            Don’t forget.. Germany and the Soviet Union had a Non-aggression pact before Poland.. It was Germany who broke that agreement in 1941

          • Kivaari

            I didn’t. We had to become allies with the devil to win the war. Russia remains a threat to the west. Too bad.

          • MPWS

            Poland was not entirely innocent either. Poland as ‘new nation’ was created after WWI by international council (GB, US and France) out of nothing on formerly German territory. Yet, Polish were not satisfied and were issuing threat to Germany (famous was their military leader Smiglo, who claimed that they will be on horses in 3 weeks in Berlin). In addition, Germany was not satisfied either since their demand to create “corridor to Danzig” was not headed.

            There was ongoing conflict in Upper Silesia since 1920s at which Germans managed to defend their territory against Polish expansion. This and British assurances of assistance (largely unmaterialized) all played into tense situation. At he end it was Germany who took initiative with tragic results for all of Europe.

          • Education

            Judea declared war on Germany first. And all of what followed was just a planned operation of restructuring the world, and the main objective was to create the state of Israel.

            Hitler was a Zionist puppet. And so was Stalin. And the so-called allies. All of them.

            American Zionist bankers financed both the Soviet “revolution” and the Nazi movement. President Truman was a 33 degree Freemason. All the big commies were Freemasons, too.

          • Kivaari

            Freemasonry has nothing in common with Communism or Fascism. Masons have much more in common with Western Republicanism.

          • Kivaari

            So you support the German in killing 10 million people in their quest for racial purity and the theft of land and resources belonging to others?

          • Kivaari

            We don’t need any NAZI pukes here. It wasn’t just Germans fighting. It involved millions of Italians, Romanians, Finns, Hungarians, Bulgarians all on the eastern front.

          • iksnilol

            Now you’re just making the folks i dislike into a rainbow brigade.

            Too bad about Hungary. Kinda liked it, too bad it went to crap in the last years. Eeeh, who cares? I got some brandy and other problems to take care of.

          • Kivaari

            We made the Soviets allies to defeat the filthy Germans. Sure the Soviets were an enemy in waiting, but at the moment it was the Germans and their allies that needed defeating. Why did the Soviets get all of eastern Europe? Well, they were all german allies and they had to fight all those armies as well. Did it work out well for the /West? NO. But we killed the German menace.

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            “they were all german allies” Do you mean countries like Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia that the Soviet Union invaded simply to acquire territory and enslave their populations?

          • Tritro29

            Tell me what was Poland 20 years prior WW2? A partitioned land. From that perspective, i find it pretty interesting that suddenly Germans start talking about sovereign countries, while we gave them up after WW1. Not that I advocate to get them back, bunch of white Talibans, more backwards than a Medieval cart. Fun fact, it was OK to let Austria and Czechoslovakia be partitioned (including a piece that went to Poland) but god Forbid the Soviet did that. Meanwhile the US had just absorbed Hawaii and rejected 5 years in a row Philippine’s independence vote. Funny how you Germans become all peace loving doves once you’ve been beaten to the pulp. Crap like this, makes me think it was a good thing the US got to win, at least they can pretend to defend democracy their own unique way.

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            I’m not German, I’m an American of Austrian descent.

          • Tritro29

            It’s actually even worse.

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            Blow me, commie.

          • Tritro29

            Not a commie my Nazi friend, your stereotyping is blinding you.

          • Klaus Von Schmitto

            And I can’t imagine why you would think I’m a Nazi when all I have done is pointed out that on the whole, Stalin and his Soviet Union perpetrated crimes against peace just as Nazi Germany did. But that’s politics – have a nice day.

          • Tritro29

            Crimes against peace? Interbellum period was a big huge crime against sanity, let alone peace. I don’t care which side you bite anyway, you’re being emphatically defensive for someone not keen to Germans. Also i was just reverting your remark, nothing personal.

          • iksnilol

            G-ddamn Austrians… YOU CREATED THE GLOCK YOU SONS OF WOMEN!

          • iksnilol

            What if I say neither was OK?

            Like, what if? I know, crazy, right?

          • Tritro29

            And you’d be right. 100%. However it doesn’t matter, what was right or wrong here, what matters is the revisionist history the Germans keep harping about. Facts are clear, the end of WW1 made the Interwar period very complicated. We were among the only people who actually didn’t plunder Germany after it was beaten while we would have had all the incentives to do so as they all but dismantled the Empire at Brest Litovsk. Hell without the Soviet exports and imports the German Weimar Republic would have been done for since 1926. From that moment and while the world went to the gutter for 10 long years since the Black Thursday in 1929. Blame the Bolsheviks for actually doing the best thing to defend themselves albeit it was cruel, and criminal.

          • iksnilol

            History is a cruel mistress just like that. I mean, what can you do about it? Less than nothing. Me? I got some brandy and a report to finish and despite being unrelated to history we’re talking about now, is just as close to the history I am going to get… barring any eventual time travel, but that’s what you get for existing almost a 100 years after the party.

          • Tritro29

            The only thing one can do is know it and accept it, not as a personal insult but as a fact. Once you consider it as something that doesn’t harm you personally, then you can talk about it without hurting too much. Fact is that many Russians will admit guilt the moment every one steps forward and does the same. It’s as simple as that.

            Back to the topic, I put a link about two hours ago about the development of the Soviet Avtomat in Russian, check the page when it will be allowed. I promise you will have material to read about.

          • iksnilol

            Good idea, comrade… Still feel i oughta finish my chemistry report first.

          • CapeMorgan

            You really need to stop and just stick with comments regarding guns. Your grasp of history is skewed and obviously biased towards a Stalinist perspective. For example, you forget that the Soviet Union was essentially in a civil war and could not have interfered with Germany anyway. They did try to annex Polish territory after WW2, how convenient for you to forget that. And you always seem to blame democracies when the Soviets annexes territories to create their Soviet empire…including the Baltic Republics, the annexation of Finnish territory and the Asian Soviet Republics,,,areas annexed by force. Calling Poles ‘White Taliban” is bigoted, but of course you know that, that is how you were taught. BTW, the Philippines are a free country, yet the Soviets ethnic cleansing still exists in areas like Konigsberg and Bessarabia and others. Good Day Comrade.

          • n0truscotsman

            Yes. That is a part of WW2 that is rarely depicted and most people ignore.

        • Kivaari

          Germany was dumber than a spruce stump. They started a war they could not win. They never had enough fuel and manufacturing capacity to invade both west and than east. Absolute stupid planning. No one smart enough or brave enough in the German Army to tell Hitler that there was no way in hell they could reach Baka without over running the logistics train and especially the fuel supply.
          German engineering is overrated. German prioritizing its weapons was so screwed up they wasted billions of Marks on building weapons that were used once or never. Tanks that couldn’t even move themselves up slight hill sides. Tank wiring the mice ate. They never had the manufacturing capacity IN Germany to carry out the war. They needed the occupied masses and slave labor to make an inadequate supply of armaments. FUEL was Hitlers goal. He needed Ploesti and Baka to carry out his invasion of Russia. Foolish over reach. German logistics, like the supply train feeding the starving 6th Army at Stalingrad.

          • Renato H. M. de Oliveira

            I stand corrected.
            Thanks for the info and insight.

          • n0truscotsman

            You’re the first other person that I’ve seen arguing what I’ve been preaching about for 30 plus years (since I started reading WW2 history as a kid).

            The supposed “German brilliance” wasn’t. No feasible chain of events could have resulted in the war turning in their favor, even though I love alternative history.

          • Kivaari

            When first exposed to the German superiority in grade school in the 50s, I wondered just what people were talking about. People saw two things as being the representation of all things German. The V1 (ram-jet) and V2 (rocket) bombs. The V1 was dirt simple. The V2 was spectacular – but more people died making them (mostly slave labor) than they killed in combat action against civilians. Even as a kid when I learned of the fuel issue I knew they bit off more than they could chew.

        • valorius

          This is not really true. The western allies had many weapons systems that were not only more advanced than german versions, but higher quality as well.

          The B-29 being a very clear example of this.

          • As is the M4 Sherman.

          • JeepsGunsTanks

            Yes, the Sherman was really a very advanced tank for the time, incorporating a stabilized gun, and hydro electric turret drives, or strait electric, plus all shermans included a auxiliary generator.

            If you want a laugh, and to see just how bad Nazi German engineering was, just look at the rube goldberg setup they use for turret drives in the Panther and Tiger.

            The Germans were behind in so many places, like Navies, piston engine tech, jet tech, yeah they put a crappy one into the air first, that don’t make the 262 actually good. They were really bad at making good tank motors. Heavy bombers were beyond them. Hell, they couldn’t even produce a copy of the cast hull M4A1 Sherman tank, since they couldn’t make castings that large.

          • n0truscotsman

            I think the biggest problem with the tank power plants was the feature creep of the tanks that had the most issues, i.e. panther. From its original concept (more or less a T34 copy) to what it ultimately became, it was an entirely different animal.

            This resulted in more weight, which the engines weren’t designed for.

            IMO American agricultural and industrial machinery experience helped immensely on the reliability of its vehicles.

          • Kivaari

            GMC sent engineers to the Soviet Union to train them how to cast steel for tanks. Before the US team going there the Soviets could not make a tank as tough as the T34.

          • valorius

            The M4A3E8 “Easy eight” was every bit as good if not better than any German tank of the war. The M4A3E2 had more frontal protection than a tiger Tank.

          • Kivaari

            Some people just refuse to understand that being German designed and built doesn’t ensure quality. The myth of German superiority has been ongoing since WW2. Germans simply were not very smart, wasting resources on a wide range of products and never concentrating on making what was known to work in the quantities needed.

