Military Review

Sturmgever and stamping. The truth about the Kalashnikov machine (Part of 1)

124



Actually, with the stamps and begin, but not with those that matrix-punch. Let's start with mental clichés, which can often be heard in the form of statements on a given occasion. Most often, they carry false information, since they are either created on the basis of conjectures due to the lack of information or the author’s illiteracy, or used in isolation from the context of the topic of conversation or discussion. Let me give you the source of information that served as the basis for the article. This is the introduction of mass production of AK-47 in Izhevsk.

The AK design has already “settled down” by this moment, and all that the German specialist could theoretically help at this stage is the adjustment of mass production with extensive use of stamping. But here, too, there was an embarrassment - the Izhevsk plant was not ready to withstand the desired quality of stamping, heat treatment and riveting of the receiver boxes, so that in 1950, the designers of Izhmash had to create a new milled receiver for AK. In this, they needed the help of “having eaten a dog” by stamping Schmeisser as the same dog as the fifth leg.

However, the start of production of the winning sample sample M.T. Kalashnikov clearly showed that the Soviet industry 1949, it is quite difficult to reach the level of Germany 1942 year. Even despite the "import" of the machine park and the number of specialists (including the chief designer of the Henel company and the creator of MKb42 (H) Hugo Schmeisser) from the capitulated Germany, it was not possible to expand the production of the "pressed" machine, the marriage rate was unacceptably high. As a result, the USSR had to compromise, starting with 1951, to make AK with a milled receiver. Go to stamping finally succeeded only with the adoption of AKM in 1959 year.


So:

1 stamp. Schmeisser was a stamping specialist.

Schmeisser was the designer. Although so-so is a designer, but a designer, and stamping is a technology. With the same success it was possible to call him a specialist in metallurgy or accounting, or an effective manager, which, however, is also used in another stamp stating that Schmeisser was the organizer (of design work or production). You can easily find the roots of these myths. Schmeisser himself has never been a master of organization and management, rather the opposite, but he was an outstanding master of marketing and public relations. Otherwise, there’s no way to explain the fact that the MP-40 submachine gun is still called the Schmeisser, and the designer himself is the father of almost all European rifle automation.

If the simple design skills of a gunsmith do not require special training and most often are a natural gift from people like Kalashnikov, Browning, Degtyarev, Shpagin and many others, then in order to become a specialist in stamping, you need certain knowledge and skills to work with numbers and reference books that you can get only in specialized schools. The punching specialist was Dr. Werner Grüner, who together with Schmeisser worked in Izhevsk among other German specialists arms and motorcycles. Gruner's merit was in creating the MG-42 - the best machine gun of the Second World War, precisely in the production technology of this machine gun, and not in its design, for which Kurt Horn, the designer of Grossfus, was responsible. I remember well how in childhood I heard the legend that the famous Schmeisser worked at Izhmash, and his son studied at the Izhevsk school. But the school was attended by two sons of Grüner, and the son of Schmeisser remained in Germany! Is it any wonder that the fame of a stamping specialist was stuck to his fake fame of an outstanding gunsmith? Or even a “stamping organization specialist.”

Hugo Schmeisser himself legally rules on Haenel from 1943 onwards, and before that he served as chief engineer. But in fact, they drove this company with 1925 for a couple with brother Hans, removing the incapable young heir and owner of Herbert Henel.

Finally, there was no stamping at all at Haenel. Stamped parts for the Sturmgever were designed and produced at Merz-Werke from Frankfurt am Main. In the future, the production of "stamping" was scattered across several enterprises, from where it came to the final assembly of stormtroopers at Haenel, ERMA, Sauer & Sohn and Steyr.

So Schmeisser didn’t eat any dogs, as he understood even less in design technology than in design. The fact that the other five German gunsmiths from among the German specialists who worked on Izhmash in 1952-1956 had no relation to the production of AK-47 and could not have had already been written.

In general, technologists are undeservedly in the shade. The absolute majority does not know what they are doing in production, but if to be completely objective, their merit in ensuring the reliability and, in the end, the world famous weapon model is sometimes more significant than even the design of the weapon itself. Lovers tank stories Perhaps the name of Boris Evgenievich Paton is known - the creator of the welding machine, thanks to which the welding of the hulls of T-34 tanks accelerated ten (!) times. But which of the "experts" can name the authors of the technology for the production of weapons barrels by the method of radial compression or the production of turbine blades aviation directional solidification motors? No matter how perfect the design of the sample, no matter what outstanding characteristics it possesses, until the technology of cheap mass production is created, it will remain in the form of a model or an experimental batch.

2 stamp. Soviet stamping in 1949 could not reach the level of German stamping 1942 of the year.

This refers to a well-known fact, when during the development of the AK-47, it was necessary to temporarily abandon the forged receiver boxes and switch to milled ones. We'll talk about this fact as well as about the features of the Stg-44 stamped construction, but actually it is worth stopping at the “level” of stamping.

The Germans were indeed pioneers in the use of stamped parts in small arms. The MP-40 submachine gun and the MG-42 submachine gun from the point of view of technological innovations left a noticeable trace in the evolution of the weapon. But after all, we had PPSH-41 and PPS-43, which also had stamped parts in their design. If we compare two types of weapons of the same class, then they will be MP-40 and PPS-43. According to all the tactical and technical characteristics of our machine exceeds the German. Reliability automatic Sudaeva and now unattainable with many foreign samples. And now let's compare the production figures.

Sturmgever and stamping. The truth about the Kalashnikov machine (Part of 1)


We take into account that the production of German weapons used labor of prisoners and forcibly driven to Germany citizens from the occupied countries, that is, the cost of working standard hours in Germany was cheaper than in the USSR. And if we consider that the shortage of workers in the USSR was replaced not by captured high-tech savvy German soldiers and non-citizens of the "occupied" countries, but by women and teenagers?

Can we say, looking at these numbers, that the "level" of manufacturability in the production of submachine guns, which includes including punching and spot welding, in the year 1943 was in the USSR more than twice as high as in Germany?!

Achieving the level of manufacturability is a function of time. Recall what Guderian said regarding the copying and production of T-34 tanks:
The proposals of front-line officers to produce exactly the same tanks as the T-34 ... IN THE SHORT TERM ... did not meet with any support from the designers. The designers were embarrassed, by the way, not by aversion to imitation, but by the impossibility of releasing the most important parts of T-34, especially an aluminum diesel engine, from the QUICKLY REQUIRED.


Please note that this is not about construction and not about the lack of aluminum, but about technology. Time to master mass production, which includes the design and manufacture of devices and tooling, calculation and selection of heat treatment and cutting modes, can significantly exceed the time and money spent on developing and testing a prototype, and this may be a decisive factor in achieving political or military successes.

To be continued ...
Author:
124 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. inkass_98
    inkass_98 14 November 2017 06: 35 New
    +8
    The topic is quite battered, again they began to stir up known things. Although it is better than a flat Earth or a spherical horse in a vacuum.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 14 November 2017 07: 26 New
      29
      Quote: inkass_98
      The topic is quite battered, again they began to stir up known things.

      Unfortunately no. We haven’t talked about weapon production technologies yet, although something was hooked in the comments to this post: “The new WAC47 assault rifle for the Ukrainian army.” I read EMNIP at Nagaev that he was prompted by the production of wrenches at the Gorky Automobile Plant on the idea of ​​a stamped machine. And how to work out the technology of mandrel rifling rifle barrel, instead of planing, see Novikov.V.N. On the eve and on test days. And without changing technology, our plants would not be able to cope with the amount of weapons production that was required. By the way: according to the memoirs of V.G. Grabina replacement grooving shutter grooves broach released 5-6 mortising machines
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 14 November 2017 07: 43 New
        +8
        The topic of milling and stamping in the Soviet arms industry is not rooted in PPP. We had a milled PPD, but it was replaced by a more technological one due to the use of stamping. I won’t say anything about drilling trunks, but it’s obvious that without a breakthrough in technology, our industry could not stand the arms race during the war, there simply weren’t so many specialists and production capacities.
        Simplification of production made it possible to supply almost unskilled personnel to the machines.
        1. Amurets
          Amurets 14 November 2017 08: 14 New
          14
          Quote: inkass_98
          The topic of milling and stamping in the Soviet arms industry is not rooted in PPP. We had a milled PPD, but it was replaced by a more technological one due to the use of stamping.

