Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

AK-47 and MP44?

Discussion in 'The Guns Galore Section' started by Christian Ankerstjerne, Oct 20, 2004.

  1. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    The M.P.44 didn't use submachine gun rounds, but was still classified as a submachine gun. Later re-designations are irrelevant. It was a submachine gun, not an assault rifle. The M.P.43 never received a new designations.

    In addition, it is completely irrelevant what the US 'manual' (which isn't an official manual, but just some useless info gathered by the US 'intelligence') for the AK-47 designates the weapon as. That designation has nothing to do with the weapon. The only valid designation is the original Russian designation. Exactly where in the Russian designation do you find the phrase винтовка штурма (Vintovka shturma)?
     
  2. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Notmi here's the manual for the G3, that also clearly qoutes "Automatic rifle"... ;)
     
  3. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes because before 1944 the word hadnt been invented yet... ;)

    Christian the AK47 has obviously been designated after russian specifications in the manual, or else a manual would be useless...

    KBO
     
  4. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    So what you are saying is that the M.P.43 wasn't an assault rifle, whereas the M.P.44 was, even though both has the same overall specifications, however you reject other weapons as assault rifles because of their specifications?

    The manual itself is a result of US Army 'intelligence' work, and will no doubt contain many errors. The US Army coulnd't make valid manuals of foreign equipment during WWII, so I dno't see why they should be able to now. Please show me the Russian manual.
     
  5. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    First off that is not an manual from ww2, because the AK-47 wasnt invented before after ww2...

    Secondly the MP.43 and 44 were only designated MP instead of STG because they wanted to keep it a secret for hitler, because he had previusly rejected the project for the so called "Sturmgewehr" and still wanted the K98K or G43 to be the standard issue rifle, simply because he liked the idea that a soldier could engage a target at 2000m or more, and didnt see the potential of the Stg.44...

    KBO
     
  6. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    I know that the AK-47 wasn't developed during WWII - my point was that if they couldn't get it right then, what are the chances they can get it right now?

    You also contradict yourself now - you say that the concept of an asasult rifle hadn't been invented prior to 1944, yet Hitler rejected a weapon in 1943 called and assault rifle. Furthermore, you are avoiding the issue here - is it, in your oppinion, the designation or specifications of a weapon which determines its class?
     
  7. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    It is the Specification that determines the class offcourse !!!! and thats also what the U.S. intelligence were looking at....

    And what i was saying was that the "word" assault rifle didnt reach the world until 44, I didnt mension the concept. But the germans had wanted that designation all the way back in 41, because thats year the concept of an "STG" was proposed....

    KBO
     
  8. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
    I thought Hitler rejected the MP43 but called the newly designated MP44 (designated to hide it from Hitler, and the year it was shall we say reproduced) an Assault Rifle in 1944 after he found out how effective and popular it was with German soldiers?
     
  9. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    No Hitler didnt name it an assault rifle, that was an designation provided by the manufacture of the Stg.44, it had just not been done earlier because they didnt want Hitler to know about the "Sturmgewehr" project.....

    KBO
     
  10. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    KBO
    If it is the specifications which determines what is an assault rifle, why is the BAR, the AF-16, the M-3 and similar weapons then not assault rifles?
     
  11. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Because they dont have the specifications... ;) They use fullpower rifle rounds, they are not light and handy, and their recoil superceeds the controllable limit for autofire, plus the ammunition isnt as portable as medium power rounds.

    KBO
     
  12. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    The AF-16 was designed for a smaller round (i.e. not a full-power rifle round), and was light-weight for its time.
     
  13. Mutant Poodle

    Mutant Poodle New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Jupiter's Fourth Moon.
    via TanksinWW2
    Er, you have made an error in stating the MP43 was not given a new designation. The MP44 is the MP43, just given the new name for 1944, hence the designation MP44.
    I have provided several links to this topic Christian Ankerstjerne. Please read them so you can update your knowledge on the subject.
     
  14. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    The M.P.43 and M.P.44 were different weapons, although not by much. This can, amongst others, be read from Rheinmetall-Borsig's report on the Vorsatz "P" for the M.P.44, where it is clearly stated that an adaptor was required to fit it on the M.P.43.
     
  15. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Well it didnt use a smaller round, and it wasnt light and handy enough to be considderet an assault, not even back then.

    KBO
     
  16. Tony Williams

    Tony Williams Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    23
    via TanksinWW2
    My, what fun you're having! I can't resist joining in :)

    First of all, definitions: as is so often the case, there is no hard and fast definition of the term 'assault rifle'. It was indeed first invented in Germany in WW2 when the MP.43/44 was renamed StG.44, but the name 'Sturmgewehr' (which loosely translates as 'assault rifle' although it's literally 'storm rifle') was invented for an already existing category of weapon.

    The term 'assault rifle' was picked up and adopted by others because it was a useful shorthand for describing a selective fire weapon firing a cartridge intermediate in power between the pistol rounds used in SMGs and the full-power .30 / 7.92mm rifle/MG rounds. Those full-power self-loading rifles like the M14, FAL, G3 (which may be available with auto fire but are uncontrollable with it) are generally known now as battle rifles.

    So the definition of an assault rifle which I use is: "A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres". The 'controlled' bit excludes full-power .30/7.92mm rifle/MG rounds, while the '300m' bit rules out SMGs.

    The first rifle to see service which complies with this definition was indeed the Federov Avtomat of 1916. The 6.5x50SR was much less powerful than the .30/7.92 rifle/MG rounds, and generated only about 60% of the recoil, enough of a difference to make the gun reasonably controllable. It weighed 4.38 kg empty compared with 5.1 kg for the StG.44, so you can't hold weight against it either.

    The first German guns chambered for their new 7.92x33 Kurz cartridge were being tested in action by mid-1942, and the Russians captured some, liked the idea and developed the 7.62x39 round by 1943. However, it was some time before the Simonov SKS (only semi-auto) entered service and later still before the AK made it in the late 1940s.

    The AK was not a direct copy of the StG.44 - the action was quite different - but it is impossible to believe that Kalashnikov didn't know of its existence when designing his rifle. Nearly helf a million StG.44s were made and the Russians had them by the cartload. To suggest that examples weren't made available to the gun design teams working on the USSR's new rifle a few years later makes no sense at all.

    Anyway, if you're really interested in the subject of assault rifles you're bound to want this :) http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

    Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
     
  17. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    This is a rather shallow assumption, Christian, especially for a person like you. What makes you think the American secret service gained no experience and made no improvements on their own reports and manuals since WW2? I wouldn't ever compare the two eras of military intelligence, for WW2 gave birth to a whole new generation of intelligence agencies which worked throughout the Cold War period on extremely different methods and lessons learned.
     
  18. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    That still does not change the fact, that intelligence will always be incomplete information, and usually subjective at that. When looking at the information on Russian tanks and aircrafts during the cold war and compare tham to what we know today, there are several mistakes. One can for example merely look at the fact that all the names o fthe Russian aircrafts used today are pure inventions, yet they are still frequently passed on as genuine designations in books.
     
  19. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, now usually they are mentioned as NATO designations. Like the MiL mi-24 NATO-designation "Hind"?
     
  20. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Very nice post Tony ;)

    But if the AF-16 both had higher recoil and smaller weight then it would be even more uncontrolable in autofire, since that is the case with the M14. Anyway im sure the AF-16 wouldnt meet the requirement of being reasonable accurate while on the move, since its virtually a rifle wich is capable of autofire.

    Best regards, KBO
     

Share This Page