        • n0truscotsman

          German understanding of logistics, officer training (staff officers in particular), and the use of railways (since the Franco-Prussian War) was always something to respect, even in WW2. THis can be credited with German success during the early parts of the war as opposed to any sort of hypothetical ‘technical superiority’.

          See “Bewegungskrieg”

          But they, like other nations, lagged behind due to a lack of industrial capacity, modern vehicles, and adequate supplies of POL.

          Understanding the importance of logistics is *far different* than actually having the means and capability to carry out the task.

    • Kivaari

      The STGW is crude. An AK more refined.

  • Max Müller

    In august 1945 the red army was given Thüringen in germany by the us army. They directly went to Suhl and took 50 Stgw’s as well as 10785 technical drawings with them for scientific research.
    In october 45 Hugo Schmeisser was forced into “technical service” for the red army. His comission had one job: to research german weaponry and make it production ready for russia asap.
    24 october 1946 he and other captured german weapon engineers were brought to Ischewsk, where the Ischmasch factory is located since 1807. He was captured untill july 1952, even longer than all other germany weapon engineers who returned home in january.
    The designer of the Stgw was sitting in the factory that produced the AK when it was developed. Kalashnikov definetly did his own part and design elements, but you can’t honestly deny the german influences. A good part of their work was to convert the german design into something that can be easier and cheaper manufactured with what the russians had.

    Sources:
    Norbert Moczarski: Die Ära der Gebrüder Schmeisser in der Waffenfabrik Fa. C. G. Haenel Suhl 1921–1948. Ein weitgehend unbekanntes Kapitel Suhler Industriegeschichte. In: Hildburghausen: Jahrbuch des Hennebergisch-Fränkischen Geschichtsvereins. S. 237–268. 1999.

    Norbert Moczarski: Zwischen Tabu und Legende. Der weltbekannte Suhler Waffenkonstrukteur Hugo Schmeisser (1884–1953). Suhler Reihe Nr. 29, Suhl 2009, 72 Seiten

    • Tritro29

      … And there’s the other problem. the AK”46″ which was closer in technical layout to German design than the product that we see today, was REJECTED! Instead the Bulkin AB46 was kept as a strong hand for victory and the second was a Bullpup rifle from German Korobov (ZOMG his name is German) which would have been a bridge too far for the USSR. If anything, the German designs that were kept relied all on two major influences, Holek and Vollmer which were both completely different from the guns that were brought forth by the Soviet designers from 1944 to 1952. Germans don’t want to let this die, however the Stg 44 legacy didn’t exactly morphed into a Germanized AK, quite ironically it became the STG-45 that was developed into a slightly antiquated but perfectly serviceable system today known as the G3. Fact is that the Germans did not relied on the Voller SG’s or MK’s. They went straight for Holek’s system to build their MKb42. It’s sad that you can’t leave this be while the Americans that know MK borrowed from the Garand, couldn’t care less.

      • Bulkin’s influence is often overstated, I think. It’s clear the AB-46 influenced the AK-47, but the latter certainly was not a copy.

        • Tritro29

          You get my point. If we have to call “dibs” on the AK design, then Bulkin has more of a chance than the STG’s design team. Hell Garand would have a better chance than Schmeisser.

          • Oh yes, absolutely. On both counts.

          • Kivaari

            Didn’t the trigger group of the M1 play a role in the AK as well, not just the inverted gas system?

          • I think the trigger group and bolt were the biggest influences on the AK from the M1. The gas system seems to have been indirect; originally Kalashnikov used a short-stroke system.

    • Kevin Harron

      There is some evidence that he did nothing but drink. Schmiesser was not happy working for the Germans.

      • Klaus Von Schmitto

        Germans? or Russians?

        • Kevin Harron

          Sorry Russians. Not awake yet

    • Youtube’s Best Channel

      I saw a document according to which Hugo Schmeisser tried to sue the Soviets because they had stolen his design without proper royalties. I’ll try to find it and link it later if I do.

      • He felt he was underpaid for his work, but other sources suggest he got paid less because he wasn’t really doing any work.

        • When you mention Schmeisser in the article, could you link sources? I keep hearing about his involvement but nobody seems to have a source to his involvement.

          • Yeah, I’ll source where I can. Honestly, not that much is available on Schmeisser’s time at Izhevsk… Possibly because he didn’t do much there.

    • Oh, we’ll get to Schmeisser in Part 2. Don’t worry.

    • BrandonAKsALot

      By 46 most of the designs were about done that were submitted. If they got there that year, they had very little, if anything to do with initial development of the Kalashnikov considering it was already designed by then.

    • valorius

      Good post.

    • n0truscotsman

      IMO, the entire schmeisser thing is Post Hoc ‘reasoning’.

  • Isaac Newton

    Since you mentioned the reciever so much, It may have been worthwhile to mention the durability (not strength) problems of the early sheet metal receiver AK47 that necessitated switching to a machined receiver and only after circling back on material and rivet design was Mr. Kalashnikov able to get a sheet metal receiver to work in the AKM (circa 1957).

    • Tritro29

      Actually it wasn’t MK, but the team in Tula which handled the experimental work. And it wasn’t 1957, but 1952. Durability is based on how strong the sheet was to begin with. The Chinese went straight to the point when they adopted an RPK-thick receiver (1.5mm) instead or the initial 1mm attempted by the USSR to avoid the whole issue.

    • Kevin Harron

      There is a part two coming. Nate has more to say.

    • I might add a section later.

  • Are there any countries that have screwed up the Kalashnikov rifle more than India and the United States?

    • Klaus Von Schmitto

      Maybe Zimbabwe but it would be close.

    • Joseph Goins

      Well, only two perfected it: Finland and Israel. I guess it makes since that only two screwed it up.

      • iksnilol

        Eh, Galil is meh, it practically weighs as a PKM.

      • B@@@@, Please…

        Yugoslavian AK’s were the best. And they are still making them. Zastava M70

        • Joseph Goins

          Negative. Valmut and Galil

  • Will P.

    On top of that many of the first AKs were milled relievers. It was obvious the German Gerat 06H influence on the CETME/G3 rifles and pretty well any of the early HK rifles. There are some other German concept rifles that you can tell may have had some influence on the AK though, but there are so many differences it’s really hard to even say that. If anything the only real influence I see is that of the 8mm Kurz cartridge.

    • Kivaari

      The Russians even had .22 caliber “assault rifle” cartridges before WW2.

      • iksnilol

        Heavens, no!

    • Kivaari

      If I remember correctly the first AK used a sheet metal receiver. That was weak and they went to a milled receiver until they could come up with a better sheet metal receiver. IIRC there were 4 models. (1) sheet metal (2) milled with separate stock attachment (3) milled (what most of us know as the AK47) and (4) AKM.

  • Walter J Shields

    Partial credit goes to John Browning. Remington model 8 1906 to 1911. Look at that receiver.

    • Tritro29

      … Selector was chosen because it was easier to work with, the receiver was nowhere near the same.

      • Walter James Shields

        Right side charging handle. Safety selector impeding the bolt traveling back, the overall shape of the receiver is virtually the same. I said partial credit. No the whole receiver is not the same. But pretty close.

        • Tritro29

          Right side charging handle was a staple of military selfloaders, check the Mondragon, the Madsen and a lot of similar ideas around the early 20th century. Overall shape of the receiver? What the initial receiver was stamped. The Remington or Winchester self-loaders were milled. Selector and selector system works beyond the Model 8. But there’s no doubt it was taken at least visually from there.

      • marathag

        compare the Rem 8 double hook trigger group and hammer to milled AK setup

        • Tritro29

          … You should know about the Mlle 1917 which is the real starting point for the Garand and AK. The French rifle draws inspiration from the Auto 5/Model 8 patterns. Blame the French.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    Some people *cough* HK Fanboys *cough* cant acknowledge that good firearms have been made by people other than Germans.

    • Klaus Von Schmitto

      There’s a huge difference between “quality” and “serviceable”. It’s hard to compare quality between the worst H&K and the best AK ever.

      • Tritro29

        You put an H&K G3 and a Valmet 83 side by side…I guarantee you, you’re going to cry. I’m not even getting into Sig’s business.

        • Klaus Von Schmitto

          I’ll concede the Valmet was a very, very well made weapon. Sigs are a different story.

          • Tritro29

            You don’t need to concede anything, I’ll be taking the initiative. Now go bloat about AR-15 copies.

        • Kivaari

          Remember the G3 was adopted as a second choice. The G1, FN-FAL, was the first choice. When Belgium wouldn’t license the Germans, the Germans looked around for what else was available. They ended up with a lesser rifle.

      • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

        Its true. Id much rather be shooting a Rifle Dynamics AK than some Century parts kit Franken-HK. Though I dont think any AK pattern rifle could separate me from a HK 416/417.

    • snmp

      BTW G3 rifle is licence base of spanish CETME

    • Chris

      Cz 52 comes to mind !

    • n0truscotsman

      psssh…

      HK fanboys will be the first to preach about the inferiority of ‘eastern junk’, all the while caressing their 3k dollar wunderwaffe that is also stamped steel. 😀

  • A Fascist Corgi

    That most people can’t tell the difference between the StG 44 and the AK-47 is pretty strong evidence that the AK-47 was a ripoff of the StG 44. And since the Soviets were widely known to be liars and history revisionists, trusting their official narrative about anything is pretty stupid. The Soviets despised the Nazis. They’d never admit in a million years that the AK-47 was based on the StG 44 and worked on by captured Nazi engineers.

    • Joseph Goins

      So your evidence is a general distrust of the official history?