          Here I completely agree with you. Because the technological effectiveness of the production of weapons affects both the consumption of metal and the cost of production. Well, but from the technology for producing rifling by burnishing.
          “The desired result came to the beginning of 1936. We found not only the necessary form of the punch, which allowed us to obtain grooves of absolutely exact depth, but also selected the lubricant, in combination with which we ensured the necessary cleanliness of the barrel bore. We also determined the thickness of the barrel itself to produce grooves in this way, created the machines on which this was done, etc. Instead of 50 minutes, cutting the barrel was reduced to one minute. They began to remove from the machine not 6-7 trunks, but 240-250 for the same time. " V.N. Novikov. On the eve and on test days.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 November 2017 11: 12 New
          +8
          Quote: inkass_98
          The topic of milling and stamping in the Soviet arms industry is not rooted in PPP. We had a milled PPD, but it was replaced by a more technological one due to the use of stamping.

          Bolotin in the "Soviet small arms", EMNIP, in the chapter on submachine guns just says that only the development of stamping and welding by the USSR military industry in the late 30s led to a sharp reduction in the cost of manufacturing submachine guns.
          Actually, this is one of the first works, after reading which we can conclude that there was another reason for the rejection of the mass production of submachine guns in the 30s, except for the canonical "stupid military underestimated the promising wunderwaffe".
          1. Amurets
            Amurets 14 November 2017 13: 01 New
            +4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Actually, this is one of the first works, after reading which we can conclude that there was another reason for the rejection of mass production of submachine guns in the 30s, except for the canonical

            I will not write much, but it seems to have found a plausible version.
            “Voices began to sound that the number of submachine guns in the Red Army was clearly not enough and it was urgent to increase their production. However, it was not so simple to do this: the RPM was quite complicated and expensive for large-scale production. Therefore, in early 1939 it appeared the order of the artillery command, according to which the RPM was generally removed from the production program up to "... eliminate the noted deficiencies and simplify the design."
            Thus, the leadership of the Red Army already recognized the usefulness of submachine guns in general, but he was absolutely not satisfied with the quality and cost of the RPM. Nine months before the outbreak of the Winter War, all RPMs were excluded from the armament system of the Red Army and transferred to storage. Replacements he was not offered.
            Many historians call this decision erroneous, but it is unlikely that the number of manufactured RPMs could seriously strengthen the Red Army in the event of a large-scale conflict. It is believed that the cessation of production of PPD was associated with the adoption of the automatic rifle SVT-38. "
            https://militaryarms.ru/oruzhie/pulemety/degtyare
            va-ppd /
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 November 2017 13: 20 New
              +6
              Actually, after Isaev brought prices for the gunnery in the mid-30s, the version of the abandonment of the PPD for financial reasons became the main one. For PPD-34 cost twice as much as a full-fledged light machine gun! belay
              The price of the planned purchase "PPD-34"In 1936 was already 1350 rubles. For comparison, a 7,62 mm rifle mod. 1891/1930 in the same year, it was ordered by the army at a price of 90 rubles, a Nagan revolver - 50 rubles, and a Degtyarev light machine gun "DP-27"- 787 rubles.
              1. Amurets
                Amurets 14 November 2017 13: 36 New
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Actually, after Isaev brought prices for the gunnery in the mid-30s, the version of the abandonment of the PPD for financial reasons became the main one. For PPD-34 cost twice as much as a full-fledged light machine gun!

                This is the main reason. I will not add more, here is a quote from the same source.
                << Voices began to sound that the number of submachine guns in the Red Army was clearly not enough and it was urgent to increase their production. However, it was not so easy to do this: the PPD was quite complicated and expensive for large-scale production. Therefore, at the beginning of 1939 an order was issued by the artillery command, according to which the RPM was generally removed from the production program up to "... eliminating the noted deficiencies and simplifying the design" >>
                https://militaryarms.ru/oruzhie/pulemety/degtyare
                va-ppd /
            2. Johns
              Johns 15 November 2017 11: 39 New
              0
              Quote: Amurets
              adoption of the automatic rifle SVT-38

              SVT-38 rifle self-loading.
              1. Amurets
                Amurets 15 November 2017 12: 15 New
                +1
                Quote: Johns
                adoption of the automatic rifle SVT-38

                This phrase is not mine, but from the quoted text.
        3. Train
          Train 16 November 2017 09: 35 New
          0
          Yes, the teaching staff was generally dull ... ...... "They gave us the teaching staff, but dragged it a couple of months, they simply removed it from us and gave us back the old military school" - And from the story of the front-line soldier, the teaching staff was never a good weapon! he was, as the machine-gunner said, a veteran only for those who never shoot from him but wallowing wherever in the wagon train
    2. avt
      avt 14 November 2017 10: 19 New
      21
      Quote: inkass_98
      The topic is quite battered, again they began to stir up known things.
      To begin with - Repetition - the mother of learning. Secondly, the author easily and naturally, in the colloquial genre, "extinguishes completely the facts of the unceasing attempts of the co-workers to sing an old song about Kalash Schmeiser." Which flashed again after the installation of the monument to Grandfather Misha in Moscow and thanks to just such authors, the main emphasis of their struggle "shifted to the topic - they put it in the wrong place, the wrong style and in general - ,, A lot of people were killed from Kalash!" So that the author + Let him continue to teach those who do not know and presses know-it-alls who are trying to openly crap.
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 9 March 2018 20: 07 New
        +1
        Quote: avt
        attempts of the koekaker to sing an old song about ,, Kalash Schmeiser "
        Well, those cowakers don’t even know that the STG is closer in type of automation to the SVT-40 ...
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 14 November 2017 06: 37 New
    +5
    good I am waiting for the continuation hi
  3. Shurale
    Shurale 14 November 2017 07: 20 New
    +3
    Thank you, we are waiting for the continuation!
  4. alex-cn
    alex-cn 14 November 2017 07: 23 New
    +2
    YES, manufacturability and the level of technology play a decisive role in mass production, including weapons. In single instances, you can build almost everything that came up. As an example, the same German T-5, 6 tanks failed to establish their true mass production.
    1. Johns
      Johns 15 November 2017 11: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: alex-cn
      As an example, the same German T-5, 6 tanks failed to establish their true mass production.

      The most massive German tank in 1944 was the Pz.V. In exact accordance with the plans of the Germans.
      1. alex-cn
        alex-cn 15 November 2017 13: 18 New
        0
        8121 T-IV tank, 5508 Panther T-V (G) tanks, for the entire time of the war.
        t-34
        1940 g. - 110 (+ 2 prototype),
        1941 - 2996,1942 - 12527,
        1943 - 15821,
        1944 - 14648,
        1945 - 12551,
        1946 g. - 2707.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. alex-cn
            alex-cn 15 November 2017 18: 15 New
            0
            And I’m just saying that as soon as ours restored production and technology, they produced more tanks a year than the Germans did in three ... and this is with the capabilities of German industry ... well, by the year 45 they had noticeably decreased, but that’s all same.
  5. andrewkor
    andrewkor 14 November 2017 07: 30 New
    +6
    You won’t believe it, but a similar situation happened with TAPOiCH with the launch of the IL-114 series. Specifically, we are talking about parts made of magnesium alloy for passenger seats for 64 sets for one aircraft. Molds were delivered from Moscow, two HD-660 LPDs were purchased from India, they organized the site, installed everything, installed it all the way, the details were like toys, openwork, clean, at least CNC machining. Here the machining went down, so that you won’t get to work with our parts. It turned out that with the existing CNC machines you can work only with forgings, then the blacksmiths were happy with such volumes. For a part of 0,5 kg. planed forging in 3kg., and on the HD-660 they began to cast bread molds from AL, and one was completely preserved.
    1. sibiryouk
      sibiryouk 14 November 2017 08: 00 New
      +3
      Most likely the problems with the fastening of stamped blanks, forging is easier to fix, this is my personal experience.
      1. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 14 November 2017 13: 23 New
        +3
        Quote: sibiryouk
        Most likely the problems with the fastening of stamped blanks, forging is easier to fix, this is my personal experience.


        Rather, you are right, although it was possible to arrange 2 base surfaces for precise fixing, or to center along a pair of technological holes / surfaces.
  6. sibiryouk
    sibiryouk 14 November 2017 07: 57 New
    +4
    Very interesting, I even copied the table, I look forward to continuing. This topic is interesting to me, since I myself work in mechanical production.
  7. Dedrusav
    Dedrusav 14 November 2017 08: 05 New
    +2
    I repeat: there is no AK-47, it simply does not exist.
    1. venik
      venik 14 November 2017 09: 38 New
      +4
      Quote: Dedrusav
      I repeat: there is no AK-47, it simply does not exist.