      • A Fascist Corgi

        Soviet records are about as accurate as Nathaniel’s calorie tracker.

        • What a cool joke!

        • Joseph Goins

          Я не знаю, что вы знали русский! Когда вы научитесь говорить на языке? Я узнал от проживающих там в течение нескольких лет. Мой немецкий это тоже очень хорошо. Мне пришлось использовать свои архивы для моей докторской диссертации на немецкой войны. Записи были достаточно полными и точными.

    • iksnilol

      Yeah, but explain this: If AK was ripoff of STG, wouldn’t they share mechanical similarity? I mean, their internals are nothing alike.

      • Kevin Harron

        But mah wehraboo dreams. It has a similar outline so it HAZ to be a copy. amIrite?

        • iksnilol

          Basically. Sadly my theory of the M16 being a ripoff of the M56 SMG had yet to gain traction despite the staggering similarity (identical mag curve, small caliber for the time, a barrel + trigger, a magwell, non wooden furniture).

          *Shrug*

    • Do you think oranges are closely related to baseballs, too?

      • A Fascist Corgi

        I’ve never seen anyone confuse a baseball with an orange. In comparison, almost everyone thinks that the StG 44 and the AK-47 are variants of the same rifle.

        • Kevin Harron

          Anyone who thinks that is very ignorant.
          Or a wehraboo. More likely they are a wehraboo.

    • n0truscotsman

      Ill eagerly await your citations to the contrary then.

  • MPWS

    Eventually – justice done. Although this was evident to me on basis of simple rationale from start, eventually it was said. Unfortunately, it appears to be the antagonism toward Russians behind this and excessive credit to Germans is/ was the diving engine.

    Regarding material and its application used on receiver I can say something from my own experience in field of small arms. I was once facing task to work at alternate method of welding receiver and action components for a version of Minimi. The main motivation was to reduce heat input which occurs during original method as was produced at the time by FN (I do not know how is produced currently and what progress, if any took place).

    Part of this effort was also dealing with sheet metal stampings suppliers. They wanted (very explicitly) besides of widest tolerances possible, material with lowest contents of carbon and this is very understandable – for lowest amount of spring-back. During consultations it was deemed that ASTM/ANSI C 1018 would be adequate choice of steel at the time; definitely NOT alloy steel.

  • Jay

    Good article and explains all sides of the process that lead to the AK47.
    1. the cartridge existed already in the red army
    2. Russians had tons of experience with full power ‘assault rifle” and after solid testing decided on an intermediate cartridge
    3. Tactics. The red army was employing entire units armed with “avtomat” (SMGs).
    4. lots of local assault rifle designs appeared in the period immediately before AK47 was selected, and the development of those started long before the Russians had German blueprints and designers.
    5. The actual AK-47 works completely different from the German STG and parts of it’s design can be traced back to local designs.

    The Russians got there on their own. There’s a lot more Sturmgewehr present in the M16 than in the AK47. That’s a fact.

  • MPWS

    Regarding sheet metal used be Soviets at various previous mentioned designs (PPD, PPSh and PPS) it is clear and VERY obvious that they mastered this technique well before commencement of production of AK. If there was more of less stiffening ribs used is an immaterial issue for purpose of the principle of the subject.

    Simply put, the knew it well enough which is proved by fact of millions of produced weapons in harsh circumstances is reasonably sufficient quality – with or without captured Germans.

  • Joseph Goins

    This topic always aggravates me. It’s like saying the Vz58 is an AK variant. The AK-47 designers definitely had samples of the StG44, but they didn’t copy it. There is more evidence that the AR-15 was copied from the StG44 because of the dust cover.

    • nadnerbus

      Yeah, I never saw it. I mean, other than being primarily stamped, cut down case size, and the same general layout (that most rifles of the type share), they really don’t have much in common.

      • valorius

        Ever looked at the piston in an Stg44 and an AK? Very similar designs.

        The Stg44 influenced almost every assault weapon ever made in one way or another.

        • In that they are pistons? I suppose that’s correct…

          • valorius

            Ian at forgotten weapons has done several videos on the Stg, including one comparing it to the AK where he points out the similarities. Check it out.

          • Tritro29

            Ever looked at a ZB 26 piston?

          • valorius

            Nope.

          • Tritro29

            This explains your absolute lack of understanding on where did the Germans find that “superior design”. Well let’s cut the chase and explain you that the STG has more “taken” from the ZB than the AK has from the MKb42/43. Actually the Germans are the guys you folks should look into when it comes to “taking” from others. ZH 29 rifle has some interesting things when looked closely.

          • valorius

            I never said the Stg’s action is unique or ground breaking. What makes it unique and ground breaking is the complete package when viewed as a whole.

            Whether or not the Stg was influenced by the action of the ZB is utterly irrelevant when stating that the AK was influenced by the Stg.

            For instance, saying that the late model corvette’s powertrain layout is influenced (cough, cough copied) from the Porsche 928 from the 1970’s has nothing whatsoever to do with what influenced the design of the 928.

            Your argument is therefore completely and utterly irrelevant to what i stated.

            As far as my “absolute lack of understanding”, get bent cuz.

          • Tritro29

            So let me understand. I point out that the German “package” is just a couple of stampings on top of a Czech design and all you’re saying that what makes it unique is that it worked? OK…From that viewpoint it’s neither unique or ground breaking. I’ve been at odds with Nath about how important the Stg was for the Germans, but ultimately it proved very a dead concept for half the world and it was taken by the USSR because we interpreted the STG wrong. The first attempts to field a weapon with an intermediate cartdrige, weren’t assault rifles but light machine guns. On part one I included a whole volume in Russian of the path we took to have the AK. It’s there, you can use automatic translation for a rough translation and there are enough pictures to make you understand why the Stg is important, but is not all it is dressed up to be. If anything the STG died out in favour of an economical alternative, which itself was even more complex to get right. In a Kharmic reverse of fate, the Haenel variant almost died out while Holek who did most of the ground work behind the STG oversaw the creation of the Sa-58. A really fine weapons by any standard.

          • valorius

            The Stg44 is in no way remotely close to “just a couple stampings on top of a czech design.”

            Is your goal to make yourself look stupid?

          • The entire operating group is ripped directly from the ZB.26!

          • valorius

            The ZB.26 is a full power battle rifle. The Stg44 uses an intermediate cartridge, a high capacity magazine, and is select fire. The theory of employment and design behind the Stg44 is completely different than the Zb.26, which as a rifle akin to a Garand, Gewehr 43 or SVT40.

            So again, the Stg44 is hardly “a Zb.26 with some stampings”

            It’s specific operating mechanism notwithstanding, it is a gun with a totally different role.

          • Dude, the ZB.26 is a light machine gun, not a “battle rifle”.

            I don’t think I ever said that the StG-44 was functionally identical to the ZB.26, and neither did Tritro. The point he was making was completely different, and you seem to have entirely missed it.

          • valorius

            Cause i’m soooo stooopid lol
            My bad though, yeah it was a LMG…but my point stands. It’ was an animal designed for an entirely different role.

          • Tritro29

            It actually is. The only German idea in there was being too broke to afford a proper alloy to have the STG44 be durable and save time at the production phase. Which cost them at the weight department, strength department and reliability department initially. Everything in the STG can de traced to Brno, far more easily than parts from the AK can be traced to the STG.

            You should learn to walk before your run.

          • valorius

            you should learn to speak in a civil manner to other people on the internet.

            And no, you’re still wrong. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            Jesus, until 1à hours ago you didn’t have a clue about the ZB’s direct paternity to the MK and now you’re an expert…ok.

          • valorius

            You’re totally missing the point i’ve been making all along, which i just explained in depth in another post.

          • Tritro29

            Which has nothing to do with what you implied in the first place.

          • valorius

            It’s exactly what i implied in the first place.

            Whatever, you can be right if it makes you happy.

          • Tritro29

            You implied that the Soviets had to be influenced by the STG (if not outright copied it from the STG) while the Soviets knew about long stroke piston since the late 20’s at least. Worse there are manuals for the Lewis gun (long stroke piston and rotating bolt) in Russian, printed for the Imperial army since the damn 1916. Just drop this argument. This stems from blatant racism and underlines that the Nazis got that part right, “Soviet had to copy the Germans” because they were illiterate bastards…FFS i added in both topics a link with all the attempts to have an answer to the STG way before the AK, and that answer was basically a variation of the Holek mechanism, and it was a light machine gun.

          • valorius

            I never even remotely implied they outright copied it. You are obviously confusing me with another poster.

            I said the AK (and everything that came after the Stg44) was influenced in one way or another by the Stg.

            This does not mean other designs didn’t influence the Stg, or that parts of the Stg weren’t outright ripped from other guns. One thing has nothing to do with the other. It’s obfuscation.

          • Tritro29

            I’m not going to restart this thing. Your question about the piston is exactly what I need to know. I’m not even talking about the fact that the Soviets were going for a light machine gun instead of an “assault” rifle.
            There’s one thing the Soviets went for the German approach, and that is the ammunition. And it makes sense, it’s the more economical approach. But not the best and it would cost people a lot of M16 vs AK 47 discussions. The fact is that the guy behind the AK didn’t want anything to do with the STG, he was after a select fire Garand with a box magazine. The people who decided to jump on the intermediate cartridge were there before the Mikhtim was even part of a design team. So you know, the first sample of both ammo and rifle was taken in 1942, almost as soon as the rifle reached the front. But it would take 8 months before the GRAU meeting to explore the possibilities of the German ammo. The ammo was found promising but largely complicated, notably because the core was dual with lead and steel/iron to cut cost. Which was directly due to the German industry being a real Potemkin Village by then.

            So all I will add is that this thing is more complicated than AK is copy or deriving from Stg 44. Knowing how the Ak came to life, is every bit as complex and interesting as finding out about the STG.

          • valorius

            I said the pistons were similar. That’s ALL i said.

            And to remind you of what you already said, “End of discussion.”

            Go drink a beer and spend time with your dog or wife.

          • valorius

            Let me try again, the Stg took already developed technology and implemented it with an all new design philosophy, making it more than just a rip off of some other previous design elements. It is more than just “X design with some stampings.” It is “X design with a whole new philosophy AND some stampings.”

            The Americans had an equivalent situation leading up to WWII. When they were developing the M1 carbine, Auto Ordnance sent the US Army ordnance board a Thompson, but chambered in .30 carbine. The US failed to realize that it wasn’t just a heavy copy of a Thompson in a new caliber, it wasn’t just a gun that was twice as heavy as the M1 carbine competition called for.

            It was an assault weapon, with greatly enhanced range and power compared to a subgun, but heavy enough that it was surely quite controllable in full auto fire.

            So the US could’ve had a legit and highly developed assault rifle in about 1939 or thereabouts, they just didn’t have the sense to realize what they were looking at…they failed philosophically to recognize the groundbreaking design (already fully developed) that Auto Ordnance handed to them.

            It was the PHILOSOPHY of the Stg that made it so revolutionary.

            That’s where i’m coming from.

          • roguetechie

            Except, of course, that this “whole new and revolutionary design philosophy” was really just another in the long line of designs going back to slightly preWW1 “heavy submachine gun” class of weapons… Just like the 30 carbine Thompson design you have mentioned.

            The heavy submachine gun class weapons and the underlying logic and philosophy behind them were astonishingly important, influential, and in many ways everything from the SCHV, SAW, IAR, and intermediate select fire IW designs that rule the light end of the military small arms world to this day owe their existence to this nearly forgotten class of weapons.

            However, what tritro and others are saying and you are failing to grasp is that this entire class was already well into the throes of obsolescence pre ww2, and the mp43/44 represents the pinnacle of this class while having very little to do with what came after.

            You can attempt to argue this all you want… The only thing doing so will do however is further reinforce tritro’s and others’ certainty that you’re entirely arguing such points out of ignorance.

          • valorius

            I’m so ignorant, someone help me. LMAO…nitwit.

          • Tritro29

            Yet the US army took a hard look at the Stg and deemed it lacking, while it took a big interest in the other German Wonder, the FG42.

            Guess why?

          • valorius

            Because the US Army is almost always wrong about everything, and only catches up after virtually every other nation on earth has embraced the correct philosophy? (See .45 acp vs 9mm)
            Hell if it wasn’t for the USAF the US Army would probably still be using totally outmoded 11lb 7.62mm rifles as their primary issue weapons. The US Army even rigged a set of head to head tests between the M-16 and M-14 so they could reject the M-16.

            The US Army is not alone, all the branches do exceedingly stupid things with our money.

          • Tritro29

            Correct philosophy…Ok now the Nazis were right, the Americans were wrong…despite every damn nation has gone rotating bolt, half the world went battle rifle and then an even smaller round. OK. You clearly are enlightened.

          • valorius

            No first world nation on earth today uses battle rifles as primary issued weapons. None.

            Oh.

          • Tritro29

            Battle rifles unfortunately have their use and the current Assault Rifles are years away from the Stg, not even the Ak fills the role of the Stg, do not reflect the choices made by the Germans then. Stampings have been largely abandoned, except for the Russians and the Swiss. No one uses a tilting bolt (even the Czechs have gone rotating). No one uses a shortened calibre, but rather a proportional one. The 5.56 would have been rejected by the Germans. And it took some real hard balling to get the GRAU to follow the “Imperialist pigdogs” with their .22 caliber.

            The rifles used until the 70’s were all equal or lower in weight to the STG. And ironically were every bit as controllable as the STG. What else to say? Nato would have switched over? The US made NATO, the US dictated its choices. It’s funny how the US dictated the Choice for 7.62Nato, but didn’t for 5.56…or maybe it did. We switched to a calibre and almost killed a whole generation of young Soviets, because we had the same completely crazy idea to replace all the rifle calibres by the M43 rifles. It was extremely wrong and it would take some time and extended testing to definitely establish a doctrine of employment for the M43, something the Germans were forced to recant mainly because their production system couldn’t handle the rate of production of the Mkb. Also the introduction of the AK was far more gradual than you might think and the rifle proved to be half a lemon as late as 1957 with the final rejection of a different operating system (delayed blowback Kyraly design from Korobov). Albeit the Korobov was better, simpler and cheaper on every sense.

          • valorius

            I concur battle rifles have their uses, even today.

            I do not view stampings as a defining characteristic of assault rifles, though it is a common feature among them, it is far from universal.

            Likewise, a tilting bolt is not a defining characteristic of an assault rifle. Many operating mechanisms will perform the same role.

            What makes an assault weapon an assault weapon is a select fire weapon firing an intermediate rifle caliber which serves to make every rifleman into a would be assaulting light machine gunner.

          • valorius

            “The united states can be counted on to do what’s right, when it’s exhausted every other possible option.” -Winston Churchill.

            Smart man.

          • Tritro29

            Yes too bad that when it comes to fighting wars, the US would be the last option I’d pick, this coming from a Russian.

          • CapeMorgan

            Why did you claim to be an Albanian? Are you embarrassed to be a Russian? You are very funny. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            Albanian? What?

          • CapeMorgan

            You claimed that you were Albanian. Now I know that you are a liar. What else have you claimed that is not true? That is on you. You really are funny. I do feel sorry for you.

          • Tritro29

            ° When have I claimed I was Albanian in a serious manner?
            ° Why does it matter on this topic. I’ve made good on my claims so far. You haven’t.
            °I’ve pretended to be Greek on twitter to rile up White Taliban like you. So there you can keep this strawman argument about lying. It’s Tweeter, it’s a jungle. I enjoy getting people like you all riled up.
            Is it you Petronas? Did you made a whole new account to avenge your pride?

          • CapeMorgan

            I get it… you lied about being Russian or Albanian…you confuse yourself. You lied about being a Party Member and lied about being in the military. Got it. Thanks. I just needed to know whether to take you seriously or not. Now I know and I don’t. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            A party member, well I was Pioneer thus with the Party. I also was in the military, because I was drafted. I suppose you need evidence, thus personal details? It’s all so convoluted that it becomes so easy to figure you out. What’s the relationship between me and my alleged “lies” and the facts I brought forth? You look terribly inquisitive for the matter? If I chose a nickname on Twitter, there must be a reason da?

            Where does this Albanian accusation come from by the way.

            Given that you are answering your own questions, I don’t think that an answer that doesn’t fit your World view would do. As a matter of fact, I’ve given verifiable information in more than one occasion, information only available to through certain knowledge.

          • CapeMorgan

            Look, you already admitted you lied on Twitter…I don’t use Twitter. So, it is obvious that you have confused yourself about what is true and what is a lie. Like I said that is your problem. You posted your claims that you were Albanian, married to a Russian and a Party member. You said you lie on Twitter. And apparently on other sites as well. Again, and for the last time…if I were you I would get my stories straight and tell the truth. The problem is that now with so many falsehoods who know what you say is true. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            Married to a Russian, yes I am married to one. But where did I claim I was Albanian and a party member? Looks to me you have me confused with someone else son. I only have one nickname and account. On Twitter and subsequently on Disqus. So you tell me what you’re ranting about? Also telling the truth about what exactly?

          • CapeMorgan

            Look, you already admitted you lied on Twitter and you lied on Bloomberg. You are a habitual liar. That is not my problem, as I have repeatedly told you. That is yours. It is not my problem that you won’t admit it. You should not be ashamed for being Albanian. And, I bet you really did want to be in the military. I get it. I just wanted to know if any of what you say is true. Now, I know it is not. Serial liars can’t help themselves. I will admit you “talk” a good game. It is kinda pathetic though. 🙂 Good bye and good luck with your posing.

          • Tritro29

            1. The fact you keep talking to me and through obviously a sock puppet account means you have a problem with me.
            2. Me admitting lying or not doesn’t change anything in the fact you are stalking me. That is a severe psychological issue.
            3. This stems from only one reason, you are so psychologically fragile that you have to get to the messenger, not the message. I could be a Reptilian coming fro Venus, but the discussion we had together was clearly at your disadvantage. From the Approximative dates used, the lack of historical knowledge and general shortcuts you took there’s troll and psychopathology all over the place.
            4. What ever you imagine or say is sign of a feeble mind who can’t accept he’s cannot control everything and anyone. We’re having a discussion about my morality and or my “posing” while the reality is that somehow, for some reason you’re just fuming from the nose.
            5. You accuse me of lying and pretending, however so far you have been caught totally out of guard. And you’re clearly employing and alternative account since you talk about “Bloomberg”.

            Finally you made a couple of accusations, which are very interesting coming from a dude that attributed Lying to the Russian character, now suddenly to you I’m not Russian, but Albanian is Lying my Russian or Albanian tendency?

            Not in the military (although there are things i wouldn’t know if i wasn’t in the military (no matter what military it was). So make up your mind mister White Taliban what am I and why am i so important as an individual to the message?

            The answer is simple, you are utterly crazy and aggravated because you were wrong, you couldn’t win “an argument” so you went muck racking and think you found out “my lies”. However the facts are that the amount of effort you have dedicated to a farce, underlines how completely unstable and dangerous to yourself you are.

            And I’m sorry i don’t remember which one of the braindead of my past you are. I couldn’t care less, you obviously do.