      ==========
      What are you saying ??? And I had a chance to shoot from it ...... Probably an "illusion" ... - "I dreamed" ........
      1. novel66
        novel66 14 November 2017 09: 51 New
        +4
        and what shoot from illusion? dreams?
        1. venik
          venik 15 November 2017 15: 24 New
          0
          Quote: novel xnumx
          and what shoot from illusion? dreams?

          ========
          Usually 7.62 x 39 rounds of ammunition ........ Well, and even if the "grenade launcher" .....
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 November 2017 11: 16 New
      10
      Quote: Dedrusav
      I repeat: there is no AK-47, it simply does not exist.

      1. Svateev
        Svateev 14 November 2017 14: 58 New
        +2
        Perhaps this was an option with a milled box? Because we have already learned this:
      2. GSPDJGneva
        GSPDJGneva 15 November 2017 03: 53 New
        0
        Oh, the whole picture of the cover in support of the Americanized name of our AK) But what about this picture?
      3. Droid
        Droid 15 November 2017 20: 19 New
        +1
        You first look at the output of this publication. It was signed in print in May 1949, and the machine was put into service in September 1949 under the name AK.
  8. bistrov.
    bistrov. 14 November 2017 08: 08 New
    +8
    The same amount of detail in PPS-43 and MP-40 is highly doubtful. Where the author got this data from remains a mystery to me. Just look at the method of mounting the barrel in the MP-40, all these nuts, covers, then retarders, rear plugs, tubes and more. And what is PPP? I personally counted 43 parts in PPS-33, more than 2 times less than in MP-40, which counted 72 parts
    1. bunta
      14 November 2017 08: 18 New
      +6
      The list of sources will be at the end.
    2. Train
      Train 16 November 2017 09: 40 New
      0
      the MP-40 duck was three times better than the miserable PPS - PPS was never a good submachine gun .. Tales are all about a white bull-flimsy, with an ever-warping receiver, with a wide spread when shooting and poor stability during it, (these are not all the shortcomings, far away) the inability to hit on the enemy, easily bent !!! - these are the words of the machine-gunner of the veteran, in his words-they gave us this .... but also after 2 months they just seized back giving us PPSh. The only plus PPP the neck of the store for 2 rounds of ammunition was more convenient to charge. Easy, the driver liked to carry it around, gun calculations and headquarters protection did not have to be fired, so this is where the thread in the wagon rolls
      1. John22
        John22 16 November 2017 20: 27 New
        +2
        There was such an anecdote: They brought the Japanese loggers a saw - they said they saw any tree. They tried, yes, saws any breed, tried wet, ice-cream - saws. Yes, good. Let's try the stone - the chain flew. Lumberjacks are disappointed: they said they saw everything! So are you. PPS-43, like PPSh-41, was made of 3 mm steel sheet for firing up to 200 m. In extreme cases, these PPs could be beaten off like a club and crowbar, but the consequences of abnormal operation can have consequences. Due to technological lag in the USSR, they could not roll steel thinner than 1 mm. Of such a sheet and car body made. Even when Zhiguli began to be produced in 1970, body steel 0,5 mm thick was purchased abroad. PPS-43 was innovative and showed itself in battle, otherwise it would not have been copied in Europe. And the legs of AK and grow from the faculty. Not without reason. During testing, prototypes were compared with AC-44.
        1. Train
          Train 16 November 2017 21: 13 New
          0
          Sheets of steel were supplied to us by Lend-Lease, but PPS were not particularly favored by the troops — I write not from the sky — after 2 months, we completely removed PPS and returned PPS — and it’s not sugar, but it’s better to love PPS Veteran with the statement that PPS was the best during the war as he seemed: strongly disagree, and he fought with the PPD (by the way, as he said, it’s a good weapon, but as a disadvantage, it’s much more convenient to use the PPS in this regard) by the way, he also talked about the store which as a result of the flimsy throat, he began to stagger instantly, as a result the cartridge twisted when serving from the store
          1. Train
            Train 16 November 2017 21: 16 New
            0
            I didn’t hear about copying the teaching staff in Europe, and in the Beetle’s collection there are no countries where it was copied in Europe ... no description or drawing ... Read complaints about it from the front ...
    3. John22
      John22 16 November 2017 20: 08 New
      +1
      At PPS-43, I counted 52 parts when completely disassembled. It is by the instruction. But there, too, not everything is visible. MP-40 has 70 parts without a belt.
  9. 32363
    32363 14 November 2017 08: 15 New
    +3
    at school we had a training AK-47, milled, 1953.
    1. urman
      urman 14 November 2017 10: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: 32363
      at school we had a training AK-47

      In our unit, in the support unit (cooks, cattlemen) there were also AK 47, the bayonet was still old-style knives, the machine itself was heavy, well, most of all the shops pinned us if tossed and dropped on our heads will kill nafig!
      Even in comparison with AKM, the weight difference was felt, what can we say about AK 74 WHERE WE RE-EQUIPPED.
      YES, our Grandfathers fought, blasphemed heavy things.
      Heroes are not us!
      1. venik
        venik 15 November 2017 15: 33 New
        0
        Quote: urman
        Even compared to AKM, the difference in weight was felt

        ===========
        Well, I don’t know ..... Honestly, I didn’t feel much difference ..... I couldn’t shoot from the Ak-47, but I had to “assemble-disassemble” more than once .... But AKM was You can say "personal weapons" ("personnel" - "APS").
        1. urman
          urman 15 November 2017 15: 36 New
          0
          Yes there is a difference in the weight of the stores what it costs.
  10. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 14 November 2017 11: 38 New
    +4
    "Schmeisser was a constructor. Though a so-so constructor" ///

    Schmeisser was the owner of the weapons design bureau.
    A family business founded by his father.
    And moved to Izhevsk (voluntarily-disparagingly) ALL design
    Schmeiser bureau. More than 10 human engineers and technicians. With families.
    They were paid good salaries. And after they completed the tasks
    everyone was released back to Germany. What tasks? I don't think that only
    stamping. Guys much that knew how.
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 14 November 2017 12: 01 New
      +3
      we can also recall that the Germans "put" to us the production technology of not only army, but also hunting weapons.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Kibb
      Kibb 14 November 2017 12: 53 New
      0
      And why didn’t they make AR and then ACE stamped? This is how I provoke - it’s just the Schmeiser / Kalashnikov theme itself, I’m not very interested
      1. bunta
        14 November 2017 14: 12 New
        +1
        Who do we have?
        1. Kibb
          Kibb 14 November 2017 17: 32 New
          0
          At "us", it is in the homeland of AR and ACE.
          1. bunta
            15 November 2017 18: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: Kibb
            And why didn’t they make AR and then ACE stamped?

            I just wanted to pironyonize about this, like Stoner did not mess with stamping because of the complexity of development. :) I think he perfectly saw all the shortcomings of the stormtrooper with its stamping. I also read the conclusion of the 1945 department of the year. Most likely, the desire to do something that no one else did has worked. The very idea underlying AR is very competent from an engineering point of view. That's just not for real military weapons.
            1. Kibb
              Kibb 17 November 2017 09: 37 New
              0
              Yes, damn it, AR is Galil, what does Stoner have to do with your further reasoning - I just want to pironize about this ... wink
    4. bunta
      April 18 2018 11: 54 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Schmeisser was the owner of the weapons design bureau.
      A family business founded by his father.
      And moved to Izhevsk (voluntarily-disparagingly) ALL design
      Schmeiser bureau. More than 10 human engineers and technicians. With families.
      They were paid good salaries. And after they completed the tasks
      everyone was released back to Germany. What tasks? I don't think that only
      stamping. Guys much that knew how.