          • CapeMorgan

            Like I said you have a lying problem. You even deny what you claimed on Bloomberg. Why you are ashamed of being Albanian is your problem. The reason I think you lie about your background is because you have lied in the past. And don’t kid yourself the “knowledge” you claim to have is easily available on the internet. Google is obviously your friend. BTW, you told me what I wanted to know and yet YOU keep on stalking ME. I don’t care about you at all. Are all Albanians so strange as you? 🙂 You are too lazy to read your own posts. Lol. Now leave me alone. Stop sending me messages.

          • Tritro29

            Stalking you? According to your own message you’ve gone to pathological lengths and have read all 1500 posts spanning in two years…all this because you felt a Russian blunted your nose about an historical feature like two days ago. You had 2 posts now you have 20 or something and not a single one of your posts in this thread is about this thread’s topic. I never spoke to you about Bloomberg or “Albanians”, you came with that on your own man.

            The sheer length of that ordeal proves that you have a issues, severe ones. You are trying to “out me” or something and this is personal, which is clearly related to past encounters. I do not believe that people with this level of psychopathic and trigger issues are allowed anywhere near a computer alone.

            So you have to make up your mind, I’m Albanian finally or still a bit Russian or wholly Russian? Do you think I lie or are you sure about it, because for what it is worth, there’s little I could lie about in these threads.

            Especially as the main source of the discussion is not related to me as an individual. And no Google can’t help you, without you not knowing what you’re talking about, like Poland in 1917 or Soviet aggression in August 1920.

            The more you talk, the more I feel you need help. You should talk to someone. Preferably not me but a professional. I’m only replying in case you don’t know, you can always block me, so you may have peace of mind. I hope in what ever board we met before, you hang tight there, because you’ve piqued my curiosity.

          • CapeMorgan

            Look I already told you to stop messaging me. I certainly did not read all your silly posts…who has the time to read garbage? Especially coming from someone with tall tails.
            You already answered my questions by lying to me several times. Now I know that you are posing. I get it and I am sorry for you but it is not my fault .
            I am sorry that I called you out for it and schooled you on history. You can prevent that by going to the library. Now go away. Seek help and be proud to be Albanian. 🙂 (or a Party member, or whatever you have dreamed up).

          • Tritro29

            Lying to you? When, where? Not in this discussion I have not. It’s rather easy to verify. By trade, I don’t lie to questions. And It’s “tall tales”.

            You just betrayed your real aptitude to spot out a poser. You schooled me on History by claiming a non existing Soviet Union attacked a non existing Poland in 1917…

            Ok man, it’s going to be easy. If you want to scare off the messengers, you should be at least able to stop trying to trigger them.

            You stop talking, i stop replying. You can keep this and then I can go after your ISP, deal?

          • CapeMorgan

            Look, I told you to stop messaging me. I asked you fair questions and then you lied to me about it. Fine. That is on you. If anything, get mad at yourself and stop posing, Again, that is your problem. And stop your silly threats. A tough guy you are not…even for an Albanian. Bless your little heart. 🙂 Now go away.

          • Tritro29

            You asked personal questions according to “information’ you picked up at “bloomberg”. I fail to notice where it is? I only have two threads answered on Bloomberg. Two years ago. No mention of your “info” there. But it gets better, your questions you call “fair”, I answered, and yet that had nothing to do with subject. Fact is that you got a bloody nose and you tried to get back at me. That reaction out of a small exchange, tells me you have mental issues.

            As you pretend not to stalk me or look after me, there’s is no other way to get that info than actually looking after me.

            You have lied again and again. Including about your account at disqus…

            Also I’m not threatening you. I’m only informing you that if you want to play games, I can turn the tables as easily.

            You are mentally unstable, your pride is hurt, your bullshit got made when and your Russophobia outed. What was it, Russians lie naturally.

            How stupid must have you felt at that very moment and how hurt you must have felt. As an atheist I don’t believe in God.

          • CapeMorgan

            Look, I don’t know what your problem is but I told you to stop emailing me. Like I said I asked you some questions, you lied to me and that is the end of it. I don’t know why you are ashamed of being Albanian, nor lie about being in the service and the Party. Who knows if being an atheist is a lie. Now run along and stop messaging me. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            I’m not e-mailing you, but I know this isn’t you primary account. I didn’t lied to anyone about anything relevant to the matter at hand. You went against me regarding historical facts. You were wrong. I obviously pissed you and broke your fragile self confidence. You went all Russophobic haterade. Stalked me/Checked after me.

            Then you come back asking questions that I still don’t understand where you picked as I don’t see them. You lied about this being your only account, you lied about historical facts. You racially/ethnically abused me.

            You obviously can’t take any slight without looking at it like an humiliation. You need to pause and reflect on your mental issues. It would be better.

            You started this, i didn’t, I din’t asked for you to interact with me, nor am I willing to let you off so simply. You asked for this my friend, I’m making sure you’re paying attention to what comes next. You wanted to play this little game. Now I want to play too.

          • CapeMorgan

            Look, I keep telling you…stop emailing you. Don’t they have manners in Albania? Stop lying to me and to yourself. It is sad to witness. I certainly have not abused you. That is in your head, like everything else and is on you. Sorry. Now run along and leave me alone. Find a Party member to play with. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            Your frail attention focus is failing you, i can’t e-mail to myself, idiot, I’m self-conscious I exist. And I’m not e-mailing you either. You are lying to yourself and have clear mental issues. I’m not Albanian and you’re getting the full monty of what you asked for. You did abuse me by calling me a natural liar as all Russians. And you did abuse me by attacking me personally. You clearly don’t understand what you write, what you state and what you do. Seek help.

            Also don’t worry, I got your other disqus ID as well.

          • CapeMorgan

            Look, I rols you to stop emailing me. You need to double down on your medications. Is everyone in Albania so pathetic? I did not abuse you, I just told you what you are. That is your problem and there are hospitals that can help you. Now run along. Bye Bye and enjoy the weather in Albania. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            Still not Albanian, you’re still denying your insecure state of mind. Only a feeble mind would try and get even in persona, instead of in factotum. You’re clearly ill and you should seek help.

          • CapeMorgan

            Like I said Mr Albanian, stop messaging me. It is sad and I feel bad for you. I already schooled you in history and you are boring…and deceitful so I feel pity not anger. You have emotional issues. Stay away. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            Poland in 1917 was probably your best punchline, Mr. Ignoramus. You really should have skipped home schooling. You can’t feel pity, for you aren’t self-conscious otherwise you would have gone to shrink long time ago.

          • Tritro29

            Poland existing in 1917 was your blast or stand up comedy. I’m still not Albanian. You seem to have deeper mental issues that expected.
            Seek medical help.

          • CapeMorgan

            Like I said Mr Albanian. Stop sending me messages. I have no desire to talk to deceitful people with poor educations. So sorry for you dearie. 🙂

          • Tritro29

            Education is singular…mister “schooler” unlike your disqus accounts our Polish dead officers. You obviously missed yours. Still not Albanian.

          • CapeMorgan

            Like I said Mr Albanian and serial liar. Stop messaging me. I am done with you and your schooling is complete. Keep on tracking all those acconts dearie. Now go away.

          • Tritro29

            Go back to school. Improve spelling. Get medical help, maybe pills for your condition. Change ISP. Hope I get bored.

          • CapeMorgan

            Like I said stop messaging me Mr Albanian. Do not be ashamed of what you are…it could be worse, you could be Russian. And that would be sad. BTW, you do bore me. 🙂

          • valorius

            The US does tend to take the long hard way even when others have shown us the short cut.

          • roguetechie

            Except that’s totally untrue of course….

            Between Fedorov in the east and Melvin Johnson in the west the emergence of the assault rifle was basically guaranteed….

            Really if it weren’t for the rise of the Nazis to power and the subsequent push to kick arms production into high gear, which also SLOWED and or outright froze new development of anything that couldn’t be production ready in under 18 months, we’d have seen the assault rifle emerge before 1943 in either the US or Russia… Or possibly Finland oddly enough.

            By the mid 30’s Fedorov, Johnson,

          • Tritro29

            So the Germans called this crap Maschine Karabiner for 2 years just for fun…let me tell you something, it is better, when you don’t exactly know things, to stick with “in my opinion”. Because in reality, the Stg should have never been done the way it was. And guess what, the thing that came after the STG from that perspective was a select fire rifle firing a “full power” cartridge. The G3/Cetme. Meanwhile the logical stuff that happened to the AK is that it ironically became the missing link between the M1 Carbine and M1 Grand.

          • valorius

            The Stg’s name was politically motivated. We all know this, except you, apparently.

            You are an astoundingly rude person. You must be a joy to be around.

          • Tritro29

            But they weren’t. That’s the greatest lie you have been told. A rifle and its ammunition don’t undergo 5 years of development if the top dog doesn’t want it. The rifle and the ammunition were renamed multiple times because programs overlapped, not because Politics. The last moniker, STG was a propaganda move for a rifle and program that was failing to deliver. The initial program aimed at producing 10 thousand guns a month when it failed to deliver more than a tenth of that. I told you, learn more, talk less.

          • valorius

            Well thank you for correcting every military historian who’s studied the issue. I’m sure they’re all very grateful.

            The Nazi’s had numerous competing and often conflicting R&D programs ongoing at any one time, and it just wasn’t in the field of firearms design.

            Hitler said no to the Mk. Instead of cancelling it, the Nazis just renamed it and kept developing it, until Hitler finally realized his mistake (some say his bodyguards were issued the weapons, others say commanders on the Eastern front told him they wanted more MP44’s when he asked what they needed), but whatever the case, he finally relented and the Stg44 namesake was born.