      Warrior, I’m surprised, like I’ve already given scans of documents how many of these Germans there were and who did what and again everything about the same? Admit, you are a participant in the information-sabotage war? One of two things, you either stubbornly blame stupidity by refusing to admit the obvious or do it for money. I simply don’t see any other answer to your Schmeisser parcels with his “design bureau”.
  11. uwzek
    uwzek 14 November 2017 12: 06 New
    0
    Quote: urman
    Quote: 32363
    at school we had a training AK-47

    In our unit, in the support unit (cooks, cattlemen) there were also AK 47, the bayonet was still old-style knives, the machine itself was heavy, well, most of all the shops pinned us if tossed and dropped on our heads will kill nafig!
    Even in comparison with AKM, the weight difference was felt, what can we say about AK 74 WHERE WE RE-EQUIPPED.
    YES, our Grandfathers fought, blasphemed heavy things.
    Heroes are not us!
  12. Kibb
    Kibb 14 November 2017 12: 10 New
    +4
    "Our song is good, start from the beginning." Let's talk about the "Varangian" or about Lendliz. Favorite fray in the XNUMXth circle. Bored to dull
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 November 2017 15: 41 New
      +5
      Quote: Kibb
      "Our song is good, start from the beginning." Let's talk about the "Varangian" or about Lendliz.

      You can also about the need to book modern ships. smile
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 14 November 2017 17: 37 New
        0
        About booking ships is more difficult to dump into politota - many will not be interested wink
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 November 2017 17: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: Kibb
          About booking ships is more difficult to dump into politota - many will not be interested wink

          Come on: it will be enough in passing to compare the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation or to give a couple of numbers of the dates for the construction of ships in the USSR - and the politota will pour a wide turbulent stream. Modera will not have time to divert for the bath. smile
          And if someone remembers the Mistral - even just in terms of combat stability ...
          1. Kibb
            Kibb 14 November 2017 17: 57 New
            0
            Well, convinced laughing
  13. The comment was deleted.
    1. bunta
      14 November 2017 12: 35 New
      11
      Quote: Dmitry Talin
      All Soviet small arms are utilitarian copies.

      Another uncle Petya. Can for a start follow the links at the end of the article?
      No guys need to wet you all. And without-zzzz pitifully.
      1. Johns
        Johns 15 November 2017 11: 48 New
        +3
        Quote: bunta
        No guys need to wet you all. And without-zzzz pitifully.

        It smacks of extremism. Frantic.
        I sent a complaint to the moderators.
    2. Amurets
      Amurets 14 November 2017 12: 43 New
      +4
      Quote: Dmitry Talin
      This alone speaks in favor of the fact that AK was created in exchange for freedom by a captured German designer. The resulting modernized Stg-43

      Before writing, look at the source and find the general. Sturmgever at the top.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Kibb
        Kibb 14 November 2017 13: 21 New
        +4
        All srach once, a very long time ago, before the advent of the Internet, began because of the outward resemblance.
        I am not an artist but, will anyone ever explain what they are like?
        Transfer sights from AK to the more familiar places for the "Western school" and all the similarities will disappear. You can still talk about TT and PM,
        but what these rifles look like, I stupidly do not know.
        1. The comment was deleted.
      3. GSPDJGneva
        GSPDJGneva 15 November 2017 04: 02 New
        +2
        Quote: Amurets
        Before writing, look at the source and find the general. Sturmgever at the top.

        Or maybe it would be more correct to compare?
      4. Johns
        Johns 15 November 2017 11: 54 New
        +2
        Quote: Amurets
        Before writing, look at the source and find the general.

        What for? Why should the StG44 and AK-47 look for something in common disassembled? It is enough that ideologically AK-47 is an exact copy of StG44. Perhaps even the second, next German construction on this subject. Of course, the second generation of the same weapon will be slightly different from the first generation.
  14. DesToeR
    DesToeR 14 November 2017 12: 48 New
    +8
    Quote: Dmitry Talin
    And in general, if Kalashnikov is such a genius, then why was Schmeiser taken to Izhevsk after the war for several years?

    And ask Comrade Beria. He knows better.
    Quote: Dmitry Talin
    Stand next? This alone speaks in favor of the fact that AK was created in exchange for freedom by a captured German designer.

    This does not prove anything. A lot of designers worked according to the “sharags” in the USSR, and most of the inventions went into the bin. Maybe the Schmeisser case is one of those?
    Quote: Dmitry Talin
    The resulting modernized Stg-43

    In AK from the Sturmgever, only the front sight is similar. Fundamentally different design of the shutter and trigger, and cartridges.
    Quote: Dmitry Talin
    All Soviet small arms are utilitarian copies. And there’s nothing to be shy about. It happened.

    And "for the bazaar" to provide proofs weakly?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Pushkar
        Pushkar 14 November 2017 15: 07 New
        +3
        Right And man = cow: also four limbs and one head. (And there are horns.)
    2. Johns
      Johns 15 November 2017 11: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: DesToeR
      most inventions went to the bin

      Gee-gee-gee. And things that the USSR did not even dream about during the war, they themselves appeared. From mold.
      Quote: DesToeR
      Maybe the Schmeisser case is one of those?

      Why is everyone on Schmeisser so fixated? Did he work alone in the USSR?
  15. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 14 November 2017 13: 15 New
    +3
    Can we say, looking at these figures, that the “level” of manufacturability in the production of submachine guns, including stamping and spot welding operations, in 1943 was more than twice as high in the USSR as in Germany ?!

    Here we can only say that the design of a specific PPS-43 was more technologically advanced and therefore cheaper than the design of the MP-40. Not knowing the complexity of stamped parts, it is difficult to judge the development of stamped welding technology.
    Now, if one and the same product were produced according to various processes, then we can judge their manufacturability by the number of hours in production, the nomenclature of the machine park and accessories.

    And so - the MP-40 and PPS-43 only have a common name - a machine gun.
    I would not take away from Sudaev the merits of him as a talented designer who managed to create a very technologically advanced weapon approaching the Wall in this parameter.
    1. bunta
      14 November 2017 14: 17 New
      +4
      How do you turn your tongue to equate faculty with the Wall? Genosse Heydrich sends you fiery greetings.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 14 November 2017 16: 02 New
        +5
        It compares for ease of manufacture. Stan is really the same
        simple, like PPP. And he was also popular in the world. Sten made
        more than 4 million in dozens of countries, with and without liens.
        The faculty has a larger aiming range and effective combat distance.
        The Wall has more caliber and, accordingly, the stopping action of the bullet.
        1. Mika_blin
          Mika_blin 14 November 2017 19: 16 New
          +2
          STEN is not so much “simple” as “primitive”. It is correct to compare it not with the teaching staff, but with criminal crafts, as it seems to me. The latter are also popular in the world, and were manufactured in many countries, despite the fact that no serious tests would have passed, not like the Soviet ones.
          PPP, in addition to the MP-40, you can compare, except that, with the "Grease" M3, or with the later L2A1, in my opinion.
          And as for the "ODP" - it is an indicator, rather, a virtual one. If we take the lethal action, then the cartridges 7,62TT and 9x19, ceteris paribus, do not differ in terms of this characteristic, and 1 mm of the actual caliber and 2-3 grams of bullet weight do not make any special difference.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 14 November 2017 19: 23 New
            +1
            "STEN is not so much" simple "as" primitive "." ////

            So it can be said about many examples of mass military
            equipment of the 2nd World.
            (... T-34 is not so much "simple" as "primitive", etc.)
            And PPP was produced including in workshops around the world, including
            all sorts of "criminal" rebels. This does not mean that he is bad, on the contrary.
            1. Mika_blin
              Mika_blin 14 November 2017 20: 06 New
              +3
              Well, you understand the difference between "constructive simplicity" (which doesn’t mean either automatic decrease in performance or simplification of development, rather, on the contrary) and "tyap-blunder-how-to-get-it-would-be-was", but what about a folks machine gun? There are also more complex products than PPS, which in terms of combat characteristics are incomparable with it, for example, Chechen “Borzy”.
              The simplification of the STEN greatly affected the reliability, strength, resource and ease of use. There, price and mass are exactly what was put ahead of combat qualities. It’s impossible to talk about “accuracy” in general. It is simply inconvenient to compare the native British STENs with the native Soviet PPS and with the German MP-40. Nobody did that then.
              About the T-34, ZiS-3, M3A1, and even about the “Faustpatron” of the most popular modifications, this cannot be said.
              1. Johns
                Johns 15 November 2017 12: 06 New
                0
                Quote: Mika_BLIN
                The simplification of the STEN greatly influenced the reliability, strength, resource and ease of use

                And did PPS-43 not affect?
                Right some kind of vandervafle, this PPS-43. And why did they immediately turn him out of the army after the war? Pests?
                1. Mika_blin
                  Mika_blin 15 November 2017 13: 19 New
                  +1
                  > And the PPS-43 is not affected?
                  Not affected. Since, in the TK, the requirement was initially prescribed that the new sample should not be inferior to the regular PPSh-41 in terms of its main characteristics. Since it was adopted on a competitive basis, and not as a STEN, based on impressions of the price tag and demonstration of prototypes. Since he was not an ersatz, but was carried out according to the rules of military acceptance, and not wherever, by whom and from what.
                  > Right some kind of vandervafle, this PPS-43.
                  Nobody, including me, called PPP child prodigies. It's just that he is not a mobilization ersatz for a one-time Volkssturm / Home Guard militia, but a full-fledged weapon of the regular army. Like the MP-40, and M3.
                  > And what immediately after the war did they turn him out of the army? Pests?
                  You are mistaken: no pests from the army didn’t turn up after the war, it was used in the SA at least until the mid-60s, and in the armies of the ATS countries and later. The latest NSD for the teaching staff was published ten years after the Victory. My grandfather, who served in the border troops of the KGB of the USSR in 1957-1960, had PPS-43 service weapons, for example. After the change of the weapons system, they refused to produce all the military personnel at all, and not specifically from the military personnel. But it didn’t occur to anyone to “throw out” the existing ones.
                  1. Johns
                    Johns 15 November 2017 13: 49 New
                    0
                    Quote: Mika_BLIN
                    Since he was not an ersatz

                    Who was not an ersatz, PPP? From what?
                    Quote: Mika_BLIN
                    Since, in the TK, the requirement was initially prescribed that the new sample should not be inferior to the regular PPSh-41 in terms of its main characteristics.

                    This does not happen. Even better and at the same time it was cheaper only in Soviet tales.
                    Quote: Mika_BLIN
                    It's just that he is not a mobilization ersatz for a one-time Volkssturm / Home Guard militia, but a full-fledged weapon of the regular army. Like the MP-40, and M3.

                    PPS, this is an ersatz of wartime. It has nothing to do with MP40 (and PPSh).
                    Quote: Mika_BLIN
                    But it didn’t occur to anyone to “throw out” the existing ones.

                    There it was written "turnuli". From the army. And such a "wonderful weapon." Have you ever wondered why?
                    1. Mika_blin
                      Mika_blin 15 November 2017 14: 25 New
                      +2
                      > Who was not an ersatz, faculty? From what?
                      I have already written.
                      > It does not happen. Even better and at the same time it was cheaper only in Soviet tales.
                      It happens. "The introduction of new technologies and optimization of the process" is called. However, for some, this is witchcraft, fabulous in origin. So this is due to illiteracy.
                      > PPS, this ersatz wartime. It has nothing to do with MP40 (and PPSh).
                      PPS is not an ersatz. And with PPSh and MR-40 he passed comparative tests. And surpassed both that and another in the aggregate of characteristics.
                      > There it was written "turnuli". From the army. And such a "wonderful weapon." Have you ever wondered why?
                      Since no one had “torn” him out of the army, and he had been safely in it for at least another 15 years, your question is meaningless.
        2. Johns
          Johns 15 November 2017 12: 04 New
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          The faculty has a larger aiming range and effective combat distance.
          The Wall has more caliber and, accordingly, the stopping action of the bullet.

          Stan, though fig-witted, but PP. PPS-43, this is not PP, but a "miserable sight." The problem of TT sports cartridge for the army is obvious. “Do not expect a good tribe from a wretched seed” - a Russian proverb.
        3. DimerVladimer
          DimerVladimer 16 November 2017 14: 10 New
          +3
          Quote: voyaka uh
          It compares for ease of manufacture.


          Right.
          Ease of manufacture = manufacturability of the design.
          PP "Sten" (specifically STEN Mk. II) had the best indicators of metal consumption, machinery and hours in production during WWII.
          Not taking into account the technical characteristics of the Walls and PPS-43.
          Personally, to me - like an arrow, PPS-43 impresses me more - it is more accurate due to a more stable bullet trajectory. Shoot single from it, you can adapt - it turned out in automatic mode from AK-74 to give both a single and a two and a three - this is just the accumulated “sensation” of the trigger.
      2. Train
        Train 16 November 2017 09: 53 New
        0
        Yes, he didn’t cause the teaching staff to delight the comrades, they didn’t praise him, a lot of complaints about the factories. Example: an infantryman told us, they gave us these teaching staff, we went to him for 2 months, and then they came to us and without explanation removed the unit from ... many .. giving us back the PCA. I HOW THE VETERAN SAID CATEGORALLY DOES NOT AGREE THAT THE PPS WAS THE BEST GUN MASTER. It was good for those who did not conduct real hostilities. The PPD was good, the PPSh was not so sugar, but it was much better than the PPS
    2. Johns
      Johns 15 November 2017 12: 02 New
      +1
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      that the design of a specific PPS-43 was more technologically advanced and therefore cheaper than the design of the MP-40.

      The slingshot is also more technologically advanced and cheaper than the three-line.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      And so - the MP-40 and PPS-43 only have a common name - a machine gun.

      You are right here. Because according to the performance characteristics of PPS-43 (and PPSh, too), even in the outsole MP40 was not suitable. Although actually figovy was PP, this MP40. Where did he go before the American Thompson. Yes, and to the Hungarian Danuvia, too.
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Sudaev, the merits of him as a talented designer, who managed to create a very technological weapon, approaching the Wall in this parameter.

      As for technology, yes. But manufacturability for weapons, that's not all. Yet TTX is much more important.
      This is me to the fact that the Wall also had a TTX. Unlike PPS-43.
      1. Train
        Train 16 November 2017 09: 55 New
        0
        Commissar Catanio was shot with PPS ... But the PPS weapon was bad, worthless
      2. DimerVladimer
        DimerVladimer 16 November 2017 14: 23 New
        +2
        Quote: Johns
        You are right here. Because according to the performance characteristics of PPS-43 (and PPSh, too), even in the outsole MP40 was not suitable. Although actually figovy was PP, this MP40. Where did he go before the American Thompson. Yes, and to the Hungarian Danuvia, too.


        There is no such thing as a gun - there are some "arrow" arrows.
  16. The comment was deleted.
    1. Disorder
      Disorder 14 November 2017 18: 53 New
      +3
      Quote: Großer Feldherr
      And most importantly, the question is open who thought of such a modernization, the 25-year-old vocational school technician, who had never created anything before or after the AK, or any of the hard-won German designers, including and the famous Hugo Schmeisser.

      "Burnt German Designer" Hugo Schmeisser did not even have a vocational education. And also in his entire life he designed only MP-18 and STG-44. Moreover, there is a suspicion that the bulk of the construction of the MP-18 was carried out by his father, Luis Schmeisser, who also designed pistols and machine guns.
      Quote: Großer Feldherr
      After the war, German experts worked for a long time in the USSR, and it is no secret that all their achievements were attributed to the Russians for ideological reasons. Surely the same story with AK.