            The Germans produced boatloads of Stg44’s, so many in fact that entire warehouses of em were captured at war’s end. The problem was a lack of ammunition.

            And again, you ruin a decent conversation with another childish and arrogant insult at the end of your post.

            How about this, don’t read my posts if you don’t like my opinion. M’kay?

          • Tritro29

            Hitler never said NO to the Mkb. Never.

            Germans produced exactly 452 thousand kits for the rifle, all types completed. Schmeisser when questioned by the Allies said he was contracted for 418 thousand rifles. That’s the production of kits until April 1945. That is Almost 3 years of production. In 4 locations (Walther, Steyr, Haenel and Sauer) which had to divert massive wings. Hitler actually approved an order for 30 thousand rifles of the Mkb 42H variant and he approved almost immediately.

            The anecdote that Hitler rejected is apocryphal and there’s no word of it in actual records. Worse the faulty ammunition that made “Hitler” reject the rifle, had been solved in mid 1941 with the dual core implemented. What retarded the Mkb from 41 to Mid 1942 was the fact the milled receiver wasn’t economical or light enough. So it was decided to go back to the MP40 roots and have another pressed machine.

            I produced the 11th Armored bio, they captured more rifles in kit than assembled. When they took Suhl, the Americans discovered 5000 kits and only 250 assembled rifles.

            End of discussion.

          • valorius

            And yet other highly informed firearms historians disagree with your assessment. Opinions, everyone has one, and most of them stink.
            End of discussion.

          • Tritro29

            I will reproduce here an answer I typed, but that was “removed”…

            The STG has no “new design” philosophy, the layout is one that comes from the Maschine Pistole’s that both Haenel/Schmeisser and Walther were designing. This is clearly visible on Haenel’s work, but it’s absolutely unambiguous on Walther’s 42 variant.

            The Stg 44 didn’t stem from its “own” philosophy, it is when you look at where the Stg Was massively employed and why the STG shone and became this mythical creature.

            The STG’s advantage was most evident when the Germans had to invest people on active defense. There the high volume of power, the portability and the controllability of the weapon made it a very dangerous substitute for the MG platoon. And guess what, German overplayed that aspect by having AT teams use the STG as a way to defend themselves more effectively.

            Problem?

            The Stg 44 lacked the range of the normal fireteam which left a dead angle between 300 and 600m for the antitank guns and also were useless past 300m when used by the PzSch 88 teams. The great philosophical revolution of the OKW was in fact a total failure on its own. Something the Soviets will discover almost 15 years later, but that’s another issue. And thanks to the cost and difficulty of the work required, the production output stagnated. Which decisively stopped the STG from becoming a general issue weapon in say 1942. Not less than 300 thousand rifles a year were supposed to be built from 42 onwards. For reasons like getting Stalingraded and Tobruked the Germans were feeling the pinch.

            Where I must now correct myself and ask Nath’s forgiveness is that the STG44 as it is regarded today, was indeed the product of a failed ideology. But not Nazism per se. The rifle was doomed when for fear of a firing squad the guys at the Heere’s amt decided to call it STG to please dear Fuehrer. This cronyism issue sent to death whole squads of German young men. The STG wasn’t supposed to be used alone, it needed fire support and that’s why sometimes you see Germans donning a G43 an the STG44 or a K98 and the Stg 44. The rifle was limited by its range and in places like France once the Germans needed to bolt out of cover of urban terrain, you had their Stg equipped troops being little more than armed ammo carriers.

            It is exactly that and so much so that we understood it pretty much wrong, because…there wasn’t much to understand from our side.

            Here the Soviets captured a weapon, that said Machine Carbine 42. And while opening the system you find out that it looks like your old Spanish Civil war ZB’s only the round is smaller and the rate of fire very close to the ZB (because the operating system is the same, who would have thought it huh?). The biggest thing about it, isn’t the gas system or the trigger (there’s Czechnology all over the damn thing) it is the Stampings and the magazine. The Soviets were really having trouble making decent 30+ magazines for the DP’s. The “Gramaphon” pan wasn’t bad, but it was really bad to haul around. And there you have the second great thing about the STG/Mkb.

            The ammunition. Nath was a bit dismissive with this, he compared the ammo and magazine weight with a Garand’s complement and yes because of the heavy mag, the lighter ammo advantage vanishes. But, the mag allows for continuous fire (when it doesn’t jam) and it is potent enough to kill you fast and clean without needing to fire half the mag “just to be sure” like with the 9mm.

            Now another thing, the ammo, per se, it’s not a philosophy thing, but a necessity thing. The germans had two main calibres for the “Infanterist”.

            9mm Parabellum. 7.92G (yes i know of the .30/7.63 Mauser). This was going against two other calibres mainly during that time (yes there was the African expedition but it was a side show compared to the Soviet Front) 7.62T and 7.62R. While the 7.62R was already an antiquated round, yet serviceable, the 7.62T (7.62×25) was a whole other ball game (pun intended) when compared to the German MP round. Worse the 7.62T would effectively bridge the gap between the Mosins and SVT’s (when they worked) because the little pucker would still kill at 200m and given the ridiculously tough systems they were used with (PPD/PPSH) they would be actually real Assault Submachine guns. The 7.62T was so performing that the Soviets thought of a machine gun on 7.62T. The LAD belt fed SMG. They had that range and they had the firepower.

            Germans were stuck with a totally different set of issues. They couldn’t start from behind and develop a round that would be like the 7.62T, Hitler wouldn’t like it, but also economically, they were going to the wall, they couldn’t kill the USSR quickly, they weren’t fully mobilized for the war and they couldn’t be fully mobilized, because the idea was that the War was being won easily (Master Race and all). So what do these guys think…we have our 7.92 let’s try and make it smaller. While the idea had probably been out there for years (Soviets did a assault big bore submachine gun in the 30’s as well) the actual industrial design for the round probably stemmed out of the comparison with the Tokarev, the unsuitability of a new round to the logistics chain that was going nuts and also the shortcomings of the 7.62T itself. The rounds were tested in Late 1940 with a weapon that wasn’t the Mkb 42 yet (as it was a milled receiver and the shape was far more classic) and according to the Germans themselves the tests were very bad. The ammo was faulted.

            So there you have the main causes for the 7.92k and the Mkb 42. In order to have this rifle as soon as possible, there were shortcuts taken. ZH32 rifle and ZB26 were tested for durability. The ZH 32/37 (improved ZH 29) gave excellent results but was also diverted by the rather successful implementation of the FG-42 (FG 42 that uses a totally different system but that has features directly lifted from the ZB as well). A rifle that ironically has more to do with the AK than the STG44. The problem with the ZH was that it is a labor intensive rifle, like all ZB weapons as it is milled. And the rifle was tested for strength and durability with 7.92Mauser. So from there tests started to have a rifle that would combine strength and economy. Enter thus the whole weapon test era, FG, MG, MP, Mkb all these programs started after the French fast victory and from the first skirmishes with both the Soviets and the British (Operation Merkur for instance was very bad for reliability of many systems).

            So to recap. The Stg was an industrial necessity, not a new philosophy (you could compare it with the PPS42 or with many choices made by both the Germans and the Soviets during WW2) that stemmed from the unpreparedness of the 3rd Reich and the sense of compromise they had to make in order to field weapons to keep pushing. Ironically they could make all these fast “innovations” BECAUSE they had a pool of designs they had captured. The ZH32/37 tests were effectively the gateway to the Mkb from that aspect.

            As a conclusion, the Germans only “innovation” was that they were broke and needed to spend the least possible on research. So they made their bed with designs that were readily available. How the Mkb came to light is a clear indication of a wartime planning, very close to how th Waffen amt had inducted the MP-38 or the MG34 despite another variant was as much promising as the 34/42. The economical imperative clearly gave them the 7.92k which is the real invention and the stampings, but the rest was already almost ready for them to take.

          • valorius

            I don’t have time to read all this now, but i will later.

          • Tritro29

            What the hell does that have to do with this? In case you missed your own post, you said that looking at the piston, one could see they were close, so that indicated a possible influence. However, the problem is that the Soviet union, had been using ZB’s since at least since the late 20’s when they paid for a batch from the Weimar Republic. Yeah Germany and the USSR. So we have you knowing jack about the Czech designs, the Soviets having them (at least since the late 20’s), and you claiming that the only possible idea of long stroke piston had to be the Stg. In context this is abysmally bad. Why? Because among the first 7.62×41 light machine guns, the Alexandrovitch-Ivanov 44 was an elaborate lightening of the ZB. But hey you can pretend you know stuff, but you really don’t. Trust you just don’t.

          • valorius

            Yes, the AK pistol design is clearly influenced by the Stg. That has nothing to do with what influenced the Stg.

            You can design a gun today that’s influenced by the DI system of the AR, which would have nothing to do with what influenced the AR.

            As far as your petty insults, they just make you look like, well, a total ass.

          • Tritro29

            Pistol? What? If you meant piston, then you have no idea. But the facts prove that the Soviets already did long stroke designs before looking at the STG, because they had other weapons with long stroke pistons. You guys are hell bent to look at the narrowest possible picture, just because it fits your worldview. I asked you something you ignored. I will ask you again, do you have a full picture of the Soviet design effort prior to them capturing an STG? Yes, No?

          • valorius

            I didn’t read your whole post previously because, A) you issue too many petty insults, and B) you’re not that important to me.

            C) Yes, i meant piston.

          • Tritro29

            You have issues with reality and you hide behind politeness. Fact is that the German STG owes everything to Holek except for the stampings, which are also its weakest link. Whatever.