      Moreover. Before the war, Soviet specialists went to study in Germany.
      And what did German experts invent such a thing that Soviet people themselves could not have thought of?
  17. beeper
    beeper 14 November 2017 13: 44 New
    +5
    That's right Dear Andrey Kulikov! It is necessary to increase the technical and historical literacy of weapon lovers, and some of us don’t even know the basics, but “proudly” persist in our ignorance (you affectionately call such “conscientious” ignoramuses “Uncle Petya” —was a colorful character with that name? ))). It is especially impressive that you emphasized the important role of technologists in the production of equipment! Thank you for an interesting Article and look forward to continuing!
    1. beeper
      beeper 14 November 2017 22: 46 New
      +6
      It seems I know where the affectionate euphemism for "Uncle Petya" is, for an hour, not from the movie "No Trespassing" - "Uncle Petya, you. Fool ?!" winked
      I reread the added comments and wanted to insert my “five kopecks” into AK's topic I adore, as an attempt to persuade “Schmeisser witnesses (Bravo, dear Trouble, a completely accurate definition! wink ) ".
      In short. The intermediate cartridge was developed and defended the need to switch to such a cartridge (for which high-ranking opponents of this concept "disliked" it) the creator of the first submachine gun, General Vladimir Fedorov. As usually happens with bureaucrats (even if they are in “striped pants”), they needed a “authoritative” transcendental precedent to “convince themselves” of the correctness of one of the founders of the modern “automatic rifle” yes . So the Germans were by no means the "pioneers" of the advanced "inter-cartridge" concept, but the first to widely apply it in military practice!
      Regarding the Kalashnikovsky allegedly “copying from Str-44,” I don’t even want to get involved in the discussion — such “e-mails” have long served me as a “marker of hopeless naive”, alas yes !
      The respected Mikhail Timofeevich himself admitted that he had in general borrowed the USM anchor from the Czech "ZB-26 (well, but the Czechs from the Browning self-loading rifle" Auto-5 "?)))). Hugo Schmeisser" blinded "his" stormtrooper "" from what was “before him: the locking system is the trophy“ SVT ”beloved by the Fritz, the USM- was“ adapted ”by the Czech (“ Hit-Europe ”common) Czech“ zbroyovka ”(interestingly, J. Stouner lambered this successful USM into his AR "from the" primary sources ", including from the" declassified "AK-47s captured in the" Maidan "Budapest, or directly from the" Schmeisservafle ", which he clearly chose for the" creatively processed "layout prototype? winked ).
      If we talk about borrowing, then the competitive AK is outwardly similar to the AS-44 Sudaev machine gun, from which it inherited a magazine with two-row cartridge output and the general layout concept of the “hanging” heavy bolt frame and light shutter. Reliable locking by turning the shutter was worked out by MT Kalashnikov earlier, while still working on the project of a self-loading rifle! By the way, dear MihTim also participated in the post-war competition for the pistol (and developed a rather interesting model - if a person is talented, then he is talented in everything !!! yes ), but then decided not to spray and concentrate on fine-tuning his machine. Mikhail Timofeevich always (in his oral and written interviews, in his memoirs) emphasized that he owed his help to the help and creative participation of military testers and research engineers of NIPSVO, designers (especially V. Zaitsev) and technologists of his design bureau and serial plants, as well as the relentless study of the results of the operation and combat use of the machine gun in the troops.
      I will always remember the phrase of M.T. Kalashnikov about the need for constant self-education, especially for the designer, that he always has textbooks on metalwork and metal working, forging and stamping, reference books on calculating machine parts and that he sincerely will shake a hand to that gunsmith who can create a machine gun that will be better and simpler than AK, because he created his machine gun to protect our common Motherland! And I once, even before the collapse of the Union, seriously dreamed repeat about this handshake of the living "classic" yes !
      hi
      PySy Technologically, “PPS-43” and “STEN” are two different planets! "PPS-43" is a terrible triumph of cold stamping, and "STEn" is a "pipe" ... in every sense yes ! But I like the 9mm “Pair” cartridge (in terms of its combination of qualities and prospects) more than the 7,62mm “TT”, yes, yes!
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 14 November 2017 23: 28 New
        +1
        The intermediate cartridge was developed and defended the need to switch to such a cartridge (for which high-ranking opponents of this concept "disliked" it) the creator of the first submachine gun, General Vladimir Fedorov. As usually happens with bureaucrats (even if they are in “striped pants”), they needed a “authoritative” transcendental precedent to “convince themselves” of the correctness of one of the founders of the modern “automatic rifle”

        Well, come on fantasies, the magazine Spark or the newspaper Trud?
        1. beeper
          beeper 15 November 2017 00: 45 New
          +4
          Dear unfailing (but I guess from the characteristic vocabulary, I’m for "praise major")))) Kibb! According to your fantasy "remark", you have significant gaps in the knowledge of the history of the formation and development of Soviet small arms, it seems that you are completely off topic, from the dense "witnesses of Schmeisser" or what? wink
          1. Kibb
            Kibb 15 November 2017 09: 22 New
            +2
            No need to ascribe to me what I did not say and did not do. The gaps are significant for you, dear. Where is Fedorov’s intermediate cartridge -2600j? You don’t understand the history of weapons at all. For starters, they would have read Fedorov himself, and not propaganda for pre-draftees
            1. beeper
              beeper 15 November 2017 20: 29 New
              +2
              And what did you even say, you’re fantastic “our” reader of the Trud newspaper, the Ogonyok magazine and the agitation for pre-draftees - “Well, have your fantasies, the Ogonyok magazine or the Trud newspaper?” - that's all your “smart talk” "?! smile
              PySy, you don’t think that General V.G. Fedorov limited himself to creating the first submachine gun and a cartridge for it, didn’t rest on its laurels and didn’t conduct developmental research, didn’t develop the theory of weapons, forgot its intermediate cartridge concept, abandoned it, sat there hands? smile ... The article "On automatic rifle" is just one of many articles and books of this authoritative weapons creator. If you want to increase your level of knowledge so as not to be a funny "witness of Schmeisser" all your life, do not read the "popular" newspapers, but read the corresponding special literature! yes There are good books about cartridges of the same V.N.Dvoryaninov, read for fun ...
              Good luck to you!
              1. Kibb
                Kibb 17 November 2017 09: 42 New
                +1
                If you want to increase your level of knowledge, then learn to understand what you are reading - Fedorov never promoted an intermediate cartridge. And learn to have an opinion, not to voice other people's agitations
                Good luck to you
                1. Disorder
                  Disorder 17 November 2017 18: 07 New
                  +2
                  Fedorov advocated a cartridge of reduced caliber and reduced power for automatic weapons, which very harmoniously fit into the concept of an intermediate cartridge.
                2. beeper
                  beeper 19 November 2017 02: 47 New
                  +1
                  Sadness, however ?! Kibbchik does not comprehend what was written to him at all and continues to voice "agitation of pre-conscripts ... the US Army?" and newspapers? smile
                  Do you, Kibb, know everything about the activities of Vladimir Grigoryevich Fedorov, for example, in the prewar years? So, never say never wink !
                  1. Kibb
                    Kibb 19 November 2017 10: 20 New
                    0
                    Tryndets, a man who writes with continuous slogans and cliches, is trying to be witty fool
                    1. beeper
                      beeper 20 November 2017 00: 07 New
                      +1
                      Oppanki, that’s Kibb-Tryndets appeared ?! Well, you don’t need to twist yourself and bang your forehead smile don't show yourself like that!
                      Think more broadly, study the topic more deeply and you will succeed! yes
                      Good luck to you!
                      1. Kibb
                        Kibb 20 November 2017 09: 42 New
                        0
                        So study where I really think if it turns out that Fedorov himself did not know what he had invented there, but he did write - he tried.
      2. Johns
        Johns 15 November 2017 12: 11 New
        0
        Quote: pishchak
        but then he decided not to spray and concentrate on fine-tuning his machine.

        And so, so 50 years and "brought"? Isn't it a bit much?
        By the way, the fact that Kalashnikov most likely did NOT make the AK-47 is clearly visible by the way the AK-74 was made. Without any comparison with StG44 and other nonsense.
        Quote: pishchak
        Technologically, “PPS-43” and “Stan” are two different planets! "PPS-43" is a terrible triumph of cold stamping, and "STEn" is a "pipe" ... in every sense

        Gee-gee-gee.
        1. beeper
          beeper 15 November 2017 21: 03 New
          +2
          Mr. Jones, who are you by profession, what is your technical experience? Do you know what in the understanding of designers and technologists the term “product refinement" means? Have you ever read at least the first book of MT Kalashnikov's Notes of the Arms Designer? It seems that no, it is obvious to me from your "remarks"! smile So what should I talk to you about, think for yourself, if you don’t even "swim", but just dumbly drown in the subject of the Article, don’t know the history of the AK-47 and its evolution, as well as the biography of MT Kalashnikov ?!
          Not to mention the fact that with this your "gee-gee" you already said everything about yourself yes
          Good varnish, Jonesy!
      3. Johns
        Johns 15 November 2017 12: 27 New
        0
        Quote: pishchak
        The intermediate cartridge was developed and defended the need to switch to such a cartridge (for which high-ranking opponents of this concept "disliked" it) the creator of the first submachine gun, General Vladimir Fedorov. As usually happens with bureaucrats (even if they are in “striped pants”), they needed a “authoritative” transcendental precedent to “convince themselves” of the correctness of one of the founders of the modern “automatic rifle”

        Separate gee-gee-gee.
        1. Filxnumx
          Filxnumx 19 November 2017 10: 57 New
          +1
          I suggest replacing your nickname with "gee-gee-gee", so as not to spray on printing other "bukoff".
      4. Train
        Train 16 November 2017 10: 02 New
        0
        PPS is a formidable triumph, it’s just-if this punching was bent from hitting an enemy’s head .... They didn’t like in the PPS units — those who shot the German directly — that is, fighting, according to the veteran, he was only good for those with it doesn’t shoot, so it drags into the wagon train the headquarters guard, chauffeurs and so on. 2 months after issuing it, it just burns us out and gives it back the PCA .... (FROM AUTOMATIC WORDS) -CURTAIN ...
        1. Dart
          Dart 18 November 2017 00: 40 New
          +1
          15 posts are not tired of copy-paste their dull Mr. But from the category "one grandmother told .."?
          1. Train
            Train 18 November 2017 14: 54 New
            0
            and who told you that this was a good weapon? because we have everything good, read the complaints from parts, read about him, I have them here, I saved them, by the way, from this site and I read a machine gun veteran where he describes his shortcomings quite accurately
  18. Free Cossack
    Free Cossack 14 November 2017 14: 03 New
    0
    Very interesting. Intrigued, waiting for the continuation.
  19. DesToeR
    DesToeR 14 November 2017 14: 05 New
    +9
    Quote: Großer Feldherr
    Of course, one cannot call a copy of AK, but the influence of stg on the design is very noticeable, almost everything is repeated, except for the shutter (vertical from the rotary to AK) and the layout of the return spring (moved forward, which allows you to fold the butt).

    Wow! Much of the AK was taken from SturmGever: the barrel is straight and with a hole inside, the trigger is here and there, again, both have food supply, sights, a carrying strap, wooden butts, etc. etc. A bunch of unique and nowhere else repeating in general decisions made by Kalashnikov from the German counterpart. And the fact that the shutter and the trigger are different ... so these are trifles that are 99% not determined by distinguishing in designs.
    Quote: Großer Feldherr
    And most importantly, the question is open who thought of such a modernization, the 25-year-old vocational school technician, who had never created anything before or after the AK, or any of the hard-won German designers, including and the famous Hugo Schmeisser

    This, as you put it, "little fellow", participated in the competition for a prospective submachine gun and self-loading rifle during the Second World War. But the "burnt" H. Schmeisser was remembered in the history of the design of small arms by putting his stigmas on other people's design decisions. Well, somehow you all lovers of crap Kalashnikov forget that in addition to the machine itself, he invented and won the competition for a tape machine gun (PC). He also created a small arms system, which, in addition to the machine gun, also included a light machine gun.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 14 November 2017 15: 56 New
      +2
      Mikhail Timofeevich was very lucky with the place of work. smile Firstly, at NIPSVO there was a tremendous amount of information on the design and test results of all kinds of shooting models. Secondly, the MTK had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the test methodology and find out what special attention was paid to.
      By the way, as SW wrote. Ulanov, and before MTK there was a case when a little-known designer won the competition for a new shooter, the development model of which was not even presented at the first stage of testing. And that was ... 3rd rank military engineer NIPSVO Sudaev. smile
      Digging docks at the 1942 submachine gun competition, I can’t get rid of the stubborn feeling that I am reading the “creation of the legendary Kalashnikov” first approach to the projectile.
      ... at the first stage, no Sudaev is on the list. A 3rd-rank military engineer NIPSVO (Rifle Arms Research Range) is still modestly on the sidelines. He appears in the competition only at the second stage, and, as it is modestly written, “Bezruchuk-Vysotsky was offered to refine the weapon, while his most successful decisions were recommended to use a 3rd-rank military officer A.I.Sudayev in his experienced pistol- machine gun. "
      According to the results of the second stage, the sample of Sudaev became an almost absolute favorite. Nearly.
      Sudaev’s “best use” is the difference of 4%, 48, 5 for PPSh-2 and 52,3 for Sudaev. The rest of the technology from PPSh-2 just jumped in awe.
      According to the combat characteristics, the PPSh-2 was also quite at the level of other samples, slightly inferior only in accuracy - as the testers themselves wrote, due to the not very well made compensator. Shpagin undertook to fix the problem as soon as possible.
      But ... PPP nevertheless became the winner. And PPSh-2 remained behind the scenes.
      1. badens1111
        badens1111 14 November 2017 17: 59 New
        +6
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Mikhail Timofeevich

        Is there a monument?
        Now, for the sake of not staining the memory of the ingenious designer, it’s worth, if only for VO, that blathers about Schmeiser and that poker that they consider to be the height of perfection from which AK was supposedly made, it's easy to ban forever.
        These scribblers of Großer Feldherr who do not know a damn thing about weapons ..
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 November 2017 18: 48 New
          +4
          Quote: badens1111
          Is there a monument?

          Ahem ... so after the monument the very theme that got to everyone began to play with renewed vigor. For you remember - whose explosive scheme the sculptor stuck on a monument to Mikhail Timofeevich.
          And then this activist still unlocked from the warm, expressing doubt about the physical existence of Yuri Pasholok, who wrote about the incident (apparently, I signed the book on self-propelled guns based on HF information phantom smile ).
        2. Johns
          Johns 15 November 2017 12: 32 New
          0
          Quote: badens1111
          Anything that blathers about Schmeiser and that poker that is considered the height of perfection, from which AK was supposedly made, is easy to ban forever.

          The end of the 30s of the last century also began with "small affairs." And all ended with hundreds of thousands of just shot. And many who initially puffed out their cheeks (and their family and friends) subsequently ended their lives at the training grounds. Do not forget about it.
          Quote: badens1111
          These scribblers of Großer Feldherr who do not know a damn thing about weapons.

          There is a feeling that you think that you understand. Can you prove it with something?
  20. Forever so
    Forever so 14 November 2017 15: 01 New
    +4
    Great article, but as usual BUT. Nevertheless, V.O. is quite a closed resource and the people who are grazing here are already somewhat savvy, and at the same time, liberal media funded by America are massively lying about the worthlessness of all Russian, and even more so produced in the USSR. And in schools, instead of patriotic education, the Law of the Judeo-Christian religion is introduced - the Jew tolerated and ordered you to. To give such information on NVP at school, it would be wonderful.
    1. Johns
      Johns 15 November 2017 12: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: Forever so
      and at the same time, liberal media funded by America massively lie about the worthlessness of all Russian, and even more so produced in the USSR.

      For starters, nothing “Russian” was produced in the USSR. Produced "Soviet".
      And then, that's right. Yes Yes. Everyone lies. Everything in the USSR (Soviet) was the best in the world. And cars. And jeans pants.
  21. Oilpartizan
    Oilpartizan 14 November 2017 16: 26 New
    +3
    "Kalashnikov assault rifle" - a free Soviet and collective compilation of ALL German assault rifles - from Haenel MKb 42 (H) to Walter Stg 45 and Haenel Stg 44 - around the same German cartridge 7.92x33mm Kurz, "invented" in 1939. 7,62 mm arr. It appeared in 1943 after receiving a German assault rifle and cartridge as a trophy in 1942, and so that plagiarism was not so obvious, they attracted the head of the group of its "creators" General and Professor Fedorov, who dealt with low-power "Arisaks" in his assault rifle .
    Some "experts" would like to recall that weapons are made under ammunition, and not vice versa.
    But in the USSR, industry in 1943 was not capable of producing weapons, even by stamping, even by milling, for the "new" cartridge, even copied from the captured MKb 42 (H).
    To do this, it was necessary to wait for the defeat of Germany, the removal of technological equipment for the production of Stg, partially lost, and German engineers who could teach Russians all the tricks of new technologies.
    The answer to the question of why PTUshnik Kalashnikov became the “smartest” gunsmith in the USSR lies “on the surface” - not a single normal Russian / Soviet gunsmith with the name “would have signed” to this collective compilation.
    So the legend appeared.
    All of his now “declassified” developments of the military and post-war period indicate the absence of his own design idea, comparable to the super idea of ​​AK.
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 15 November 2017 04: 15 New
      +2
      Quote: Oilpartizan
      "Kalashnikov assault rifle" - a free Soviet and collective compilation of ALL German assault rifles - from Haenel MKb 42 (H) to Walter Stg 45 and Haenel Stg 44 - around the same German cartridge 7.92x33mm Kurz, "invented" in 1939.