          • valorius

            I never said the Stg wasn’t influenced by earlier weapons or designers (almost everything made in the last 100 years has been- even “radical new designs” Like the Kriss Vector). I don’t think anyone has said that.

            And i’m not “hiding” behind politeness. I’m just not going to try and factually debate someone that can’t show common courtesy. Life is too short.

          • Tritro29

            If you knew anything behind the context and development of the STG you would take a step back and reflect on the lack of understanding regarding the rifle. The rifle was a compromise from systems and industrial capabilities that were being hampered. It was a very intelligent choice but it was wrongly used and betrayed the weakness of the German industrial capability. If anything the context and industrial choices makes the greatness of the weapon, but its operating system and design doesn’t.

            I personally think that the Soviets persisted in an error with the M43 derived weapons. The round was a wartime design and solution that came from a country that needed to make all those decisions to stay alive. We didn’t need to continue that trend and we had ammunition designs that were better and more capable. But it is history now.

            As for you not trying to factually debate with someone that is rude, that’s nice, because I proved you had no leg to stand on from the moment in engaged you, and nope I wasn’t rude to start with. You were just clueless.

            Enjoy being clueless.

          • valorius

            “If you knew anything,” dude, i’m sorry, but you’re just plain an ass.

          • valorius

            So Ian is wrong?

          • Yes.

          • valorius

            LOL, i’ll tell him you said so. 😉

          • Dude, I know Ian personally. We’ve been in videos together.

            And he already knows I think he’s wrong about the StG.

          • valorius

            You the dude from Inrange?

    • HB

      One more thing; when Stoner made AR-15 prototype, he used StG44’s recoil spring. Even today both guns’ recoil springs are considerably similar in dimension.

    • Indeed. That’s one of the major reasons I am writing these posts, that way when someone pops up spewing this BS, you can just link them. 🙂

    • Ryfyle

      I think a huge difference is in the action. StG-44 has a tilting bolt, whilst the AK has a rotating bolt similar to the Garand.

      • Stan Darsh

        The AK is more of a modified copy of the lesser known MKb42(H) with a M1 inspired Bolt rather than a STG44.

        • Wow. That’s a new one. And also completely wrong.

          • Stan Darsh

            Not at all. In fact, your May 5, 2015 article “Rifle Paternity Test: Pinning Down The M1 Garand’s Influence On The AK” you stated “Kalashnikov was an admirer of John Garand’s work, and it is here in the bolt that this was most clearly expressed, but paradoxically it is also where hints of what may be the MP 43’s influence show through clearly. Unlike the MP 43, but like the M1, Kalashnikov’s carbine uses a two-lug rotating bolt with generous sculpting of the locking lugs to give the bolt precise characteristics during both locking and unlocking. It’s very easy to see when the two bolts are compared how Kalashnikov emulated the hard work Garand did getting the lockup just right.” Honestly, that is what I have always seen in the Kalashnikov, as well. The MKb42(H) is a gas operated, selective-fire weapon. It uses a long-stroke gas piston, located above the barrel in a gas tube.The barrel locking is achieved by tipping the rear part of the bolt down into the locking recess, cut in the machined steel insert in the stamped steel receiver. If you swap out the Haenel bolt for a M1 inspired one, it looks a lot more like the AK47 inspiration than the STG44 does, as yourself stated.

          • Try reading the entire article:

            “As if that wasn’t hard enough to wrap our heads around, there are further considerations. First, while both the AK and MP 43 bolts bear an uncanny resemblance to one another, that does not rule out the possibility that their appearance might be coincidence. The AK’s bolt is mechanically much more M1 than it is MP 43, and if a designer did want to keep the basic M1 locking system while moving the operating rod to the top of the action, and raising the bolt to clear a fixed ejector (which was earlier present in the Soviet SVT rifle, and is therefore an ambiguous feature of the AK), then the result would necessarily resemble the MP 43’s bolt profile. It’s also important to not forget that the whole MP 43 bolt does not much resemble that of the AK, having an almost continuous cross-section until the end, and featuring an unlocking claw at the rear for the tilting bolt. In contrast, the AK bolt quickly reduces to a small diameter, to save weight and improve mass ratio.”

          • Stan Darsh

            Try reading the entire comment:

            “The AK is more of a modified copy of the lesser known MKb42(H) with a M1 inspired Bolt rather than a STG44.”

          • That’s still complete nonsense. The MKb.42(H) is just an open-bolt StG-44, essentially. So anything said about the StG-44 is also applicable to the MKb.42(H), in this regard.

            It’s simply not true, for all the reasons I’ve exhaustively covered in this and other posts.

          • valorius

            reading the whole article doesn’t change the part he quoted nate. 😉

          • I wrote the article. I am quite sure I have a better grasp of it than he does.

          • valorius

            Doesn’t matter- he quoted you directly man. 😉

          • So, where do I say that the entire AK is a clone of the MKb.42(H) except for the bolt?

            Wait, I don’t. I don’t say anything like that, and if you take my quote in context, you’ll see I do not at all say that the AK’s bolt is based on the StG’s.

        • Ryfyle

          That’s some dank and heavy mods to be doing. Like throwing out the bolts locking mech and buffer tube levels.

    • valorius

      I dont think anyone said “copied”, they said influenced. 😉

  • Richard

    Another thing to remember is that AK has a long stroke gas piston and a rotating bolt while the STG44 has a short stroke gas piston and a tilting bolt.

    • Tritro29

      STG has a long stroke gas piston lifted from the ZB 26 and reversed.

      • Richard

        My mistake, I fixed the error.

  • McThag

    Last time people were beating this dead horse…

    Engineering stuff has a style. Different engineers and do things differently and it affects the appearance. As they teach younger engineers, this becomes a company’s or factory’s style too.

    The AK simply looks like what the Soviets would make and not like what a German would.

    But the magazine… The mag doesn’t look like what Kalashnikov would have designed, and it does look more German.

    I am also fascinated that we’re taking the Russian records at their word after so many decades of them flat lying about everything regarding industry and invention. Are we Democrats to be so gullible?

    • Tritro29

      Magazine was designed after Sudaev’s pattern and was mixed up with many models. Sudaev’s mag bears some similarity with the Charlton AR.

    • Also, why does the mag not look like a Kalashnikov design? Keep in mind, we should be talking about the original slab sided deals, here. Those don’t look terribly German to me.

      • Chris

        Like I said ,it looks like a Russian design from late 40’s , nothing bad ,just typical

  • Dermott Smyth

    I’m 100% Irish, born in England, British citizen, came when I was 6 to US. At about 11 years of age we were playing war, killing Germans.
    My father fought with the RAF in WWII. He hated war.
    He sat us all down a few weeks later and explained that as much as it was Germans who turned to the Nazis, we in the US and or England could have easily become Nazis as well. He said fight the Nazis, not the Germans. I thought at the time he was nuts.
    Took awhile (years) for that to sink in.
    He had a hard time with me when I joined the Army in 1969.

    Today as I see America turning to Amerika, I am convinced he was a lot smarter than I ever thought of being, and him with a 7th grade education and me with a Masters.

    I miss America, warts, failures, lies, deceit and all.

    • iksnilol

      What’s the difference between the c and k? I mean, it’s more logical to write it with a k but y’all have a messed up pronounciation of c.

      • “Amerika” is the German spelling (and other languages, too).

        • iksnilol

          Ah, just weird seeing that being politicized. Thanks for the info 🙂

  • Anonymoose

    Don’t forget the newest conspiracy theory: Hillary Clinton has been dead for months and has been replaced by a hologram.

    • JustAHologram

      Holograms don’t look that bad, probably a life model decoy

    • Kivaari

      She was already a hollow-grandma.

  • Mark M

    I love this article because it includes a ton of technical detail and history. Can the author recommend any books or sources that discuss this subject?

  • Ron

    From more of a design engineers POV: when I see how something is done (and done well), I “catalogue” it in my brain in case I’ll ever need it again for a different project. To me, the same can be said for AK-47 designers. Take the best concepts from what is available, and incorporate it into your design. In this case, the soviets had the StG-44 to study (along with other designs) to study.

    • Kivaari

      The only things the two rifles have in common is a general size and layout and the use of an intermediate cartridge. Mechanically they are very different.

  • James

    Seriously? “NASA faked the Moon landing on a Hollywood soundstage”.

    Didn’t you see the documentary ‘Capricorn One’ with OJ? derp

  • ToLazyToMakeAnAccount

    How about this.

    WE CAN SHOOT BOTH GUNS AND THEY ARE COOL.

    End of story/discussion/10

  • Chris

    Of course it’s totally Russian design…look at it !

  • Smedley54

    This group has much greater depth of knowledge than I ever will, but I’ll still venture an opinion.

    Science and technology advance by building on, and informing each other, so of course development of the AK 47 had many influences. But a German design? My immediate response is that a German design would have at least twice the parts and machine steps. it might have been a better rifle, but it would never have thrived like the AK.

    • ARCNA442

      If you ever look at exploded diagrams of the Stg and AK side by side your point is driven home – the first is a mess of parts and ingenious solutions while the second is a vision of functional simplicity.

  • Zapp Brannigan

    Remember that the Soviets had absolutely zero love for the Germans at that time plus had no reservation against propaganda/lying in support of their cause. So whatever role Hugo Schmeisser had in the development of the AK47 would have likely been suppressed or denied. The story of just one patriotic Soviet soldier coming up with the AK is more compelling propaganda.

    The AK47 didn’t appear out of thin air nor was it the product of just one man. The Soviets and Germans fielded semi-automatic rifles during the war other than the StG-44. Each side knew of the other sides’ rifles and would copy anything that was worth copying.

    • Considering that Schmeisser was a thousand kilometers away while the AK-47 was being designed, I don’t think he had any hand in it at all.

    • AlanHan

      I think you almost hit upon the the most relevant point as to who designed the AK: Forget Schmeisser et al. The Soviet industrial practice became already, by the mid-thirties, to effectively jail every technically brilliant but politically non-bomb-proof engineer, carting them off to the more urban units of the Gulag. This was true for electronics, chemistry, aviation, and weapons, among others. I do not discount MK’s right to credit because of some German existing technology, but rather because it is more probable that he, the noble peasant tank commander, was the perfect face for Stalin to put on the spawning of the rifle intended to arm the next million bits of soviet river meat. Solzhenitsyn’s notes on the engineering Gulag suffice to convey my suspicions, which I haven’t got time to chase into the soviet documentation, should it exist.

  • valorius

    While the AK is hardly any kind of a STG44 clone, it is clearly influenced by the design. But then, so is almost everything that followed it.

  • Black Dots

    None of this matters anyway, because the Germans stole the idea of firearms from the Chinese, who originally invented gunpowder. QED, bro.

  • Thank BJ!

  • Very pathetic indeed and not wanted or needed on TFB——

  • Koh

    I honestly think the AK owes more in principle to the Browning long-recoil rifle (Remington Mod. 8) than about anything else. The trigger mechanism, safety, rotating bolt into a barrel extension, all Browning.

  • Petto

    Well it’s not like AK shares the same parts like STG does it? sure it is influenced by it but it is a no way a clear clone/copy of STG44

    Look at Spain how they copied STG44 and later STG45 to create CETME aka G3

    and now look how many other countries cloned the AK and G3 also

    “THOSE EVIL RUSSIANS!”

  • CapeMorgan

    Wow. This is some serious David Irving style bs. Shame on you for posting this on this site. This site is supposed to be non political and not WW2 revisionist nonsense like this video. I really doubt you had any relatives in WW2. This is a shameful video…post this on Stormfront.

  • Hi Pavel,

    “Type 1 AK” is the common Western name for the first stamped production AK variant.

    The pre-AK-47 prototypes will get some coverage in later articles.

  • WELLS SHANE

    The Germans built a better rifle .My dad came home with one. he was in The 3 ARMY .I do think he got his idea from the German rifle . Have you ever fired one.The rounds are very expensive .But a better round 8mm. Have you ever seen AK on full auto you get a lot of barrel shake .STG44 is a better MP

    • I’ve fired two original sturmgewehrs and several fully automatic AKs.

      Yes, AKs buck quite a bit more, but I prefer them over StGs because of their superior sights, lighter weight, tougher magazines, better durability, and my contractual obligations. 😉

  • David Harmon

    AR15 is still better, so who cares?

    • Not if it gets wet and then frozen, it isn’t.

      • David Harmon

        Pfft, if my AR15 gets wet and frozen, I have more important things to worry about, considering I live in a desert in the southwest.

  • I’ll run through these quickly:

    1. Cartridge

    Yes. So far as I can tell, the 7.62x41mm M43 (later 7.62x39mm) was a direct response to the German Kurzpatrone. I am told – although I’ve never read it (can’t read Russian, yet) – that the original request actually cites the 7.92x33mm as a performance benchmark.

    2. Concept

    I am happy to give the Germans credit for inventing the “assault rifle as universal combat weapon” idea that is implemented today, so long as everyone agrees that’s not the end of the story. I’d really hate for people to ignore the terribly interesting “prehistory” of the concept!

    3. Design submission

    The first Soviet assault rifle evaluation was held in 1944, and had ten different participating designs.

    Trials were ongoing through 1945-1946, and Kalashnikov submitted his first design in the latter year, which was substantially different than the AK-47 that was adopted (it’s sometimes called “AK-46”, although I don’t think they actually called it that at the time).

    4. Receiver

    I went into more detail regarding the stampings in the article this is attached to.

    5. High Tolerance Concept

    AS-44 is not a clone of the StG-44, whatever Chivers may say (been a while since I read “The Gun”, but when I did I felt he was pretty sloppy with details). The first person to be credited with developing the concept of wide clearances in individual automatic weapons is usually cited as John Garand, although I personally would be shocked if nobody actually predated him.

    Browning probably did, for one.

    6. Trigger

    Browning invented this double hook trigger design, but I’m pretty sure Kalashnikov got it from Garand.

    7. Banana magazine

    What’s with all the mysticism about “banana magazines”? First, I have seen no evidence suggesting Kalashnikov cloned his mag from Sudaev’s, but also the magazine is curved like that to follow the round’s case taper. There’s nothing magical about it, and it was invented in the 19th Century, probably.

    8. Operation Paperclip was an American operation, not a Soviet one. Schmeisser was sent to Izhevsk, which is 1,000km away from Kovrov, where the AK-47 was designed.

  • Tritro29

    Actually that’s second prototype, first prototype had shorter dust cover and bolt carrier group was exposed.

  • Wolfgar

    Damn, I think WW2 has started again. I hold Nathaniel responsible for this carnage 🙂

  • I think you know far less about weapons design than you think you do.

    • valorius

      one of you does.

    • Stan Darsh

      I know you’re emotionally involved in this but it doesn’t change anything. I, nor anyone I’ve ever talked to, has claimed the soviets were trying to directly copy any of the STG variants when developing the Kalashnikov. Perhaps I should have been more precise in my previous post. The fact the MKb42(H) was the first STG variant both fielded by the Germans and captured by the Russians in late 1942. It is the most likely candidate to bring the overall concept of a long-stroke piston operated, stamped steel, select-fire rifle, utilizing an intermediate cartridge made from modifying a full-power rifle round and fed from a 30 round box magazine to the attention of the allied forces. While the Simonov was more or less a scaled down SVT40, the AK was certainly more of a confluence of the STG and the SVT, with a slight change to a M1-inspired bolt during the process. The fact that you have 1.) MKb42(H) models falling into Russian hands in 1942 with many more STG44s throughout the rest of the war. 2.) 50 brand new STG44s from the factory floor and nearly 11,000 technical documents pertaining to the manufacturing of STG44s taken by a soviet team. 3.) Hugo Schmeisser and numerous other German small arms engineers were pressed into service for the Russians and placed at Izhevsk. To claim the AK47 is not a direct copy of the STG is factual, because it is not, claiming there is no Sturmgewehr influence in the Kalashikov whatsoever seems strange to me, especially with the previous development of the AK46 model which is more of an outright attempt at a clone.

      • Tritro29

        This would be fascinating if the AK was stemming from the GRAU realizing they needed a new select-fire rifle. Instead the GRAU took the Mkb42 for a light machine gun. That’s also where the initial efforts went. What counted for the Soviets was that the ammunition showed enough accuracy, enough stability and enough power to be used in full automatic mode with success. The ergonomics of the weapon, made them (rightfully in my opinion) that the rifle they had in front of them was a light machine gun. The choices made by Schmeisser didn’t exactly disproved them, ZB gas system layout, sear at the trigger and the long stroke piston weren’t exactly signs of a new kind of gun. The Semi auto capability was, but then again, the FG42 had far more to do with the AK and that one was supposed to be a dual weapon, with suppressing effect in mind.

        Also so that people could end this crap about Soviets stole documents bla bla, the first power to have occupied Suhl and carried out whole evacuation process by July a month before the formal occupation by the Soviet Union of those 50 STG’s, was the US who occupied Suhl by April 8th. It was the 11th Armored Division who took the Area, the ammunition and many trophies, including a great deal of FG’s and STG’s.

        From there on they started to make provisions for a whole technical evac from June to July.

        Excerpt from the 11th Armored Bio:

        “Into all this chaos of war was the discovery of the true prizes of the war. It is reported that with the capture of Suhl, Zella-Mehlis, and several surrounding smaller Thuringia towns, one of the largest munitions industry prizes of the war fell to the 11th Armored Thunderbolts. Included among them was the famed Krieghoff and Walther Arms Works. A capitulation of the arms, armament parts, and materiel seized in the area included: Pistols, P38—1,600; 7.65mm— 4,600; Signal—598; 22 Cal.—325. Sniper rifles and scopes complete—2,210; scopes incomplete—4,420; rifles partly assembled—1,140; 113 lathes, 97 milling machines, 41 drill presses, nine punch presses, two hydraulic presses, and 40 grinders. At least 500 new type enemy carbines and 2,500 Burp guns with sufficient parts for an additional 5,000 were uncovered at Suhl. Over a million rounds of small arms ammunition were included. This material was found in several large plants and over 50 small, decentralized plants. In addition to weapons, several of these factories produced parts of robot aircraft.”

        As for “stealing” :

        “On orders of Military Government you are to report with your family and baggage as much as you can carry tomorrow noon at 1300 hours (Friday, 22 June 1945) at the town square in Bitterfeld. There is no need to bring winter clothing. Easily carried possessions, such as family documents, jewelry, and the like should be taken along. You will be transported by motor vehicle to the nearest railway station. From there you will travel on to the West. Please tell the bearer of this letter how large your family is.”

        Thanks for playing.

  • WELLS SHANE

    No i didn’t mean they buck the barrel moves.

  • Dermott Smyth

    The difference between c and k is the difference between America of the 1950’s and Amerika of today.

    I’m an old guy and c means some freedoms, k means socialism/communism. Socialism and communism are okay til you run out of other people’s money.

    The 1950’s were a great time for a kid. I was in high school near Buffalo, NY and used to shoot in the rifle club below the swimming pool. Carried the rifle through class at lunch, no one cared. America is gone.