      Yeah, very witty. But for some reason, all German assault rifles borrowed ideas from Sudaev and Tokarev embodied in the ABC-36 and SVT-38 rifles. And the first weapon under the intermediate cartridge 7,62x41 was the SKS carbine. “The first SKS samples chambered for 7,62 × 39 mm were created by Simonov by the end of 1944 on the basis of a carbine developed by him in the framework of a competition for a new carbine in 1940-1941, but which had not gone into production due to the evacuation of factories. In addition to the cartridge, the features of the new carbine were an integral retractable bayonet, the absence of a muzzle brake compensator, and a removable gas chamber. reviews, but the refinement of the carbine and the newest cartridge continued until 1. " The development of the cartridge delayed the adoption of weapons.
      1. Cartridge 7,62x39 design N.M. Elizarova and B.V. Semina is just a slightly modified German 7,92x33 Kurz. https://pikabu.ru/story/o_patronchikakh_4416729
      This is not even a myth, it is a direct and intentional lie. Undoubtedly, the emergence of weapons by the Germans under the intermediate cartridge did not go unnoticed: it served as the impetus for the start of work on the domestic weapon-cartridge complex. But the German and Soviet cartridges have nothing in common either in geometry or in ballistics, and even their muzzle energy is significantly different. The German cartridge is shorter and thicker, its bullet is heavier and slower. "

      And more about cartridges: 7,62x39. http://www.kalashnikov.ru/medialibrary/804/10_16.
      pdf
      1. Johns
        Johns 15 November 2017 12: 46 New
        0
        Quote: Amurets
        But for some reason, all German assault rifles borrowed ideas from Sudaev and Tokarev embodied in the ABC-36 and SVT-38 rifles.

        And you know how to make fun.
        Quote: Amurets
        And the first weapon under the intermediate cartridge 7,62x41 was the SKS carbine.

        Gee-gee-gee.
        By the way, a self-loading carbine for an intermediate cartridge with a classic type bullet, this is insanity.
        Quote: Amurets
        developed by him as part of a competition for a new carbine in 1940-1941, but did not go into production due to the evacuation of factories

        Tales to spread would not be worth it.
        Quote: Amurets
        however, the refinement of the carbine and the newest cartridge continued until 1949. "The development of the cartridge delayed the adoption of weapons for service.

        Ага.
        Quote: Amurets
        and even their muzzle energy varies markedly.

        Really tangible? Are you sure about that?
        Quote: Amurets
        The German cartridge is shorter and thicker, its bullet is heavier and slower.

        To obtain the same efficiency of a bullet when hit by a bullet of a larger caliber, it must have a lower speed. That's all. These are the basics of terminal ballistics.
    2. avt
      avt 15 November 2017 08: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: Oilpartizan
      The answer to the question of why PTUshnik Kalashnikov became the “smartest” gunsmith in the USSR lies “on the surface” - not a single normal Russian / Soviet gunsmith with the name “would have signed” to this collective compilation.

      fool
      Quote: Amurets
      Yeah, very witty.
      Do not believe it, but it certainly seems like that to the koekaker. Moreover! He is absolutely sure that this is a highly engineering analysis! And the fact that I’m directly quoting my analisis in my quotation instead of Grandfather Misha can be put Schmeiser, Germany instead of the USSR and instead
      Quote: Oilpartizan
      not a single normal Russian / Soviet gunsmith named
      somebody like Volmer, so he doesn’t care! She holds on to the sect, on the rejection of facts. In this particular case, the author has completely described the articles in the FIRST cycle. Well, at least that Schmeiser did not receive technical education in Germany ... from the word at all. bully
      Quote: Oilpartizan
      So the legend appeared.

      Which they live oh
      Quote: Oilpartizan
      PTUshnik Kalashnikov

      and Schmeiser Academician of Academic Sciences, who competently patented the MR-34 store and then embossed his name in a series on it. That's why Schmeiser cannot be taken away - an effective manager bully , not - really, without mockery. Well, but
      But in the USSR, industry in 1943 was not capable of producing weapons, even by stamping, even by milling, for the "new" cartridge, even copied from the captured MKb 42 (H).
      What can I say? Only imperishable Lavrovsky -D, B, fool Koekaker is not even aware that initially the designer makes weapons under a cartridge and if there is no cartridge of the 1943 model, then all the more so there is no gun. But the wisdom of the people is true for centuries - ,, to teach Fools only to spoil! "
    3. Johns
      Johns 15 November 2017 12: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Oilpartizan
      Some "experts" would like to recall that weapons are made under ammunition, and not vice versa.

      A very important clarification. Especially in light of how the AK-74 was made. I recommend everyone to take an interest in this issue. After this, doubts about the authorship of Kalashnikov (AK-47) will become more than strong.
      Quote: Oilpartizan
      The answer to the question of why PTUshnik Kalashnikov became the “smartest” gunsmith in the USSR lies “on the surface” - not a single normal Russian / Soviet gunsmith with the name “would have signed” to this collective compilation.

      The second correct thought in a row. Sorry, plus you can put only one.
      Quote: Oilpartizan
      All of his now “declassified” developments of the military and post-war period indicate the absence of his own design idea, comparable to the super idea of ​​AK.

      And the third correct thought in a row. Bravo.
  22. tracer
    tracer 14 November 2017 16: 34 New
    +3
    Bravo to the author! For me, the question of the true constructor of an automaton has never been raised when. Ak has ideas from other weapons. But it was not copied in any way and no one here helped. Sturmgever gave the idea of ​​an intermediate cartridge, which was immediately developed as an intermediate cartridge of the 1943 model. And the idea of ​​a gas recharge engine. The T34 is also generally a continuation of the American tank Christie in the truest sense of the word, and what does that change? No, it does not.
  23. Operator
    Operator 14 November 2017 16: 34 New
    +3
    Designers of the design bureau Hugo Schmeisser, along with other German gunsmiths transported to Izhevsk, on the instructions of the USSR Ministry of Defense, designed on paper a unified line of small arms - a carbine, an automatic rifle, a rifle, a machine gun, a single machine gun in two calibres 7,62x39 and 7,62x54.

    The owner of the design bureau Hugo Schmeisser, while in Izhevsk, did not take part in the design and construction of weapons due to his entrepreneurial orientation, advanced age, and low qualification of a gunsmith (he and his co-authors designed one model of a submachine gun of the 1920s model and one store model for a submachine gun of the 1930s model).
  24. Disorder
    Disorder 14 November 2017 16: 37 New
    +5
    The followers of the Schmeisser Witnesses sect climbed again.
    The STG and AK radically different: trigger, the method of locking the shutter, receiver. What do they have in common? What did Kalashnikov borrow from Schmeisser? ..... Appearance. laughing laughing laughing laughing laughing
    1. avt
      avt 14 November 2017 17: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: Trouble
      What did Kalashnikov borrow from Schmeisser? ..... Appearance.

      what Well, probably what, like Schmeiser, was self-taught. bully What are they lamenting about that, but Kalashnikov had no education! Where would he oppose such a machine gun against the gloomy German genius of a highly educated Schmeiser! " bully
  25. then
    then 14 November 2017 17: 04 New
    +2
    It was a deal. Designed a manual die tooling. It turned out 10 kg. The blacksmith threw it under my feet, too heavy. To which the master said: "There used to be blacksmiths! And now the grasshoppers."
  26. Kibb
    Kibb 14 November 2017 19: 54 New
    +1

    That's why, like this, does the StG44 not look like an AK at all? True, the AR-15 also does not look like it - just a collective image of the “Western assault rifle”
    And so, AK is completely unlike StG44
    1. avt
      avt 14 November 2017 20: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Kibb
      And so, AK is completely unlike StG44

      wassat What was that ? Schmeiser emigrated to Israel after the USSR!? wassat bully
      1. Kibb
        Kibb 14 November 2017 21: 07 New
        0
        In the sense of what happened? Galil looks like ShG44 ?.
        I hate these discussions - everyone will interpret in his own way
      2. Kibb
        Kibb 14 November 2017 21: 24 New
        0
        So you may become clearer
        Quote: Kibb
        All srach once, a very long time ago, before the advent of the Internet, began because of the outward resemblance.
        I am not an artist but, will anyone ever explain what they are like?
        Transfer sights from AK to the more familiar places for the "Western school" and all the similarities will disappear. You can still talk about TT and PM,
        but what these rifles look like, I stupidly do not know.
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Kibb
    Kibb 17 November 2017 18: 12 New
    0
    Quote: Trouble
    Fedorov advocated a cartridge of reduced caliber and reduced power for automatic weapons, which very harmoniously fit into the concept of an intermediate cartridge.

    Now such a cartridge would be called low-pulse (it was such in relation to the rifle of the time), but this is not an intermediate cartridge in any way, namely a rifle